Thursday, June 04, 2020

Call for Judgment: Not Everyone Can Be A Winner

Fewer than a quorum not voting against, failed 2-7 by Kevan.

Adminned at 05 Jun 2020 13:41:55 UTC

Affirm that no Amnesiac or Gambler received any Points or Power from the Spinning of the Wheel that occurred on 4rd June 2020, 14:00:00 UTC

As outlined in https://blognomic.com/archive/the_random_spin#comments the spin was incorrectly applied. “Winner” was incorrectly resolved. Nothing in the Payout for Random said that “Winner” meant “Winner of the payout”. Its an undefined term, and thus there was no one to apply the list to.

Comments

Clucky: he/him

04-06-2020 15:46:27 UTC

wait stuff isn’t actually just halved is it. need to calculate what the numbers actually should be

Clucky: he/him

04-06-2020 15:48:51 UTC

actually looks like Kevan’s proposal passed first. so we’re all good

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: he/they

04-06-2020 15:53:10 UTC

I’m supportive of this, but I don’t believe that the way it was interpreted was correct, therefore their Points did not actually increase. As a result, I would prefer it be phrased as: Affirm that [Player’s] Power is X.

Clucky: he/him

04-06-2020 15:57:55 UTC

Hrm. That is a good point. But “Affirm that Axemabaro’s power is 4” doesn’t really work because there could be another spin between now and when/if this passes

Clucky: he/him

04-06-2020 15:59:27 UTC

I think I still messed up some of the numbers because the numbers mentioned in the spin post weren’t actually correct though…

Clucky: he/him

04-06-2020 16:14:26 UTC

I think the right adjustments are Axe - 18, Pokes - 13 and Tirgon - 24 and -2 power.

Marco Sulla:

04-06-2020 16:14:52 UTC

Well, I think this is a good thing to do…. but really, IMHO nobody simply has thought about the infinte loop of Random, since it’s clear that Winner is the Payout’s Winner. It’s the only point in the Ruleset that Winner is defined X-D

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: he/they

04-06-2020 16:28:59 UTC

[Clucky] In my opinion, that could just be the penalty for a sloppy scam.

Clucky: he/him

04-06-2020 16:33:42 UTC

Its not really a sloppy scam though. just a cute interpretation of the rules I think is wrong. Also it would unfairly punish players who didn’t even try to pull off the scam, just got trapped in Poke’s interpretation of the rules

pokes:

04-06-2020 17:54:23 UTC

against

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: he/they

04-06-2020 18:08:56 UTC

for

Axemabaro:

04-06-2020 22:02:56 UTC

against

Lulu: she/her

04-06-2020 23:07:50 UTC

imperial

Lulu: she/her

04-06-2020 23:29:43 UTC

against Renaming “Power” to “Annoyingness” broke this CfJ, unfortunately.

Clucky: he/him

04-06-2020 23:31:30 UTC

Does it?

If we affirm they got no points, they also got no annoyingness. I don’t think there is any interpretation that gained annoyingness but not points.

however, those with negative points did gain points, and that part was legit. So I think you’re wrong that this is broken as it’ll undo parts of the global step.  against

Trigon:

04-06-2020 23:54:06 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

05-06-2020 09:35:32 UTC

against

derrick: he/him

05-06-2020 13:14:05 UTC

against