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” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invalid)
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
Kevan: he/him
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”.
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.)