It seems to be implied that you would have just accepted paying the additional turn costs, if you had enough;  so I would suggest maybe simply upholding everything that has happened so far, setting your turns to whatever negative number it would be if you could have negative turns, and proceeding from there.

Depending on how negative than number would be, I can also see a situation where we would just “cancel your debt” and set your turns to 0;  even though you gained the benefits of those actions, you’re still paying a much higher cost than you thought you would have, almost to a crippling degree..  So I would not be too against applying some debt forgiveness, which would also result in a much simpler fix to this.

(simpler because it wouldn’t involve additional rules to handle this one-time-only negative turns case)

I’m not sure that’s completely fair - it strikes me as a bit of a stitch-up between those who benefit from the status quo, one of whom of course is me, to an extent. But I do think that reversion is fairer, as upholding the status quo still allows those who are currently ahead to remain ahead on the basis of illegally generated gamestate. My preference would be for the much fairer approach of a blank slate reversion, in which players get their moves back and can go on to claim the corresponding benefits legally on the basis of correct gamestate.

Does this put any monks over 20 turns? If so we should fix that

I personally lead more towards debt forgiveness. I feel like its unfair to punish a player who made a good play simply because the board was in a bad state.

Is “Revert the Mosaic to its state prior to this edit” talking about the whole wiki page, or just the part of it called the Mosaic? If it’s the latter and the restore/revert of other gamestate is intended to be separate - why is that separate? (Processing them separately would appear to advantage Josh by saying to set the Mosaic to how it was before he built that Pennant, but to set his Guilders to how they were after he built that Pennant.)

I don’t like the idea of winding the entire gamestate back every time we someone makes a mistake that others have built upon. It means that any effort put into any given turn might end up wasted, if it’s revealed that someone took an illegal action three days earlier. And it amplifies the chilling effect of uncertainty - if somebody questions another’s action even mildly, that’s a reason not to put too much time and effort into game actions until the situation is resolved.

Case-by-case repair seems fine and fair here. We look at the player’s moves, and we make a call on what mix of reversion and endorsement we feel is appropriate. That can be negotiated with the player if they’re open to it and if there’s time, or imposed on them against their complaints if they’re being uncooperative. Or they can (as I guess is happening here, and as is fairly traditional) try to get in first with their own preferred resolution to see if other players will accept it, closing the case. It’s all part of the game.

Is “Revert the Mosaic to its state prior to this edit” talking about the whole wiki page, or just the part of it called the Mosaic? If it’s the latter and the restore/revert of other gamestate is intended to be separate - why is that separate? (Processing them separately would appear to advantage Josh by saying to set the Mosaic to how it was before he built that Pennant, but to set his Guilders to how they were after he built that Pennant.)

Unduely conspiratorial. I would expect this CfJ to revert my Turn use and guilder gain from the problematic turn, same as everyone else.

It doesn’t revert the whole gamestate as that would revert the blanket 3 turn gain accrued from a subsequent proposal, as well as meaning that the weekly turn accretion clock is reset, while allowing people to have access to their turns seems fairer.

I’m engaging with this point in good faith but the whole empty comment seems like a justification for you trying to maintain a status quo that works well for you. You would rather we dug through each individual move to check what’s legal and what isn’t? Are you going to do that? Because I’ve tried and it’s a headache.

The wording doesn’t line up for that, though - it says “Revert the Mosaic to its state prior to this edit” and “Revert any Guilder gain by any Monk since the timestamp of that edit”. The Mosaic goes back to how it was before you built an invalid Pennant, and you keep the 5 Guilder from building that Pennant.

I’ve also tried to dig through individual moves and agree that it hurts the head. When I talk of case-by-case repair I just mean the “this is a mess, let’s just say the Mosaic is valid but Josh loses X points, and move on” level, where the reasoning isn’t too detailed and the affected player isn’t expected to produce elaborate counter-arguments either.

The wording doesn’t line up for that, though - it says “Revert the Mosaic to its state prior to this edit” and “Revert any Guilder gain by any Monk since the timestamp of that edit”. The Mosaic goes back to how it was before you built an invalid Pennant, and you keep the 5 Guilder from building that Pennant.

I would not read it that way nor would I expect it to be, and suspect that any enactment based on that reading wouldn’t stand. Shifty reason to vote against.

The uphold-and-move-on is ease at the expense of fairness. It is easier but it still benefits a narrow range of players who are already ahead, on the basis of an illegal gamestate.

That’s not my reason for voting against, it’s just something I noticed. My main reason is that I don’t like the rollback idea - it’s frustrating to render meaningless all board actions taken during the week so far (with the implication that this is now a precedent and could happen in any future week as well), and it discourages further gameplay while the CfJ is pending.

i have done a few of these “reset time back to X” CfJs myself and they almost always end up stifling gameplay in the meantime. as there are other cleaner options open for resolving this