Thursday, March 29, 2007

Call for Judgment: Invalid Gadgets

Moot.—Chronos

Adminned at 30 Mar 2007 04:08:42 UTC

Clucky has claimed the existence of a tenuous loophole. This CfJ is intended to prevent any Agent to try to reuse it in the future.

If the DoV posted by Clucky at 28 Mar 2007 23:23:00 UTC has not failed, this CfJ causes no change to the Ruleset or Gamestate.

If this CfJ passes and the DoV posted by Clucky at 28 Mar 2007 23:23:00 UTC has failed, make the following changes:

In rule Gadgets change

* (<STATUS>) Request: <Gadget Name> - ~~~~
** Description: <Description of gadget>”

to

* (<STATUS>) Request: <Proposed Gadget Name> - ~~~~
** Description: <Description of Proposed Gadget>”

and change:

Then the Requester may add the gadget to their List of In-play Gadgets on the wiki and change the STATUS portion of the Gadget Request post to “APPROVED”.

If any one of those three requirements is true, then the gadget is not added to the Requester’s List of In-play Gadget and the STATUS portion of the Gadget Request post must be changed to “DENIED”.

to

Then the Requester may add the Approved gadget to their [[List of In-play Gadgets]] on the wiki and change the STATUS portion of the Gadget Request post to “APPROVED”.

If any one of those three requirements is true, then the Proposed Gadget is not added to the Requester’s [[List of In-play Gadget]] and the STATUS portion of the Gadget Request post must be changed to “DENIED”.

In the Mission: The Great Escape page, and wherever there is a copy of Gadget: Ah, the old <Insert Phrase Here> Gadget!, change:

This gadget may occassionaly be used to change the text below to the text of any other gadget:

to

This gadget may occassionaly be used to change the text below to the text of any gadget owned by an Agent or in the [[List of Approved Gadgets]]:

Wherever it occurs, change the following text:

The owner of this gadget may complete any mission instantly. The owner of this gadget does not need to spend tickets to move. The owner of this gadget may steal every ticket and every gadget from another agent, provided e is in the same location of that agent. The owner of this gadget may have infinite gadgets. The owner of this gadget is a master spy.

to

This gadget does nothing.

Set Clucky’s Tickets to new values, as if e were a new Agent.

Comments

Clucky:

03-29-2007 19:42:31 UTC

Oh. So because I discover a loop hole, a perfectly legit loop hole, you want to change the past? That isn’t nomic. Fine. Fix the hole to prevent me from abusing it in the future, but I obtained my gadget and those tickets legally and they shouldn’t legally be taken away from them. against

ChronosPhaenon:

03-29-2007 19:51:40 UTC

for This CfJ (and your DoV, by the way) tests the legality of your actions.

Amnistar:

03-29-2007 20:15:01 UTC

against Close the loophole if you want, but if it is neccessary to make a change to close a loophole, then the hole was legal.

ChronosPhaenon:

03-29-2007 20:27:07 UTC

My opinion is: the hole doesn’t exist. All the changes proposed in the CfJ are either to clarify English usage or to correct undue actions taken by Clucky based upon eir incorrect (in my view) interpretation of that wording.

Clucky:

03-29-2007 20:32:27 UTC

And yet in my dynasty, Doremi clearly abused the english language to achieve victory and everyone still gave eim the victory. It doesn’t really matter what you *want* the rule to say, it is pretty clear what the rule says. “Gadgets” refers, in the rules, to both pending gadgets and approved gadgets. You cannot say that the word “gadgets” my my gadget only refers to pending gadgets simply because its abusable that way.

ChronosPhaenon:

03-29-2007 20:54:44 UTC

It doesn’t really matter what *you* want, either… Let’s se what the others’ votes come out…

Axeling:

03-29-2007 23:00:19 UTC

for The rules are a muddle (using both Gadget Request, and as Clucky points out, gadget.)  I think when there’s a tenuous case, we have to rely on common sense and the spirit of the rule (I’m perfectly fine with literal interpretations if there’s a strong case).  And I agree with Chronos; this isn’t an admission of a loophole, but a clarification of the rules.

Clucky:

03-29-2007 23:31:29 UTC

The thing is, this is changing the rules, not clarifying. The rules originally defined a gadget to mean both pending and approved gadgets. You can say “well, it wasn’t intended that way” but I haven’t seen any evidence that supports the rules defining gadgets as only “approved gadgets”.

Angry Grasshopper:

03-30-2007 00:01:12 UTC

I agree that both loopholes (existence of ‘Gadgets’, and definition of ‘Mission’) are tenuous—the former much more than the latter.

I could be persuaded to accept the ambiguity in the wording on ‘missions’. The bit about Gadgets seems tedious to me.

Amnistar has voted to legitimize Clucky’s DoV in any case.

Zebra:

03-30-2007 00:25:19 UTC

against

While I’m still (quickly) considering the shenanigans with the 102 vs. 3 completed Missions, I can see the Gadget loophole. If we’re to close that (if the DoV doesn’t succeed), that’s fine, but I don’t agree with penalizing Clucky for what I see as a frustrating yet crafty and legitimate exploitation of that hole.