Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Call for Judgment: The first of a couple of CfJs:

Times out 3-5 and fails. -scshunt

Adminned at 15 Jun 2012 23:50:27 UTC

If Declaration of Victory: When You Wish passes, this CfJ does nothing.

Rule 2.2.7, Chronotohms, says “For 2 Chronotohms, the Time Monk may specify a window of ten contiguous Dynasties into which they will jump; they must then roll DICE10 in the GNDT and move to the Dynasty within that window that corresponds to the result;”

In that rule, I took “correspond” to be loose in its definition. By custom, in Blognomic, that would mean that a result of ! would mean the first result in the selected range, 2 would mean the second, and so on. But that is not implicit in the word Correspond, which just means “to be similar or equivalent in character, quantity, origin, structure, or function.” I performed an action based on the understanding that “correspond” can mean, if wished, that the last digit of the DICE roll equals the last digit of the selected dynasty, which meets the requirement of “to be similar in character… or function”.

Clearly that’s not a very useful basis on which to proceed, as correspondence in that way can be taken to mean all sorts of things. However, I would argue that the move was valid at the time I made it. So, this CfJ validates that my Dynasty, as of 12/06 11:38 (UTC) and until such a time as I chose to change it, is Dynasty 71. Furthermore, add the word “sequentially” after the word “corresponds” to the subrule entitled Chronotohms.

Comments

Bucky:

13-06-2012 13:33:10 UTC

against .  I believe precedent is that using a non-standard mapping is fine as long as you make it clear before rolling the die what the mapping is.

Cpt_Koen:

13-06-2012 13:52:54 UTC

against I completely agree with Bucky.

Your interpretation “correspond can mean, if wished” is not at all consistent with the wording “the Dynasty that corresponds”, which supposes there is only one possible Dynasty.

Josh: Observer he/they

13-06-2012 15:21:21 UTC

I agree morally, Bucky, but I don’t think your argument is supported by the ruleset.

Kevan: he/him

13-06-2012 15:39:37 UTC

for Given that it was a window whose final digits started with zero and ended with nine, a ten-as-zero reading of a D10 doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Rodney:

13-06-2012 16:04:42 UTC

It is the custom of BlogNomic to defy our own custom whenever hilarious or scam-worthy. Custom does not make the obvious reading of a rule the right one. And as Kevan pointed out, ten-as-zero D10 is an entirely imaginable reading. Had Klisz’s first window jump,  the first window jump of all, been using that interpretation, would all subsequent “standard” rolls been invalidated? In fact, if a mapping must be declared if non-standard, Klisz’s jump did not have any declared mapping nor was there any standard for this kind of roll prior to him, meaning his roll cannot be used to establish a standard, nor can any subsequent roll, being as they did not declare a standard either.

I must reluctantly vote for.

And yes, I know I’m disagreeing with myself in the DoV. Such is Nomic.

Cpt_Koen:

13-06-2012 17:43:51 UTC

So you both agree that it is OK to roll the die first, and then disregard its result by “choosing a mapping”?

I’m surprised nobody’s ever done this in the first 99 dynasties…

Josh: Observer he/they

13-06-2012 17:45:43 UTC

Usually the wording is tighter.

To be fair I think there’s only so far “choosing a mapping” can go. I don’t think I could come up with ten-to-the-power-of-ten systematic frameworks to deliver the desired result.

Kevan: he/him

13-06-2012 17:48:53 UTC

Nope, I just agree that in this particular case a mapping of “10→70, 1→71, 2→72 ... 8→78, 9→79” isn’t unreasonable, given that with physical ten-sided dice “10” and “0” are interchangeable.

moonroof:

13-06-2012 21:13:12 UTC

for

quirck: he/him

13-06-2012 22:11:43 UTC

against I agree with Bucky.

I understand correspondence between 70-79 and 1-10 as 70 corresponds to 1, 79 to 10. What would one have done if he had wished to go to a one-digit Dynasty? There is no Dynasty 0, so he would have chosen the 1-10 interval. So I think that a natural mapping is “1→71, 2→72 ... 8→78, 9→79, 10→80”. Though the word “sequentially” may clarify the matter, I’d prefer to have a formula like [chosen base number] + DICE10

ais523:

13-06-2012 22:52:29 UTC

against If I can’t read a rule as “place (an asterisk besides the name of the dynasty)”, Josh can’t choose how the correspondence works after he rolls. (Choosing an unusual correspondence before rolling would have been fine.)

Rodney:

13-06-2012 23:53:56 UTC

imperial CoV. I find myself disagreeing with whatever position I take.

scshunt:

14-06-2012 08:37:35 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

14-06-2012 08:41:30 UTC

[quirck] Not saying that it makes sense in all contexts, just that if you have a bunch of ten numbers in front of you that end with each of ten digits, treating the die roll as a physical D10 isn’t unreasonable.

We don’t know whether Josh chose the correspondence before or after rolling.