Friday, December 04, 2020

Call for Judgment: Phantom Jockey Syndrome

Reached quorum, 7-0. Josh

Adminned at 05 Dec 2020 09:25:59 UTC

Pilot Raven1207 has pulled off a series of remarkable manoeuveurs. First, they set themselves to jockeying without selecting a shell for themselves (which is legal, thanks to an errant “may”); they then gave themselves a shell and took experience for it, which is only ambiguously legal.

It would be legal if they destructed their first phantom Shell (which they would be able to do as its energy would be zero), but it doesn’t look like they did; their wiki edits don’t reference it and they didn’t give themselves XP for having lost a shell. Without having detonated their shell and become Demobbed, adopting a new Shell is illegal, as one can only start piloting a shell when one is not already Jockeying.

Seems kinda silly to CfJ this, as a lot of these problems are already patched by pending proposals. The impact here is minimal: we either strip Raven of their shell, as that was the part that was done illegally, or retrosctively assume that they detonated before taking it up. I’m inclined towards the latter as it cuts down on admin; they’re just going to do it themselves anyway.

So: consider this edit to have included Raven detonating their old shell; ensure that gamestate tracking reflects the additional 1 Experience they would have gotten for detonating said shell; and uphold Raven’s edits to the gamestate to the time of that edit.


Kevan: he/him

04-12-2020 10:21:45 UTC

Would add that when this was pointed out on Slack, Raven said “Oh did I trigger something wrong?” and when the lack of Demob was pointed out said “Oh”, which would support the idea that they didn’t choose to Demob themselves.

On a pure legal reading they should still have a Mark I Shell and a Power/Attack/Defence of 0/0/0, and zero Experience, and we’d be still waiting for them to resolve “A Jockeying Pilot with a destroyed Shell must set their status to Demobbed and blank their Archetype, Power, Attack and Defence.”

But I don’t begrudge assuming that they’ve done that and giving them 2 Experience, if that’s how the Poindexter wants to go forward.

Josh: he/they

04-12-2020 10:28:53 UTC

It just seems like that’s what’s going to happen anyway, so why hold things up and risk a gamestate that’s about to become illegal

But this is a CfJ, my poindexterness has no bearing here. If it sets a bad precedent then by all means vote it down, that would I think give a clear mandate for a CfJ-free reversion.

Kevan: he/him

04-12-2020 13:46:04 UTC


It’s fine, it’s pretty much that common Nomic early-game space of “someone got ahead, but not ridiculously ahead”, just a bit unusual that Raven apparently did it without even realising they’d done it.

Kevan: he/him

04-12-2020 13:56:18 UTC

... or rather, not even legally doing it (if they didn’t Demob themselves), just taking an illegal action which happened to have the same outcome on a subset of the gamestate.

But it adds some colour, and it’s important to keep moving forward.


04-12-2020 15:26:20 UTC



04-12-2020 17:25:41 UTC


Clucky: he/him

04-12-2020 22:04:18 UTC



05-12-2020 03:14:32 UTC


robotabc773: he/him

05-12-2020 04:10:01 UTC