Congratulations!

Basically, SB & Haba and I made a cabal in hopes for one of us to win and it was really a lot of us hoping on chance to be on the same team(which at one point, we all were on the same team but you know…. someone “automatic"ly won that triumph and we had gotten reshuffled again and so hence traitor and rogue were basically stuff we were relying on.

I cannot be emphatic enough that I told you all so.

I believe that the victory attempt failed because DICE48 is not Gibberish due to being attestable as a name (in this case, the name of a Dice Roller command).

Note that this means that this DoV is illegal, and thus that BlogNomic is not on Hiatus, despite what it says in the sidebar.

  When/if this passes and we get a post-dynastic thread, I’ll have to list the other two scams we’d planned. Both were janky as anything.

I’d love to get the behind-the-scenes on the other scams in progress!

@ais523 as mentioned in the crimelord dominance post, I don’t believe DICE48 to meaningfully be a name any more than any other word can be treated as a name. It’s a command, yes, but one word commands aren’t really names.

Agreed with SB; not a name, just a string of characters that prompts the dice roller to do something soecific

Also, to be a valid pending DoV; someone just needs to *believe* that they have won, regardless of whether the actions leading to that were valid. Definitely on hiatus

ais, the Hiatus stands as of now. If you want to remove the legality of the DoV and the corresponding Hiatus, you have to do so with a CfJ.

OK, so here’s the other reason why SingularByte’s scam failed (Josh, you may now revert the wiki page if you think that this was wrong) – even with a dice roll of 0, the scam doesn’t work if SingularByte performed a Heist Action in the previous 0 hours. Because all the actions were performed simultaneously in a single dice roller comment, from the second action onwards, SingularByte had in fact performed a Heist Action in the previous 0 hours – the first action was performed 0 hours before the second one was.

I’ve now closed off the DICE0 loophole (if it exists) by using it to close itself, one painstaking action at a time (ensuring that each action was fully finished before starting the next one).

@Snisbo: no, there is a restriction that a player cannot declare victory unless they have the Retired characteristic. If the scam failed, then Raven does not have the Retired characteristic and cannot legally declare victory (meaning that the DoV is illegal and does not create a Hiatus).

I argued against this restriction at the time and even made a proposal to remove it, because it undermines the fundamental purpose of a DoV to determine whether a win worked. But you all voted me down, and will have to live with the lack of Hiatus as a consequence.

Would it not have made sense to just cfj and close off the loophole? CFJs are legal whether or not there’s a DoV in play so it would have been the ideal solution.

@SingularByte: Anyone could have exploited it while the CFJ was being voted on – although the CFJ itself would have been legal, it wouldn’t have made the arbitrary ruleset edits illegal (which could, in theory, have done something problematic like preventing the use of CFJs – there are at least three ways to get around the restrictions in The Vault, and you demonstrated one of the ones I knew about).

Except a cfj can literally revert any actions people perform using the rule that the cfj is trying to fix.

You could literally just have put “Revert all edits to the ruleset and tracker that occurred after XX/XX/2025, and consider all dynastic actions to be taken since then to be null and void.”

@SingularByte: Not in this case: the exploit is too powerful. For example, you could use it to declare “Dynastic Safeguard” flavour text, then directly edit the core rules to prevent CFJs working, and then the CFJ that was attempting to stop it would be unable to do the revert.

Intentionally breaking the cfj system would feel awfully close to a fair play violation. “A Participant should not do any action meant to make the game unplayable”

There’s a reason I played it very safe by just declaring a new rule with the barest minimum it takes to win.

<blockquote>Calls for Judgement
If two or more Participants actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset, or if a Participant feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention, then any Participant may raise a Call for Judgement (abbreviated “CfJ”) by posting an entry in the “Call for Judgement” category.

A Pending CfJ may be Enacted by any Admin if all of the following are true:

It is Popular.
A Pending CfJ may be Failed by any Admin if any of the following are true:

It is Unpopular.
It does not specify changes to the gamestate nor ruleset, does not specify that any attempt to perform an action should be upheld or rejected, and does not specify corrections to any gamestate-tracking entities.
When a CfJ is Enacted, the Admin Enacting it shall update the Gamestate and Ruleset, and correct any gamestate-tracking entities, as specified in the CfJ.

This Rule may not be overruled by Dynastic Rules.<blockquote>

There is no way to override the ability to make a CfJ.

Though I suppose you could wreck Votable Matters enough that a CfJ couldn’t be considered a meaningful Votable Matter, in which case I agree with SingularByte that “A Participant should not do any action meant to make the game unplayable””.

As things stand, this is passing, but will need to wait 24 hours to be enacted.

@JonathanDark: you could, for example, just give yourself the ability to edit core rules (it’s easy to get around Dynastic Safeguard) and break the CFJ rule within the core CFJ rule itself.

I would like more discussion about the “cannot perform a Heist Action if the performer successfully performed a Heist Action that was not Swift in the previous 0 hours” situation – I think that is enough to make the DoV illegal (and also prevent the victory) in its own right.

I am concerned that Come On has not actually fixed the problem; as is often the case with CFJs, it wasn’t worded very well. It leaves the ruleset unambiguous, but does not make the DoV legal. As such, BlogNomic is probably in permanent Hiatus at the moment (i.e. this DoV is illegal and thus unresolvable, and because the CFJ creates a Hiatus that lasts until the DoV is resolved, the only way to end the Hiatus is to create another CFJ).

At least my actions had the effect I wanted, if not in the way I expected it to – the CFJ to reprimand me put the ruleset into an unexploitable state so quickly that nobody attempted a scam to, e.g., break the CFJ system in the process, because people were voting for it out of anger rather than looking for loopholes to exploit the lack of Hiatus (and the revision that the Ruleset was changed to prevents Heist Actions and thus closes the loophole that way). Normally, CFJs take much longer to pass than that, so there was a real risk that someone could have taken control of the nomic in the process (I could have managed it, for instance!)

Note that it reset the CFJ to a state that never legally existed under anyone’s interpretation of the rules; the revision in question does not have some of SingularByte’s Heist actions applied (he forgot to apply all of the effects of the actions to the ruleset tracking page, so it contains some of them but not others). I personally don’t think that’s a problem – fortunately, the CFJ used the word “reset” rather than “revert” – but it might be a problem for Josh’s interpretation of how reverting/resetting works.

As such, the main priority now is to ensure that we unambiguously know whether or not the DoV exists, and/or whether or not the DoV passes.

For what it’s worth, I am quite happy with allowing Raven to achieve victory in this dynasty – if I use the loophole to win myself I would want to pass the mantle anyway, and Raven is the obvious recipient – and if the DICE48 thing doesn’t work, Raven, Brendan and I had a plan which would have won the dynasty a few hours from now regardless, and Raven would have had 50% mantle share. However, I do think that SingularByte’s actions weren’t legally performed and am voting against on that basis – and I also think that this DoV is illegal (still! Come On didn’t make it legal), and thus enacting it wouldn’t work, which is also a good reason to vote against it.

Congratulations to my co-conspirators Raven and SB!

I’m not particularly convinced by either of ais’ arguments here - the first for reasons given by SB (it doesn’t make sense to call DICE48 ‘the name of a command’, it’s just a command, in the same way apple is not ‘the name of a fruit’, it’s just a fruit). As for the simultaneous actions, I would say that none of them happened in the ‘previous 0 hours’ of another, since for action A to have happened ‘previously’ to action B in time, A necessarily has to happen before B, and all the actions happened simultaneously in time.

@Habanero: well, if the actions didn’t occur in some order, they wouldn’t have worked (because some of them didn’t build off each other), so there are “previous” and “future” actions in that sense.

There’s also this rule from the Glossary: “A Participant may not take more than one dynastic game action at the same time (excluding any actions which have been ongoing for more than three hours).” As such, arguments based on the actions being performed at the same time don’t really work, because that would make the actions illegal in its own right. It is sometimes permissible to combine multiple actions into a single tracker update: “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.” I agree that “it is clear what [was] happening” but not that “the alterations are otherwise legal” – they would have to be performed at separate times to make that work.

I have submitted a CFJ to make Raven’s win unambiguously have occured, and to make this DoV unambiguously legal – it seems that there is a consensus that Raven should win (even I think that would be a fitting end to the dynasty), so if you vote for it we will then have a consensus about what happened.

(I worded that slightly incorrectly – I mean “we’ll have a consensus about the gamestate and who the winner is”, even if there is controversy about what happened earlier.)

Right, they occurred in an order, but they all did occur at the same time. There’s a difference between ‘simultaneously’ in time and ‘simultaneously’ in terms of game ordering, and the wording ‘previous 0 hours’ clearly indicates the former is the condition under which Heists are disallowed. I guess you could argue that your glossary entry there also indicates the former, but then any attempts to roll multiple actions into one dice roller comment in the past wouldn’t have worked (including literally every time teams were assigned to the non-Masterminds, and the whole dynasty is gone). If you really wanted to be incredibly pedantic there are a few nanoseconds between the Dice Roller processing each line of the comment so the actions aren’t simultaneous at all

It wouldn’t be the first time that something like that had happened – the usual solution is to uphold by CFJ and move on. I’ve made such a CFJ (that upholds the events surrounding the DoV, allowing the DoV to subsequently uphold the rest of the dynasty); if we enact it we can move on, and that seems like the best solution to the situation.

(If there were a mistake earlier in the dynasty – leaving us wrong about the gamestate – that might well have had knock-on effects on the rest of the gamestate, leading to uncertainty about whether the DoV exists and thus whether the Hiatus created by “Come On” will ever end. That’s another good reason to uphold.)

When my CFJ is enacted, Raven will unambiguously have achieved victory, either via SingularByte’s action if that worked, or via the CFJ if it didn’t.

Peace in our time.

See ya in 9 hours.