I think that “that position in that Agent’s Route has an Extra Spot that is Connected to it” means “the Spot at that position in that Agent’s Route has an Extra Spot that is Connected to it”. The first sentence of “Routes” is “Each Agent has a Route, being a string of Spots which is privately tracked by the Concierge.” – in other words, Routes are made of Spots. A position of a Route, therefore, is a Spot by definition.

If this is ruled to be broken, it also affects more than just the most recent Breaking In – the results of the second Breaking In are probably also going to be different.

The first Breaking In too, come to think of it – when I caught a Burglar it was likely with an Extra Spot rather than my own location.

This is important because the way the CFJ is written, it doesn’t uphold the first two Breaking Ins. So if the CFJ says to revert the third Breaking In, it will revert to a gamestate in which the first two Breaking Ins were also wrong. (In fact, if your reasoning is correct – and I don’t think it is – it’s highly likely that the second and third Breaking Ins didn’t occur at all due to the first one having been illegal and thus not resetting the Civilians and Guards.)

Just to point out, this will reverse a *lot* more than expected. To give a couple of examples, it’ll include my idling, and the posting and enactment of proposals.

because I don’t think the wording suggested in the CFJ (i.e. that the Extra Spot handling is entirely meaningless rather than using the Spot at the position in the route) is correct.

SingularByte’s concern is indeed valid, but I would still be AGAINST even if a revised CFJ were made to address it.

(The CFJ would also revert its own posting and enactment. I’m not sure how we handle that – it might be an actual paradox. Plausibly, any attempt to enact it would fail due to the enactment not actually being possible.)

Fair enough. Looks like it will be easier to just uphold everything that happened so far and fix the wording to be more clear.