Call for Judgment: OK, maybe roll a little
Failed, 1-6 with one unresolved DEF. Josh
Adminned at 07 Mar 2021 14:20:25 UTC
Brendan advanced a merchant circles campaign again with a value of 4 using the same roll referred to in the first CfJ; at the time the rule was still the previous text of
Respond to the most recent Masquerade post with a comment saying “Advancing my Merchant Circles Campaign” and giving the result of a randomly selected number between 1 and 4 inclusive.
Even though the rule was not fixed, I believe this was still illegal, as it still must be ‘randomly’ selected, but it was not the ‘appropriate’ DICE roll per
If a number or other game variable is selected “at random” or “randomly” from a range of possible values, its value shall always be taken from a uniform probability distribution over the entire range of possible values, unless otherwise specified. This value must be determined by an appropriate DICE roll in the Dice Roller, unless otherwise specified.
If the Doge increased Brendan’s Political Power by 1 as the result of the merchant circles campaign, undo it.
Josh: he/they
I’m not sure that I see what in the text prohibits Brendan’s interpretation. It was a randomly selected number between 1 and 4; and it was a legitimately randomly rolled number in the dice roller. There’s an argument around the selective choice of a favourable result from a range of outcomes so selected, but this is the peril of the wording of the rule as it was; it didn’t specify that a dice roll was part of the activation, or that the result of that roll had to be used.
I’m still going to be an
on this as it’s an essentially political movie rather than a legalistic one, but given the number of campaign-related scams floating around at the moment I’m a bit uncomfortable with this one being singled out.