Well, its obvious what he meant: He wrote “entering at G2, moving to crate, then back” and ended his movement on G1.

Anyways, I do not think the comments on the changes to The Arena are Gamestate, thus I think we cannot judge his comments, but only his actions themselves.

The only Rule that comes to my mind that might have been broken is “Gamestate Tracking”: “one GNDT update may contain one or more actions, or one action may be split over multiple GNDT updates, as long as it’s clear what is happening and the actions are otherwise legal”

Since this rule’s subject is the GNDT it would have to be the GNDT update that was unclear. (I’d say it was.)

To me, it’d make a whole lot of sense to put some Rules in place to make some meaningful description of the actions and moves mandatory.

Oh, forgot to answer your question: I’d say his moves were illegal, as his GNDT changes did not fulfill the requirement “as long as it’s clear what is happening”. Though this would be true for a lot of “Entering” messages in the past including some of mine. :-/

Not sure, so I recommend that either Yoda voluntarily revert or a CfJ should be made for community input.

Of course, he could also just make a comment stating, “Reverting and redoing action starting from G1”, as his actions all occurred after a turn boundary.  Let’s all just pretend he made such a comment, regardless of whether he does so.

Wow, ok…  Yes, I meant to say G1.  No, the comments are not gamestate, so why are we arguing about whether it was legal to make those moves even though the comment was slightly off?

The comment affects the clarity of the move, which affects its legality. I think this is fine since what you meant is obvious, but I wanted input.

Yoda: Coppro pointed out why we are discussing it. Any change in the GNDT has the abovementioned ‘clarity’-requirement. Judging only by the GNDT-comment, you (and about everyone else) did not fulfil that requirement when you entered the arena. Taking into consideration the wiki-change-comment, you still don’t fulfil the requirement, as it was confusing. Taking into consideration the wiki page itself, it becomes somewhat clearer, though it is unclear on which field you actually did enter.

I’d conclude that it’d best to declare your (and everyone elses) moves as valid and legal and try hard to be very clear in our comments in the future.