the fact that 2 and 5 are similar is quite a feat

I think 2 is better than 5 though. 2, 3 and 4 I think all set up interesting directions for the story (5 too, but 2 sets up the same story better). 1 I’m just not feeling for whatever reason.

Overall I think I’d rank them 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 1

mmm, I feel like 1 is dropping us in the middle of the story too suddenly

My opinion? Humour is the best option, so 3 is first. 4 sounds odd, it’s last; 2 and 5 are a high-fantasy sort of thing, but 2 sets it up better (as per Clucky). 1 seems more of a sci-fantasy, which is cool. So:
3, 2, 1, 5, 4.

I like the setting/theme of 2 and to a lesser extent 5. I like the open-endedness of 3. 4 is weird but it make me chuckle. 1 seems like a cool setting, but it also feels like a lot to start off with.

Is 4 valid, when it ends mid-sentence and Fragments have to be “one or more complete sentences”?

CFJ

[Juniper] We only need a CfJ “if two or more Storytellers actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset” - if everyone seems to agree that it’s invalid now that it’s been pointed out, we can just play on.

If it was not a valid submission, JonathanDark would’ve had to reject it per the rules of virtual actions

It does seem to be invalid. I failed to tell the author that it was invalid as part of the Virtual Action requirements.

@Clucky: the only thing here is that the Virtual Action says the Publisher “should”, which according to the rules is “is recommended that”, whereas the Fragment requirements are “is”, meaning if it’s not complete sentences, it’s not a Fragment. So, the fact that I didn’t tell the author it wasn’t a valid Fragment doesn’t make it valid.

Sure, but it was invalid then you wouldn’t have been allowed to make this post (or include it in this post) because you would not have been able to complete the “If the action is successful, apply any specified effects on the gamestate and/or perform any specified actions on behalf of the Storyteller.” and thus would not have actually received Creative Writings from all Storytellers

Where does that leave us if we play on? That it was legal for the Publisher to make this post because it pre-dated the “all players must submit a fragment” rule change, and it’s okay that the fourth entry in the list isn’t a fragment (the rule requires “a numbered list containing each Fragment received from successful Creative Writings”, but not that the list doesn’t also contain other things) - we just ignore it for scoring?

if you want to argue this post was illegally as it includes content it shouldn’t you can follow the rules of the game and create a CFJ

The view I’m taking there is that the post was made legally and includes a null fourth entry.

Does anyone see another way to read it?

so really seems to me there are only two ways to play this out:

- we treat this post as being created legally and simply play on

- we treat this post as being created illegally, and JonathanDark now needs to post a legal judging

that is literally impossible Kevan

The body of a Judging must be a numbered list containing each Fragment received from successful Creative Writings since the most recent Drawing atomic action, listed in a privately randomly-selected order, but not including the authors of those Fragments.

under that argument, the body of the judging fails to satisfy the requirement that the body of the judging must adhere to which makes the entire judging illegal

And ah, looks like Clucky and I commented at the same time at 15:43, my comment there wasn’t intended as a response to it.

The ruleset at the time of this post didn’t require Creative Writings from all Storytellers. (There are only five entries listed in this post, and we haven’t, I assume, had one from six-days-idle Nad.)

“The body of a Judging must be a numbered list”

It may be more strict than we realized. If it said “must contain” I would agree with Kevan, but “must be” could imply that the rest of that statement is the only thing a Judging contains.

It goes onto use “contain”, though: “The body of a Judging must be a numbered list containing each Fragment received”. It can be a list that contains a mix of Fragments and your shopping list, so long as you tell us which is which.

Heck just the fact that I posted “Fragments:” before the numbered list might have made this Judging post invalid.

and it didn’t tell us which is which is which, so its illegal

So even if the list can contain other things, the body of the post can’t contain anything but a list.

So which way do we want to go with this? I’m happy to post a CfJ or simply redo the Judging, but I’d like to get a sense of which is more acceptable before doing it so that I don’t make more of a mess of it.

[Clucky] Actually telling us which is which is only necessary for us to progress the game, not to act within the rules. Jonathan could publish a list of twenty strings and not tell us which five among them were the real Fragments, without any rules being broken - he’d just have to reject any Scoring attempts which referenced non-Fragment strings as “action failed”.

It’s still the case that if you want to take the pedantic approach that somehow

“
1. Banana
2. Apple
3. Death
4. Carrot
“

fits “a numbered list containing banana apple and carrot, listed in a privately randomly-selected order,”

then we should go full pedantic and as JonathanDark pointed out, the body of the judging was not simply “a numbered list” as it contained the additional text “Fragments”

I think the issue that a Judging can’t be anything other than a list is what’s going to make this Judging illegal.

Also, I can’t just repost a new Judging because the rules have now changed and require me to wait until all Storytellers have sent their Fragments. The author of Fragment #4 has to send me a valid Fragment to replace the invalid one, and there’s another Storyteller who has not sent a Fragment to me yet.

Is that how we want to rule it?

I’m assuming that for now, easier to handwave things and say that this is still a valid judging and that fragment #4 will still score.

I wouldn’t assume that I can just handwave #4 into being legal. There is a sufficient amount of debate here that I think a CfJ is necessary to determine the next steps. I just now posted a CfJ.

the CfJ was Popular and enacted, so play on and continue to send in Scoring Responses. All of the listed Fragments in the body of this post are treated as the only legal Fragments for this Judging.

This Judging is Closed