Sunday, June 25, 2017

Call for Judgment: A Scam & Scamplugging

Reached against quorum 1-6. Failed by card.

Adminned at 26 Jun 2017 07:00:16 UTC

We have no Glossary definition for “invalid”, so I’m going to go with “being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law” (

In “Clarifications”, we have:

Invalid values for game variables can never be used

can: “is able to”

Ergo, that first part is equivalent to:

Invalid values for game variables are able to never be used

Now, much like how the game is able to enter Hiatus, but only enters that stage when it’s explicitly said that it does, Invalid values have the ability to be never used, but in no moment is that ability actually being performed (because it’s never explicitly said that such an ability is being employed.)

At 6:37PM, I’ve sent the Expedition Leader the following (ten times), while using the invalid value of 1 Artefact for myself, repeatedly. (Obviously is this “unacceptable” or “without foundation in law”, but idc. That’s the scam.)

I destroy one of the Artefacts I’m carrying.

Thus, I’ve destroyed 10 Artefacts. I have achieved victory. But I’m not going to leave the gaping flaw open, so in this same CFJ I’m going to plug it.


Upon enactment of this CFJ, the following happens:
• Retroactively annul all scams of the exploit described above and any variants of it, as well as any DoVs that depend on any of those.
• Add to “Backgrounds”:

The Explorer named Cuddlebeam has achieved victory, by merits of a scam (Had broken 10 Artefacts, more than the amount of Players, but the exploit has been plugged since, for safety and merit reasons).

• Amend “Invalid values for game variables can never be used” to

Invalid values for game variables may not be used



06-25-2017 18:41:33 UTC

Interpreting keywords as literal search-and-replaces seems a perverse reading of the rules. The obvious intention and natural interpretation of “can not” would be “is not able to” rather than “is able to not”.

against I’d shrug the amendment through, but I disagree with the clause that Cuddlebeam and only Cuddlebeam has achieved victory here. If the loophole existed it would obviously still be open to everyone.

(Posting what’s effectively a DoV as a CfJ to avoid the five-day timeout also seems a bit cheap.)


06-25-2017 18:42:23 UTC



06-25-2017 18:47:21 UTC

@Kevan: It’s not perverse, it’s law.

“A keyword defined by a rule supersedes the normal English usage of the word”

And oh well. I’d be up for victory-for-grabs.


06-25-2017 18:47:56 UTC

(or it’s both perverse AND law lol)


06-25-2017 18:57:27 UTC

“Can not” -> “Is not able to”. Nowhere does it say it’s a literal replacement.



06-25-2017 19:00:05 UTC

It’s not “can not”. It’s “can never”.

I believe it would definitely apply there.


06-25-2017 21:12:32 UTC

“can never” -> “is never able to”. It’s not a lexical replacement, it’s a semantical replacement.


06-25-2017 23:20:28 UTC



06-26-2017 00:12:20 UTC


Invalid values for game variables can never be used

can: “is able to”

Invalid values for game variables are able to never be used

We have no epithet for this argument, so I’m going to go with “specious” (


06-26-2017 05:10:22 UTC