Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Call for Judgment: uh-oh; I had an oopsie

Timed out and enacted, 3-0. Josh

Adminned at 22 Mar 2024 16:09:36 UTC

Uphold the action where Chiiika set her Private Criteria to include 30daf7b3b83f87396258e7c30211f0a23367f33f57d1c3055b5f62949f6a46b3 and 3600b793e6c5f658028f482626b551e3c49c605f294e591fe2e3b2ffbc6c6b94 performed at 09:31, 15 March 2024 as legal.

When I was generating new criterias I found that two of my old criteria is over 50 characters (thought it was 50 words) but can be expressed under 50 characters, namely
- Secret Criteria: there is a kind of public transport stop in the picture, Hash: 30daf7b3b83f87396258e7c30211f0a23367f33f57d1c3055b5f62949f6a46b3, Salt: n983L, Created at: 2024-03-15 17:25:11 HKT
-> can be simplified to “there is a public transport stop in the picture”
- Secret Criteria: characters from two or more kinds of language exist in the picture, Hash: 3600b793e6c5f658028f482626b551e3c49c605f294e591fe2e3b2ffbc6c6b94, Salt: b0RFW, Created at: 2024-03-15 17:30:00 HKT
-> can be simplified to “two or more kinds of language exist in the picture”


Josh: he/they

20-03-2024 07:37:53 UTC

Normally I’d object to the overly-broad scope of this - without going back through the action log line by line I don’t know that you haven’t, say, illegally edited gamestate values, or done something else illegal that could get caught up in the dragnet of this blanket absolution.

That’s especially important as some of the gamestate here is secret and is privately tracked by yourself, so no-one else can audit it.

If you see this within the edit window and and edit it to be more precise in scope then that would be useful I think.

Chiiika: she/her

20-03-2024 08:16:04 UTC

yeah, i just see this after a semi-botched test

Kevan: City he/him

20-03-2024 08:52:56 UTC

This is still a little broad if I’m reading it correctly: upholding a single action automatically also validates that “all attempted game actions taken after it were attempted as if the Upheld action had been successful” - you don’t need to explicitly uphold all the scoring that was based on it.

Josh: he/they

20-03-2024 09:12:03 UTC

Yeah, I think you can limit this to “uphold that Chiiika’s private criteria with the hashes x and y were validly set” and leave it at that.

Clucky: he/him

21-03-2024 00:07:08 UTC


JonathanDark: he/him

21-03-2024 05:29:19 UTC