Friday, April 12, 2024

Call for Judgment: Skipping Stones

Timed out, 2-2. Failed by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 14 Apr 2024 21:59:20 UTC

Consider the Seeker called Josh to have responded to Snap 26 in order, and uphold their responses to Snaps 27 through 29.

I missed 26 by mistake. I think it cost me points but it would also have caused me to have to cycle my criteria earlier than I actually did. Seems easiest to just scrub the deck and uphold.


NadNavillus: he/him

12-04-2024 19:23:32 UTC

I didn’t think that we were required to score snaps but looking at the rules I can see that I read that wrong.

Josh, I think you also missed snap 028.

I think I’m okay letting this stand as is.

NadNavillus: he/him

12-04-2024 22:37:32 UTC


Clucky: he/him

13-04-2024 00:17:28 UTC


JonathanDark: he/him

13-04-2024 00:35:03 UTC

Clucky has a point. How are we squaring this CfJ with his Aesthetically Out Of Order CfJ?

Josh: he/they

13-04-2024 06:40:51 UTC

I’m not gaining anything from this CfJ - I’m fact, I’m losing from it - so it should appeal more to expedience.

Kevan: City he/him

13-04-2024 07:04:43 UTC

Aren’t you gaining some points? You gave yourself 9 Score for Snap 27, but the scoring action was invalid.

Josh: he/they

13-04-2024 07:27:08 UTC

Your collective call on that, I guess. I personally see it as me losing out on my points for 26, but the reason why this CfJ exists is because modeling the knock-on effects in terms of when my criteria should have expired is a bear.

Kevan: City he/him

13-04-2024 09:16:40 UTC

So far as I can see the invalid actions here are:

* You gave yourself 9 Score for Snap 27 but this action was invalid because Snap 26 was still fresh.
* You gave yourself 3 Score for Snap 29 but gave an incorrect response post (you said it met no criteria, but it met the 4th)

It makes no difference to Snap 26 or Snap 28, which you didn’t score at the time, and which it’s too late to score now.

And your current criteria scores won’t change because you took a cycling action, which this CfJ would not alter.

Unless I’ve missed a secondary effect of the invalid Snap 27 claim, or we want as a group to informally pivot to a negotiatory do-over economy, I think you can just knock off 12 Score here.

Josh: he/they

13-04-2024 09:36:50 UTC

My response to 29 was correct in current continuity as at that time my criteria 4 was no longer fresh (it had 5 unfulfilments).

So a straight revert would cause my response to 29 to be ambiguous - if I didn’t score for 27 then my response to 29 would be invalid, as my criteria 4 would have had another charge in it. And without a CfJ resolving which active were legal and which weren’t it would forever be ambiguous as to whether I legally claimed on 29 or not.

JonathanDark: he/him

13-04-2024 14:30:57 UTC

I think a new CfJ stating two things would clear this up:

* Remove 12 point from the Seeker named Josh
* Consider the validity of Josh’s response to Snap 29 as if he had a validate response to every Snap up to that point.

I didn’t do the math, so I’m trusting Kevan’s statement on that point.

JonathanDark: he/him

13-04-2024 14:31:21 UTC

Ugh, 12 score, not 12 point

JonathanDark: he/him

13-04-2024 16:08:34 UTC

To remain fair to the Seekers affected by the outcome of previous CfJs, I think I have to vote against on this one.

Josh: he/they

13-04-2024 16:41:04 UTC

I appreciate the hypocricy, but now that I’m on the receiving end of it I’m not sure that I love this mean-spirited streak that seems to have been introduced into the game, and I think I regret my vote on Clucky’s CfJ - I was maybe unduely influenced by Kevan on that.

Not that I’m playing this game very competitively, but needless to say I will not be voting for or especially content about any outcome that strips me of literally two-fifths of my total accumulated points for this dynasty.

Kevan: City he/him

13-04-2024 17:11:20 UTC

The harsher every-player-for-themselves mood was presumably established by the broad brush instruction for No Cooperation this dynasty. Even though we’ve now amended that rule to exempt CfJs and votes, there may be too much dynastic precedence to turn it around.

Perhaps there’s scope for a mega-do-over proposal where you and I and Clucky and Jonathan all get appropriate bonuses to balance the mistakes we’ve all made and played on from, although it would be a tricky needle to thread.

NadNavillus: he/him

13-04-2024 17:12:55 UTC

If we are going to vote on precedent for all CfJ like this, wouldn’t this be better off as a rule in the dynasty?  Perhaps, this was what the NonCollab discussion was about, but something more direct “CfJ around action corrections are not welcome….”

In any case, precedent or rule, is there a “statute of limitation”?  Would we expect to vote the same way if one of these was raised at or new a DoV?  For example, Clucky felt this impacted his ability to get an award.  If it was not raised at the time, would we vote to strip the award late in the game if someone referenced a mistake on a snap weeks in the past?

NadNavillus: he/him

13-04-2024 17:14:06 UTC

Should CfJ like this be limited to say 48 hours after which the score stands?

Kevan: City he/him

13-04-2024 18:43:07 UTC

The welcomeness of corrections always varies according to the group’s mood and the stage of the game, as it would in any boardgame where someone says ah, no, wait, I should have played this other card first, can I take that back. Might be fine near the start, less so in a tense endgame.

A new 48-hour window for do-overs sounds good in a vacuum (it might be good for the game to have an evergreen “ah, wait, no” rule where you can roll back an action that involves no dice or reveals and that nobody has reacted to), but it’s a bit late for the few of us who’ve already decided or been told by CfJ to play on, some time ago.

[Josh] Not sure I can see the ambiguity there. Your response to Snap 29 was invalid whatever your Criteria’s scores were at the time - your statement of “meets none of my eligible criteria” was false, as your final criteria was the three-vowel one, which Snap 29 met.

against as it seems like we can play on by striking the invalid actions.

Josh: he/they

13-04-2024 18:43:25 UTC

@NadNavillus I’d probably oppose a hard rule, just on the grounds that having rules impose constraints on player behaviour seems like a shabby precedent, but also it’s a matter of game culture, we can just make choices about how we approach these things.

It’s a tricky one as there’s a sniff test to it all. I think in retrospect that Clucky’s error should perhaps have been waved through at CfJ, but Kevan’s is clearly over the pale to me (one wonders if all of this isn’t an elaborate play to tie them all together, hiding the unacceptable change in amongst the reasonable ones). The distinction is hard to pin down though… I’d not care to try to put it in writing.

JonathanDark: he/him

13-04-2024 18:50:04 UTC

I in fact voted in favor of waving Clucky’s through, but it was voted down, so I figured that the group didn’t have the appetite for it or any other “oopsie” correction in this dynasty. Kevan stated it best with “play on by striking the invalid actions”.

Clucky: he/him

13-04-2024 20:40:54 UTC

FWIW, I think the better thing to do is to just let Josh have this despite past precedents set

Trying to dish out past compensation is hard. But its also okay to admit that mistakes were made in past rulings and do what is best for the overall health of the game

Josh: he/they

13-04-2024 21:04:42 UTC

V magnanmous Clucky!

Kevan: City he/him

14-04-2024 10:51:20 UTC

There are other, more recent precedents - Jonathan and I have made other claim errors in the past few days. I posted two claims which I realised were invalid, and I’m probably down at least a dozen points and a shot at Conceptual Balance from that. Jonathan made an incorrect claim and missed out on an entire Outstanding Composition Award by resetting their Criteria before the error had been pointed out.

In both cases we accepted these as gameplay mistakes, struck the invalid actions, and played on from where that fell.