Tuesday, June 29, 2021

Call for Judgment: It all adds up to zero

Reached quorum 7 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 30 Jun 2021 08:27:46 UTC

If the CFJ “Toll Taker” has not been Enacted or Failed, fail it. If it has been Enacted, reverse its effects.

In “Lair Actions”, change

(to a minimum cost of 1)

to

(the total cost of this action cannot be less than 1)

Uphold all attempts to Explore a Room or Light a Room this dynasty prior to the posting of this CFJ that failed, and/or spent the wrong amount of Puissance, solely because:

  • the total Darkness or Shadow scores of their included Features was 0 or less; and
  • the Puissance expenditure of the action was calculated on the basis of the unmodified sum of the Darkness/Shadow score, rather than substituting 1 for the sum of the Darkness/Shadow scores.

A counter-CFJ to Clucky’s. This should be a no-op from most people’s point of view, but will converge the gamestate in Clucky’s interpretation to match the gamestate in everyone else’s.

Comments

Josh: he/they

29-06-2021 21:09:14 UTC

Much better.

One quibble: please could you change “Uphold all attempts to Explore a Room or Light a Room this dynasty that failed” to include “prior to the posting of this CfJ”, to stop anyone from trying anything between posting and passage.

ais523:

29-06-2021 21:12:57 UTC

Done. Again, I think this is a no-op so it shouldn’t matter, but it may matter if Clucky’s interpretation ends up winning out but this CFJ passes anyway.

Clucky: he/him

29-06-2021 21:18:41 UTC

The wording at the end worries me

I feel like a scam minded player could read it as “Uphold all attempts to Explore a Room or Light a Room this dynasty that 1) failed, AND/OR
2) spent the wrong amount of Puissance, solely because:”

Could also maybe argue that if it failed for some other reason, but spent the wrong amount of Puissance, then the “solely because” applies to the “spent the wrong amount of Puissance” clause and thus the if statement holds and then action is upheld

Maybe just have something that says “treat all past actions as if they had been calculated this way” clause? Might be safer

Clucky: he/him

29-06-2021 21:20:52 UTC

“prior to the posting of this CfJ” I feel doesn’t actually really help resolve anything. What would someone who adds an empty room between this getting posted and this passing pay? We’d need another CfJ

Clucky: he/him

29-06-2021 21:21:27 UTC

Also the scenario where this passes and my CfJ passes is kinda shitty for Brendan and Jumble, as they both lose one Puissance but everyone else has their actions upheld

ais523:

29-06-2021 21:21:59 UTC

I don’t think it’s sensible to read “; and” as “; and/or”.

I also don’t think it’s sensible to read “solely” as “partially”.

Tightening the wording is one thing, but I don’t particularly need to feel the need to safeguard the CFJ against people reading words as though they had an entirely different meaning.

ais523:

29-06-2021 21:23:26 UTC

I have included a fix for the possibility of both passing (although that seems unlikely to me).

Clucky: he/him

29-06-2021 21:25:16 UTC

next time maybe actually read my comments as its clear you didn’t

Brendan: he/him

29-06-2021 23:08:06 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

29-06-2021 23:39:03 UTC

I still worry this “Upholds all attempts to Explore a Room or Light a Room this dynasty prior to the posting of this CFJ that failed” but I guess if someone tries to claim it does we can just fight it out in another CfJ?

Lulu: she/her

30-06-2021 02:53:22 UTC

for

Janet: she/her

30-06-2021 03:07:29 UTC

for

Raven1207: he/they

30-06-2021 03:12:03 UTC

for

Josh: he/they

30-06-2021 06:29:43 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

30-06-2021 08:26:47 UTC

for I’d say the pair of commas in “failed, and/or spent the wrong amount of Puissance, solely because” addresses Clucky’s concern.