Sunday, January 05, 2025

Call for Judgment: Unidle thoughts

Unidle the Idle Snail named “Habanero”, except that when doing so, set that (formerly Idle) Snail’s Position to 0 and Plays to 0 rather than setting them to the values which they would normally gain upon unidling. This overrides any restrictions in the dynastic rules that might prevent setting those values.

The current rules place three requirements on the admin who unidles Habanero which, as far as we can tell, can’t all be fulfilled simultaneously (thus making attempts to unidle Habanero illegal). This CFJ thus unidles Habanero into a valid gamestate that’s minimally viable for participating in the current Race.

This solution was suggested by Habanero; I’m posting it because Idle Snails can’t create CFJs.

Comments

Habanero:

05-01-2025 17:32:40 UTC

May want to correct the spelling of my name to have this actually do anything. Typo notwithstanding this has my vote

ais523:

05-01-2025 17:34:26 UTC

Odd; I was consistently right in the commentary and consistently wrong in the body of the CFJ. It should be fixed now, though.

Habanero:

05-01-2025 17:35:37 UTC

Wait a minute, I can’t actually vote on this because I’m idle. Dang it

JonathanDark: he/him

05-01-2025 17:46:14 UTC

The superseding language is probably redundant. Unless the resulting gamestate values are illegal (not the steps to get there, but the end result) CfJ instructions should allow pretty much any operations.

That’s how I’ve always interpreted it, anyway.

ais523:

05-01-2025 17:51:03 UTC

I also think it’s redundant, but added it just in case – it would be a huge problem to be uncertain as to whether or not a player is idle, as that could amplify into uncertainty as to whether or not a DoV legally passed, which could in turn leave us uncertain as to whether or not a dynasty has ended or not. The CFJ rule states that it can’t be overruled by dynastic rules, but doesn’t explicitly state that it ignores restrictions in dynastic rules, so I stated that in the CFJ for safety.

Josh: he/they

05-01-2025 19:04:51 UTC

against I’d be happy for Habanero to rejoin the dynasty - after this race, when all of the attendant issues become easier to resolve.

Josh: he/they

05-01-2025 19:06:33 UTC

(I might shift my vote on this if Proposal: The old activity poke looks like passing.)

Josh: he/they

05-01-2025 19:07:05 UTC

Oh, sorry, I didn’t notice that this was within the 4 hour window. Apologies.

Habanero:

05-01-2025 19:36:13 UTC

To be honest I might not unidle at all if this fails, this ruleset is an absolute beast and I had a good grasp of it before (being there while it was getting built) but I’ve sort of lost it

Josh: he/they

05-01-2025 19:41:17 UTC

I don’t know that I’ve ever had it, completely.

I’m not a million miles away from proposing to lower the victory threshhold, or chop. I can conceieve of ways to straighten everything out but they are major.

JonathanDark: he/him

05-01-2025 20:35:31 UTC

Let’s at least wait until this Race is done, and then see where we are at.

ais523:

05-01-2025 22:47:08 UTC

I don’t think I’d be too opposed to a merit-random outcome either (although there might be a lot of debate about what the right probabilities are, and whether to do it after race 4, 5 or 6).

I feel like I’ve had a grip on most parts of the dynastic ruleset at some point or other, but have difficulty remembering the whole thing at once, and that often leads to accidentally skipping steps when taking actions.

JonathanDark: he/him

07-01-2025 02:06:27 UTC

for

You must be registered and logged in to post comments.