Wednesday, April 19, 2023

Call for Judgment: Tower of Babel [Victory]

Timed out 2 votes to 5. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 22 Apr 2023 10:47:32 UTC

By passage of this CfJ the player called Josh has achieved Victory in this dynasty.

So I’ve hard-locked the game by setting the building number to a number so high that only I can carry out any dynastic actions. It’s a fun scam but not currently directly Victory-enabled (yet, although I don’t expect the proposal that would plug it in to make it through til morning.)

However, the game can only proceed now if you unwind most of its existing mechanics and fools gold most of its existing resources. It’s a reset situation, and like Brendan’s victory in Habanero I, the argument here is simple: if we’re resetting the game then we should use the existing mechanism for dynastic resets.

Comments

Lulu: she/her

19-04-2023 22:37:18 UTC

for BlogNomic is weird

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

19-04-2023 22:48:25 UTC

for A hard-ish lock is a little sloppy, but I still respect the scam.

Josh: he/they

19-04-2023 23:13:05 UTC

Oh, just to be safe: I’m performing an Inspection.

Lulu: she/her

19-04-2023 23:21:07 UTC

imperial Hang on, thinking about this some more

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

20-04-2023 04:23:51 UTC

CoV against

an Engineer who has at least as many Safety Checks as there are Gaps, or at least as many Safety Checks as the current Building Number

“or” being the key word that will let Engineers perform a Build up to a certain point, some more than others. While it’s not practical to catch up to Josh in Safety Checks, dynastic actions are in fact not prevented.

Taiga: he/him

20-04-2023 04:26:53 UTC

Also I think your Inspection may have added too many Safety Checks (if that even matters anymore). There is only 1 Gap in the Building, not 3. So you add 1+1=2 Safety Checks, not 1+3=4. (I think) against

Taiga: he/him

20-04-2023 04:38:44 UTC

So I guess you should also re-roll the Stability decrement?

Josh: he/they

20-04-2023 07:29:00 UTC

I think you folks are missing the point somewhat; the question here isn’t “is the game hard-locked”, it’s “can it be progressed in a way that isn’t essentially resetting the dynasty and making most of its resources, mechanics and progress to date irrelevant in the process”. If this fails, then what?

It has never been outside of your capability to unjam the gamestate - if it was I’d arguably have the much larger problem of the fair play prohibition on “do[ing] any action meant to make the game unplayable”. The argument here is essentially one of practicality.

Josh: he/they

20-04-2023 07:32:10 UTC

@Taiga Quite right re safety checks, thanks. Have corrected.

Kevan: he/him

20-04-2023 08:00:09 UTC

against The game can obviously also proceed by proposing or CfJing to change one line in the ruleset and to rewind the wiki gamestate page a couple of steps, which is what we’d do if we hit this situation by accident. “if we’re resetting the game then we should use the existing mechanism for dynastic resets” is an idea we’ve floated before, but the current ruleset doesn’t say anything like that.

There’s also no victory condition in the ruleset at present. An argument of “given enough time, only I could win from this point” might hold a little water, but “given enough time and a majority voting through a victory condition where Safety Checks count towards victory, only I could win” holds none. (I didn’t understand this argument during Habanero I either.)

Lulu: she/her

20-04-2023 11:47:37 UTC

against

Brendan: he/him

20-04-2023 13:39:58 UTC

for  it would be quite hypocritical of me to oppose this.

jjm3x3: he/him

21-04-2023 14:56:32 UTC

against