Struggling a little with this one. The mistake was innocent, and while I’ve not properly run it again to see what the outcome would be I’m not sure that that should matter.

I do worry about having this one Bout act as an outlier, for being the only one to have its sudden death resolved by this ruleset. For example, at least one Hard Hat bout would have resolved as a Hard Hat loss had that Bout been resolved as this CfJ demands.

I’ll sleep on it, I guess.

, obviously.

In my eyes, one of the key differences is that for previous sudden deaths, everyone was mutually acting under the same invalid version of the rule (unless anyone wants to shout up and contradict me). It might have been handled wrong, but in a way which was on an even playing field.

In this bout though, I did call out the rule oddity and my orders were more or less based on the correct interpretation.

If I’d stayed quiet about it, the fault would never have been noticed and I’d have been able to submit wrong orders that would nevertheless been seen to have won.

I don’t see how anyone not directly involved in the results here can vote in favor of this while voting against “Loss of Collision,” myself.

How so?

Loss of Collision specifically states that the enactor should interpret the rules in a way which is generally agreed to not be how the rules functioned at the time. Requested a recount makes no such instruction, and simply directs the rules to be interpreted in the correct way, whichever way that is.

@SB The tricky thing there is whether *everyone* in this bout was acting under the same assumptions, or whether you noticed something, adapted to take advantage of it etc but your opponent didn’t.

Usually I’d be comfortable with the latter case but here I think it would have to result in either this bout being grandfathered with the rest or every bout up until now being reconsidered for consistency.

In the former case -i.e. if Brendan stated that his orders were composed on the basis of that same assumptions you’d made - I’d have no problem supporting this.

Otherwise, the better solution would be to spike the existing bout and re-run it from Staging, on the basis of a commonly agreed ruleset.

To be explicit, if this CfJ enacts - especially without Brendan confirming that he had prepared orders on the same basis as that set out here - then I’d find it hard to justify voting any way other than FOR on a CfJ from chiiika arguing that Hard Hat Vs Yvette the Botmistress shouldn’t be re-evaluated in the same terms.

For this specific cfj, the thing is that at the time the bout was run, I’d specifically stated beforehand that the rules around sudden death were strange and a cfj had been open for over 24 hours to fix it and redo the staging step of the bout. Brendan *had* the option to decide whether to run under the old ruleset or the new, and specifically chose to run under the old ruleset by refusing to cast the deciding vote in favour, preferring to try benefiting from a bug in the rules in his favour.

Sure, I’d been wrong about the exact nature of how that rules bug would be trigger because I’d only just seen it - hence my request for the bout to be reset *literally over 36 hours before the bout was even run*, but nonetheless it was still Brendan’s choice for the bout to be done under the old, broken ruleset. I didn’t have that same option; I already voted at the outset in favour of the cfj and had already tried to push for the new rules.

“You stated it” is insufficient for my vote; Brendan has to confirm that they saw it and acted accordingly for me to consider this a fair way to resolve the bout. Discord can move fast, life can get busy, people can miss things; ascribing to ‘choice’ what can easily be something missed in the stream comes across as very unreasonable to me.

Unintentional but weird interaction: the passage of Sudden Dearth has rendered the application of Sudden Death in Bout 20 legal either way. I think that this CfJ still has effect if it enacts, though.

Wait, what? “Refusing to cast the deciding vote in favor” is an incredible interpretation to place on my vote. By that logic, you’re also blaming the resolution of this match on a cabal made up of me, Raven1207, Chiiika, SupernovaStarbright, and thundershrike.

You literally stated “This is a tactical vote because I like being a winner by virtue of having an alphabetically early name.”

I’m not sure what interpretation there could possibly be other than that being a choice to act under the old ruleset rather than the new in order to benefit from a bug in the rules.

I think I might need to take a step back from the game for a bit here. I’m idling, dropping player count to 9 and quorum to 5.

If I’d realized I had the chance to reset my script before the match, believe me, I would have. See also my vote on “Evading a Repeal,” which enacted before our match, and which I had not seen at all when I went Set—and wherein you could have included a reset-script clause, but chose not to.

Ah, no, I’m sorry to hear that SB, you were one of the players really making this dynasty sing for me.

This does feel a bit like it’s going down the same road as the vampire dynasty; I wonder if it’s something to do with my imperial style?

I hope you’ll be back soon, and if you have any feedback about how this situation has agitated you then I’ll happily hear it.

This CfJ would still have effect, however, so I’ll restate my question: Brendan, was your script in bout 20 based on the assumption that sudden death kicks in on round 61 or turn 61?

I think this is moot now, and my vote stands, but I don’t want to be posting in bad faith. Here is the end of the script I submitted on July 27th, before any of these distinctions were made; judge for yourself.

On that basis, probably

CoV In SB’s absence this doesn’t seem particularly worth pursuing; they can’t get the benefit, and CfJ: Sudden Dearth has legalised the resolution of bout 20 anyway.

This mess is my fault; sorry.