The edit summary of “mine!” might be a poor description of “I pick up one of the items that players can pick up and claim it as my own!”, but it seems adequate to meet the current ruleset requirements of “a description”.

I’d be happy to see clearer edit summaries (maybe even specifying an edit summary format for each action in Rule 2.4.1), but I don’t think Coppro broke any rules here.

“Mine!” might be - if looked at very open-mindedly - a description of the object he gained, but certainly not a description of the act of gaining it and even less so a description of the action that led to him gaining it, the Step.

I’d have been fine with “going here”, “walking”, “taking a walk” or whatever because there’d have been some connection to the process of stepping and the action Step that was involved. I cannot see any connection to Step, changing a Square or moving here.

Yeah, there has to actually be a broken rule before an action is reverted, not a broken aspiration.

On the specifics, I’d still go . I think that the current ruleset is more than sufficient to ensure that reverting a string on illegal actions is simplified, and I suspect that the increase in accounting burden doesn’t add enough security to justify itself.

Yep. The rules seem to be clear enough to ensure clarity. We may have to make a judgement on whether rules are clear or not, but that’s dependant on the situation, not a failing of the rules.

Ahem, sorry? If “mine!” is a description of taking a step, I will descripe my next crate with “Ouch” because of the splinter, the next trap with “Ooh” because I admire it and the next Shoving with “Tip tap”.

That’s a great way to have lots of fun, certainly, think of all the things that can be described with “Ooh”, since it is just an exclamation of surprise.

The rule require a description. This CfJ should determine wether or not “mine!” is a description of taking a step because that was the action that coppro tried to perform. If it is, then truly everything is a description. Is ” ” a description? Yeah, it points to the nothingness that is where I was before. Wow.

:-(

Sure, it’s not a particularly good description, and it’s very slightly ambiguous (at a stretch, it could also have meant “I am blocking an opponent from reaching something which I consider to be mine!”), but the rules just require “a description”.

I think “mine!” is fair enough as a description of “I am claiming the only thing I can claim in this game - a thing I have picked up from a crate!”, and the only way to do that is to step into its square, so I think it’s fair enough as a summarised description of the entire process.

As a reminder, if not defined by the rules the common english definition is used. So, just think about the common english definition of “description” and judge wether or not “mine!” fits it.

(I really wonder how this can be a question at all….)

IMHO descriptions should be more accurate. However, declaring the action illeagal is too hard.

Sorry if I was a little emotional today. I just counted and about a quarter of my wiki edits in the last couple of days were reverts of other peoples illegal moves. Those are a pain, so everything that makes people log single steps with really proper comment helps.

The point of individual edits is to make a clear trail of actions. That’s more important that the log.

waitaminute

[Coppro] I assume that’s “wait a minute, I can get my AP back and make a better move with it now” rather than “I agree that brief edit summaries are illegal”?

Kevan: Nice. I’d probably have written “rather than ‘I agree that almost completly unrelated one-word shout-outs are no legal description.’”

Yeah. I’m a jerk.

BlogNomic really needs to work out if CFJs are for working out what was legal, or for correcting wrongs. I thought the intended use of CFJs, other than for recovering a broken gamestate, was for them to make a change that the majority of people would think was a no-op, in order to make sure that everyone agreed as to what the resulting gamestate was. However, I’m no longer sure that that’s what other people think they’re for.

I agree with ais253. I thought at first that CfJ’s are for determining which Gamestate is legal if there was no consensus, but the times when I saw CfJ’s that just judged (as in Call for judgment) wether or not some action was legal, they were closed by an admin for not changing anything.

Which I thought was frustrating.

Wasn’t this proposing a no-op? If the majority of players were playing as if “description” meant “unambiguous description”, we’d have voted this through, clarified the ruleset to underline how we were all playing the game, and undone a clearly illegal action. This CfJ is phrased at the urgent-proposal end of the spectrum (“I want a clear description of what is going on”), but can be read as a simple no-op.

If we’re taking a vote to resolve an ambiguous rule, it seems useful to write down that resolution somewhere - if we’d voted through a CfJ of “descriptions should be unambiguous” without updating the ruleset, then we’d risk a new (or inattentive) player making the exact same misunderstanding a week later.

As far as I understand it, a CfJ is there to determine the “correct” interpretation of the rules - where the majority decides. This may or may not result in correction of the gamestate, depending on context.

Anduril: Per current Ruleset, a CfJ may be failed by an admin if it does not change Gamestate or Rules.

Quite - So once the correct interpretation is decided, rules are changed if the gamestate isn’t. Anyway, your above statement doesn’t require the CfJ to be failed, only that it “may” be.