Wednesday, July 28, 2021

Call for Judgment: Race Conditioning [Appendix]

Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 2-4 by Kevan.

Adminned at 30 Jul 2021 10:21:24 UTC

Uphold the revisions and new actions Chiiika performed here: https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Zahndorf_Crypt&type=revision&diff=16164&oldid=16157 as well as the move to get a glyph performed here: https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Zahndorf_Crypt&type=revision&diff=16153&oldid=16148

In “Representations of the Gamestate” after

One wiki update may contain one or more alterations, or one alteration may be split over multiple updates, as long as it is clear what is happening and the alterations are otherwise legal.

add

If multiple alterations are performed in the same update, and one of those alterations is found to have been illegal, all alterations performed in that update are considered to have been illegal.

So Chiiika accidentally bought 10 puissance worth of stuff while only having 9 puissance to spend.

This makes an interesting problem, because from a gameplay perspective she performed three actions in a row, two of which were legal and one of which was not legal due to her not having enough Puissance to make the purchase. But from a game tracking perspective, its impossible to know which of the two purchases she intended to make first.

I think the reasonable thing to do in this situation is just to go “they were all illegal”

There are some open questions as to if we need a slightly better resolution mechanic. Under the wording I have here, it would make Chiiika’s purchasing a favor in that update also illegal even though its legality can be clearly inferred. But I didn’t want to overcomplicate things by trying to word this in a way that makes it so that only the purchases but not the favor update are illegal (especially when the favor purchase might’ve only intended to go through if everything else went through as well)

Comments

Clucky: he/him

28-07-2021 17:10:29 UTC

other approach we could take is that if you do multiple updates at once you have to specify which order you’re performing the actions in. that would deal with any issues where suddenly now there are gameplay implications to if you do your updates one by one or if you do them at once; but that runs the risk of people forgetting and invalidating their whole action

Kevan: City he/him

28-07-2021 17:31:03 UTC

Only other approach I can think of is to allow any player to choose the order if unspecified, calling it and reverting any steps that would be impossible. But being able to pick the worst possible outcome for even a minor error is probably too harsh.

Invalidating the whole update sounds good.

Josh: he/they

28-07-2021 17:53:34 UTC

It has an ambiguous cheating application, but I’m not sure that we can massively prevent that

lemon: she/her

29-07-2021 03:02:31 UTC

for

Raven1207: he/they

29-07-2021 04:50:24 UTC

for

Josh: he/they

29-07-2021 08:59:50 UTC

against

Kevan: City he/him

29-07-2021 09:34:54 UTC

[Josh] What’s the problem?

Josh: he/they

29-07-2021 09:41:11 UTC

I know it would be technically illegal, but I am bothered by the potential thought process of:

* I have to do a risky action that involves a dice roll
* I can do the dice roll and if the result isn’t one that I like I can bundle it up with an accidentally-too-expensive set of other actions in a wiki edit to invalidate the dice roll

Kevan: City he/him

29-07-2021 10:08:52 UTC

Hmm, that would only invalidate the alteration, rather than the die roll: Fair Play’s “should not roll dice that are clearly associated with a particular action in the Ruleset, but with the intention to not use these rolled values to the best of their ability to resolve that action” should still catch it.

There may be some murkiness if the die roll requires a payment up front: “I pay 1 coin to roll a die, I roll D20 and get a critical failure, I lose 10HP and buy this sceptre I can’t afford” all in one wiki edit, with the illegal purchase invalidating the coin payment which invalidates the die roll. But does that even work all as one wiki edit, or would I not be allowed to actually roll the die until I’d paid the coin?

Josh: he/they

29-07-2021 10:19:35 UTC

Even if we can’t model out the precise scenario, I think the principle of bundling-to-manufacture-illegality is of some concern to me.

Brendan: he/him

29-07-2021 14:40:08 UTC

I was going to say that falls under core rules scams, except apparently that rule only applies to victories!

for, anyway.

ais523:

29-07-2021 15:25:31 UTC

Doesn’t the new core rule undo most of the Enter the Crypt actions? Josh tends to do one large wiki update for those, and many of them have made mistakes, so the rule is effectively reverting the whole thing.

Josh: he/they

29-07-2021 15:34:46 UTC

Yeah, that’s a good point, and makes me inclined to veto

Clucky: he/him

29-07-2021 15:45:57 UTC

(its a CfJ, you can’t veto)

Enter the Crypt actions are already singular atomic actions. So if the action is illegally performed, it gets undone.

The dice roll thing is an interesting point. I think it would be clear to me from the dice roll the action was already performed. But I guess then you gotta wonder was it an “alteration performed in the update” or an “alteration performed when you rolled the dice”

still might be safer to against and revisit this and if anyone tries to complain that Chiiika’s revert actions were illegal we just bop them on the head with a NO

Josh: he/they

29-07-2021 15:47:04 UTC

Oh yeah duh

Josh: he/they

29-07-2021 15:47:57 UTC

I think it’s important, though, that this clause can transform mistakes into illegal actions quite easily, without there being space for the mistakes-are-made clauses to kick in.

Kevan: City he/him

29-07-2021 20:25:05 UTC

against Fair points.

lemon: she/her

29-07-2021 23:25:10 UTC

against CoV