Tuesday, June 23, 2009

So Here’s What Happened

Apparently, this did not happen.

Adminned at 24 Jun 2009 01:30:59 UTC

I would like to begin this by saying that I think that this was totally legitimate. If you can find any mistake I (or Wakukee) made, please tell us and we can fix this thing. But I think it’s legitimate.

When going over the Ruleset, I noticed a Rule that I had forgotten: “As a daily action, a Contestant (known as the Caller) may spend 1 point of Looks to change the Location of any Contestant to the Caller’s Location. If this action would cause the Caller’s Looks to become less than 10, the action can’t be taken.”

So I ate a fruit, and got the Hyper result (thus, I can Call twice today).

Then I called 2 Insiders to the Location of Outside, making them Outsiders (Outsiders are the only ones legally allowed to occupy the location known as “Outside”).

Wakukee went temporarily Idle, making Darth Cliche and Rodlen Support me, Qwazukee.

I became an Insider, because 2/3 Insiders Supported me.

Wakukee then unidled, becoming an Outsider via the Rule we recently passed.

Wakukee, having gotten enough Looks via Hat Dances, then Called one more Contestant Outside.

The only ones left Inside were me, Rodlen Supporting me, and Darth Cliche Supporting me. Since, with at least 3 Insiders, all other Insiders Supported me, I achieved Victory.

If you see any problems with this, let me know, and I’m sure there will be a big discussion. If worse comes to worst, I’ll just go back to the drawing board. Thank you.



06-23-2009 04:06:24 UTC

This is the important Rule I’m interpreting: “(Outsiders have their Location value set to ‘Outside’, and are not considered to be in any room.)”

That’s the only way specified by the Ruleset for someone to be Outside. Thus, anyone Outside must be an Outsider (which is intuitive).

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 04:14:18 UTC

There is nothing stating that Insiders cannot be Outside. Insiders cannot choose to move outside, but outsiders can call insiders outside.

Additionally, no rule states that outside contestants may be inside.


06-23-2009 04:17:20 UTC

I’m sort of taking the opposite side of how my only other DoV failed. The second applicable Rule is “The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.”

No Rule states that Insiders may be Outside. There is a Rule that says Outsiders may be Outside. Since these people were Outside, I logically conclude that they must be Outsiders.

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 04:24:41 UTC

No rule states that Outside players must be Outsiders. Since these people did not become Out in accordance with the rules, I logically conclude that they must be Insiders.

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 04:25:21 UTC

Again, let’s focus this on your DoV

Darknight: HE/HIM

06-23-2009 06:46:26 UTC

Whatever the logic and game plan was I find it interesting that Rodlen does not favor your DoV.


06-23-2009 06:56:36 UTC

Apparently he does not agree with the logic behind it. I stopped making plans with the DDA when you said we were going nonpartisan, DK, so nobody knew about this beforehand.

Darknight: HE/HIM

06-23-2009 07:17:52 UTC

should we just start a meta since things have gotten so mucked up? and yes ik metas aren’t defined.


06-23-2009 07:51:50 UTC

This…doesn’t work.

You stated it yourself. “The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.”

I don’t see anything saying “All players who are Outside are Outsiders.”

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 08:19:37 UTC

Agreed with Rodlen.


06-23-2009 08:28:15 UTC

I’ve conceded that they didn’t become Outsiders. However, by Rule, they are no longer Insiders: “Each Insider occupies a single room.”

Since “Outside” is not a room, they are not insiders. My DoV works so long as they are not Insiders.

However, this was a clear case where the Ruleset is broken. Public opinion seems to be favoring the “ignore the problem” approach rather than the “Qwaz is correct due to paradox” approach. Both are fine, I’d just been hoping more Contestants would agree with me.  : p


06-23-2009 08:30:35 UTC

That arrow was me, btw. Wak shouldn’t have been logged on this computer now, but I got distracted watching Star Trek. Really good episode too, the one where Worf keeps going through alternate realities.

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 08:54:49 UTC


Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 09:30:58 UTC

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 09:31:56 UTC

What happened? Where’s Worf?


06-23-2009 17:29:34 UTC

“I became an Insider, because 2/3 Insiders Supported me.”

You can’t perform this action.  You need an Insider to perform it, as per Rule 2.1.1

Darknight: HE/HIM

06-23-2009 20:57:52 UTC

Heh, lately Qwaz has been getting on us for not following the rules and yet he faltered on that just abit

Amnistar: HE/HIM

06-23-2009 21:26:12 UTC

And actually the rule: “Each Insider occupies a single room.”  seems to imply that you can’t put an Insider outside.  Not that insiders become outsiders after you move outside.

Clucky: HE/HIM

06-23-2009 21:48:30 UTC

We’ve been over this, Amni, but some people feel that that just because there is precedent for ‘if an action could render a gamestate value illegal that action cannot be taken’, there is no precedent for following precedent and thus you can still move insiders outside. Of these, I think only Qwaz and Wak have claimed this makes them outsiders.


06-23-2009 22:25:18 UTC

I don’t claim they’re Outsiders, I just see that, via Rules, there is a definition where they are not Insiders. The Rule I used was more specific, so by that precedent I was able to take them Outside.

Clucky, I’m trying to see where you’re coming from, but I’m not sure exactly what precedent you’re referring to that applies here. Do you mean the same thing about numbers from the DoV post?

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 23:14:51 UTC

Clucky is saying that just as you cannot make numbered values illegal, you cannot make non-numbered values illegal.


06-23-2009 23:28:27 UTC

So, it is the same thing as in the DoV. I had not considered that part of the Glossary when making my DoV (honestly, I never check over the Glossary unless I’m mighty confused), but I can see how that section is intended to avoid confusion. I think this case is a bit more complicated than that, in that a specific Rule might be construed as overriding the general Rule, but it isn’t clearly governed by our Ruleset either way.

Ienpw III:

06-23-2009 23:34:19 UTC

After this dynasty, we should create a rule stating that “If an action would cause a game-state value to be illegal, it cannot be taken.”