Friday, July 29, 2022

Call for Judgment: Loss Of Collision

Times out at 2-5 and fails -SingularByte

Adminned at 31 Jul 2022 08:05:11 UTC

Recalculate Bout #18 using the following rules interpretation and edit the money and condition values accordingly:

The ruleset states that “Until the start of its next Turn, a Bot using an evade Reaction is an evading bot; that evading Bot is not considered to be present in its space for the purposes of checking for whether another Bot can move into or through its space”. It also states the following: “If multiple Bots occupy the same space, they both take Scratch Damage and move one space forwards. ” By this logic, Ducktank should have been able to move into the space that Credit Score: F was occupying, which would have pushed them both forwards.

My counter argument

For reference, here’s the ruleset that was active when the Bout was carried out:


SingularByte: he/him

29-07-2022 07:31:22 UTC

The other relevant rule for the cfj is “When an actor has an opponent in a space adjacent to it and and its reaction is to move into or beyond that opponent’s space, the existing reaction ceases to take effect and instead a Shove occurs.”

Josh: Announcer he/him

29-07-2022 07:41:41 UTC

Hm, I think that this interpretation doesn’t change the outcome; as SB points out, that would simply resolve to being a shove, which is what happened in the current resolution.

lendunistus: he/him

29-07-2022 07:43:14 UTC

I would say that “If multiple Bots occupy the same space, they bpth take Scratch Damage and move one space forwards” takes precedence

SingularByte: he/him

29-07-2022 07:49:19 UTC

So, my logic is as follows:
The evading bot is not considered to be in its space for the purposes of checking if you can move into its space.
Shoving says if you’re in a space adjacent (which was true), and the reaction was to move into that opponent’s space (which is permitted by above line irrespective of whether a bump would otherwise occur or not; after all, no bot is considered to be in the space), then you replace the move with a shove.
Therefore, the movement becomes a shove.

The only way this would be a normal move is if the bot continued to not be in the square for the purposes of applying the shoving rule, but I don’t see that as being supported by the wording of the rules - they only cease to be in the square when checking if you can move into them, but then go back to existing once all the requirements to shove are met.

As much as I hate to vote against it,  against

Josh: Announcer he/him

29-07-2022 08:19:41 UTC

@lendun I think that the Prioritisation rule would suggest otherwise, which is fortunate, as if that interpretation held up then shoving would be impossible under all circumstances and we’d have a much bigger problem on our hands.

Brendan: he/him

29-07-2022 12:28:23 UTC

for I think shoves being impossible to evade is an equally big problem.

SingularByte: he/him

29-07-2022 12:35:09 UTC

They’ll only be impossible to evade until the new rules kick in. Once “Evading a repeal” is in, bots won’t exist for the purposes of the shoving rule, so the normal movement reaction will allow standard non-shove movement through an evading bot.

SingularByte: he/him

29-07-2022 12:35:44 UTC

That is, evading bots won’t exist for it I mean.

Josh: Announcer he/him

29-07-2022 13:00:11 UTC

@Brendan The question isn’t “what’s the best outcome”, here - this CfJ doesn’t change the rules - it’s “what’s the correct interpretation of the rule as written”, and specifically “was Bout 18 resolved correctly under those rules as written”.

against as I’m increasingly of the opinion that I interpreted the rule correctly, and that if it is ‘supposed’ to mean something else then it needs to be changed by proposal; this CfJ will leave me in the position where I don’t know how to interpret half the ruleset

Chiiika: she/her

29-07-2022 16:19:45 UTC


Darknight: he/him

30-07-2022 14:47:18 UTC


SupernovaStarbright: she/they

30-07-2022 18:12:16 UTC