Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Declaration of Victory: When You Wish

Failed 0-10. My head hurts from this one. DK

Adminned at 13 Jun 2012 20:20:18 UTC

In Dynasty 71, the interim Dji-Man granted my wish, which was to have all seven Chakras unblocked.

I am now Enlightened and have achieved victory.

If you are voting FOR on this, please indicate if you want Dynasty 100 to continue or if you’d prefer something new.



06-13-2012 06:18:08 UTC

against you rolled a 1, for the range of 70 to 79 that puts you in dynasty 70


06-13-2012 06:20:10 UTC

also did DK actually grant your wish? If so he should’ve updated the GNDT


06-13-2012 06:20:25 UTC

I have to move to the dynasty that “corresponds to the result”. In this case, I am taking ‘correspond’ to mean ‘the number in the unit column matches the die result’, which is non-standard but very justifiable.


06-13-2012 06:21:15 UTC

He did grant the wish - but my updating the GNDT to reflect the true state of the gamestate is acceptable in the event that he didn’t update it himself.


06-13-2012 06:21:50 UTC

you said your range was 70 to 79, what if you had rolled a 10? Correspond means “1” is the first one in the range, i.e. 70


06-13-2012 06:24:17 UTC

Correspond can mean what you say. It can also mean what I say. Sloppily worded rule, perhaps, but my interpretation is valid.

(In the event of a 10, I would have taken it as zero, i.e. 70.)


06-13-2012 06:25:37 UTC

even if it was legal, you wished that you would obtain victory. (by wishing for something that caused you to obtain victory) so it was still an illegal move


06-13-2012 06:27:03 UTC

By that logic, Kevan’s wish from the original Dynasty 71 was illegal. Wishing was the core mechanic of Dynasty 71, wishing for an effect that lead to victory was the point of the game.


06-13-2012 06:28:41 UTC

Also, this is a pending DoV with two competing interpretations of ambiguous validity. Please stop reverting the GNDT. Rule 3.2, “Instead of repeatedly reverting and re-reverting a disputed GNDT update, Time Monks are encouraged to raise a Call for Judgment instead.”


06-13-2012 06:30:41 UTC

furthermore, Dijin maps to Time Buddah and you didn’t PM the new time buddah as well.

EVEN FURTHER MORE dynasty 71 is lost.


06-13-2012 06:31:18 UTC

If you feel you move was legal, post a CfJ instead of re-reverting it.


06-13-2012 06:31:46 UTC

I did, he told me to take it to the Interim Dji-Man.

Re: lost, don’t make a hypocrite of yourself Clucky.


06-13-2012 06:32:19 UTC

I don’t need to CfJ, I’ve got a DoV up! People already get to vote for it!


06-13-2012 06:34:55 UTC

The DoV shouldn’t determine if the gamestate is right. It should determine if, given the gamestate is right, you win.

Also: If a Dynasty other than Dynasty 100 has no Historical Information listed, that Dynasty is considered Lost. Dynasty 100 cannot be Lost. If a Time Monk has a Lost Dynasty as their Occupied Dynasty, they may not perform any actions under the Dynastic Rules of that dynasty.

Dynasty 71 was Lost. You cannot perform any action under the dynastic rules of that dynastic.

Game over, your scam failed.


06-13-2012 06:38:08 UTC

Clucky, it will take me two seconds to the details filled out and the wish re-validated. If you want me to do that, fine.

The scam didn’t fail until people have voted on it. If it fails then revert by all means.

Until then, why exactly are you getting so belligerent over this? If you’re so certain that the win is illegitimate, then wait for it to be voted down. I don’t understand your hostility or aggression here.


06-13-2012 06:42:23 UTC

that assumes DK grants the wish again. He might’ve learned better. Also now that you have posted the CfJ, it will turn into “whoever can fail it and move to your dynasty and send DK the wish”. Assuming of course dynasty 71 is your legal dynasty.

Its probably your “No. Whatever I say counts, you have to post all the CfJs” attitude. I execute a loophole? NOPE GONNA REVERT IT YOU HAVE TO POST THE CFJ. You execute a loophole? NOPE YOU CANT REVERT IT YOU HAVE TO POST THE CFJ.


06-13-2012 06:42:55 UTC

*posted the DoV


06-13-2012 06:44:15 UTC

not to mention all this does is delay the game. which is annoying.


06-13-2012 06:48:33 UTC

Okay, if you have a problem with the way I’ve handled things then I apologise. This seems to have caused some tension, and that wasn’t my intent.

For the purposes of this DoV, I just wanted to ensure that the gamestate reflected what had gone on, so people can evaluate it. I have no problem with illegal gamestate being immediately reverted, but when there’s a vote currently pending on its validity it seems neater to me to have the issue at hand visible.

DK would have no reason not to grant my wish. The Dynasty 71 ruleset is quite clear about what the Djinn can refuse to validate, and changing Chakras is fairly clearly legitimate.

If you accept that dynasty 71 is my legal dynasty, then the victory is pretty straightforwardly watertight.


06-13-2012 06:55:27 UTC

Fair enough, It seems weird to reset something when a DoV fails though. Failing shouldn’t effect gamestate.

You never made the wish. You made something that you thought was a wish, but isn’t. So like I said, assuming this fails, someone just needs to move to your dynasty, actually make it unlost, and make the wish.

Also there is no clause in ruleset 71 about how fast DK must respond with the wish granted. So if he wants to, it is well within his rights to hold off granted the wish until we get the loophole plugged.


06-13-2012 06:56:44 UTC

Also the whole “lost” point is that your victory is the complete opposite of airtight. The dynasty was lost so you couldn’t make the wish. Strike one. ” reduce the Wishes of the adventurer who made the wish by 1, perform the results of the wish and announce any resultant gamestate or ruleset changes in a blog entry”, DK didn’t do any of this, strike 2.


06-13-2012 06:59:26 UTC

Yes, it all doesn’t work basically on technicalities. But given that your scam was build around technicalities, I see no reason why we shouldn’t use technicalities to stop you from winning.

Actually, now that I think about it. Anyone who doesn’t have a throat chaka can PM DK. It isn’t until he makes his post that it happens, so it could be a race for victory that way assuming he actually decides to get around to granting the wish.


06-13-2012 07:03:02 UTC

Why didn’t I make the wish? Again, assuming that I am in Dynasty 71 - and you’ve offered no compelling reason why I shouldn’t be, given that my interpretation of the rule is set out up there and remains unchallenged - then what I made was a legal wish, which was legally granted.

Also, it should be noted that this is neither a loophole nor a scam. It’s a valid use of the rules as they were written, both in dynasty 71 and in dynasty 100, and is exactly the way I saw this dynasty ending.

It’s true that DN could sit on the wish but that would be a jerk move, and would probably end up being the subject of a CfJ and another legal wrangle. Either way, his hypothetical response shouldn’t be part of this. If you’re annoyed that this DoV slows things down, then voting against it on the basis that the Djinn might not revalidate it - when he has already validated it once, and thus implicitly accepted its validity - seems like a false economy.


06-13-2012 07:05:11 UTC

“Anyone who doesn’t have a throat chaka can PM DK.”

True. I’m not sure that they can make wishes, given that either they or he would have to be active in Dynasty 71 for that rule to apply, but I’m sure that can be tested by a DoV.


06-13-2012 07:06:21 UTC

You didn’t make a wish, because you cannot take any actions under the dynastic rules for dynasty 71 because dynasty 71 is lost. You just sent DK a PM saying “I wish”.


06-13-2012 07:07:33 UTC

Right, but you don’t have a cloak, so it only costs 2 chromotons to join you in dynasty 71. Most players either have two, or are in dynasty 100 so can reset.


06-13-2012 07:09:48 UTC

Ah, right, that. I mean, it’s true to say that Dynasty 71 is lost and that I should have updated the UTD before doing anything, but that’s a really thin reason to vote against, given that it’s a trivial oversight. But fair enough, if you’re looking for an excuse to vote against then that will do.

For what it’s worth, if this fails on that basis I will simply re-fill out the UTD then resubmit the DoV, so all you’re doing is changing a two-day hiatus into a four-day one.


06-13-2012 07:36:05 UTC

Its more that re-filling the UTD. You need to fill the UTD, resend the PM, and get DK to make the post. And *anyone* can do that if they move to your dynasty.


“When a DoV is failed, if it has a number of AGAINST Votes that exceed Quorum, the Time Monk who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 120 hours (5 days) have passed since the time their DoV was failed.”

assuming enough people vote against this, someone else assuredly will be able to pull off this scam before you can make a DoV again.

so its not just delaying the inevitable


06-13-2012 07:45:23 UTC

So you’re not arguing with the legitimacy of the victory, you just have an emotional preference that some other than me get to use it?


06-13-2012 08:14:16 UTC

I’m going to attempt the impossible and try to refute this victory in a calm and reasonable manner.

against Darknight is not in Dynasty 71, so he cannot perform the action of granting a wish.


06-13-2012 08:35:57 UTC

[Purplebeard] Does he have to be? The way it’s written (you make a wish and “the Djinn must look at each wish”) it reads more like a third party being invoked to resolve an action; it would be equally legal to say that wishes were resolved by the binding opinion of specific human who wasn’t a player of BlogNomic.


06-13-2012 08:49:29 UTC

I honestly don’t know. I don’t think we’ve ever been in a situation where a game action can be performed by an entity who is not themselves subject to the rules.


06-13-2012 08:51:51 UTC

Purplebeard- This passage at least implies that rules in a dynastic ruleset can affect other players, even if they aren’t in that dynasty: “Whenever the ruleset of the Dynasty that a Time Monk is occupying permits them to change the value of another Time Monk’s GNDT field then they may do so using the same mapping, provided that the change makes sense”


06-13-2012 08:53:25 UTC

Also, the Time Buddha is themselves not subject to any dynastic rules outside 100 at present. That position would force the recession if a number of as from this dynasty.


06-13-2012 08:57:55 UTC

There’s also the precedent of “Purplebeard becomes the Time Buddha and Josh stops being the Time Buddha even though he is in a different dynasty”, of course.

I don’t think there’d be any problems with a non-player entity updating the gamestate, in a way described by the ruleset. Under Ruleset 71 Darknight does have to “perform the results of the wish” himself, though, and I can’t see that he’s done that.



06-13-2012 08:57:59 UTC

*reversion if a number of acts. Sorry, posting from a phone.


06-13-2012 09:00:31 UTC

But Kevan, what about prioritisation? The Djinn elects to grant the wish, then does all the other stuff. Thus, the value to do that stuff doors not affect the legality of the wish being granted.


06-13-2012 09:01:04 UTC

Oh, typos. You know what I mean.


06-13-2012 09:12:20 UTC

Josh: That passage permits one to perform game actions as if other Time Monks were in one’s Dynasty (this is what lead me to ask you to send your wish to Darknight). This is the other way around: Darknight performs a game action as if he were in your Dynasty.

Kevan: I’m starting to agree with you (although the passage “The Djinn must look at each wish…” is unenforceable at best).


06-13-2012 09:15:41 UTC

Sure, I mean, it establishes a principle that rulesets can be cross-permeable at best, I’m not saying that it categorically permits this specific instance.


06-13-2012 09:18:24 UTC

The second point still stands, though, in that if Darknight as the interim Emperor can’t perform his dynasty 71 actions, then the Emperor as Emperor can’t perform any action in any ruleset other than 100. If you hold to that, we have to revert a huge number of actions in this dynasty.


06-13-2012 09:19:35 UTC

(Including your becoming Time Buddha; if I’m not present in the Mutiny dynasty then I can’t participate in the Mutiny, so the Mutiny can’t take place as it requires my presence.)


06-13-2012 09:32:25 UTC

You couldn’t actively participate, but you could still be referenced, which is exactly my point. You may be right on most other actions, though. Just because the consequences are inconvenient doesn’t mean that it’s not a valid interpretation.

(By the way, I swear I’m not cherry-picking here to protect my own position; I’m not all that attached to my Time Buddha-ship)


06-13-2012 09:35:32 UTC

No, I don’t think you are, although I would argue that there’s no difference between active participation and passive participation - both require you to be present in the gamestate regulated by the ruleset in question.

I don’t know, because I wansn’t playing at the time, but in the dynasty where the game split into BLO, GNO and MIC rulesets, did any cross-referencing take place that we can use as a reference?


06-13-2012 09:37:08 UTC

However, if Darknight doesn’t exist for the purposes of Ruleset 71, then shouldn’t you have been the Djinn, and thus the person to approve or dis-approve the request?


06-13-2012 09:50:21 UTC

[Josh, re: prioritisation] Sure, there’s some mileage in other players generously correcting the oversights of others; if it would be okay to correct a single compulsory step of the process (if Darknight forgot to deduct 1 Wish), it’s okay to correct all of it.

Did Darknight actually grant the wish, though, or are you extending this to say that this too is a mere correction, as he (your words) “would have no reason not to grant my wish”? Darknight is a player in this game and would have a very clear reason not to grant a game-winning wish to a rival. The rule allows the Djinn to reject wishes arbitrarily; he is merely “supposed to” grant them, with an example list of reasons which he is “not limited to”.


06-13-2012 09:53:32 UTC

Josh: You must obey a rule that says Darknight is the Time Buddha, so he’s the one to contact, even though, to him, I’m the Time Buddha. Or perhaps your presence in Dynasty 71 immediately elevated Darknight to the position for the purposes of all Dynasties.

Actually, I think everything works under Kevan’s interpretation: any Time Monk, including the Time Buddha, can then be permitted to perform game actions by rules even if they’re not subject to those rules, as long as the relevant rules specifically point to them.


06-13-2012 09:54:00 UTC

Yes, by PM. I mean, you’re going to have to await Darknight’s word, but I think you can trust me not to lie on this. I will happily scam, but lying to cheat is a bit beyond me.

If you would like a screenshot to verify then I’ll happily provide it. Otherwise, we’ll just have to wait for DN. Sorry.


06-13-2012 09:54:51 UTC

@PB - I will agree with that.


06-13-2012 12:05:24 UTC

Hey, I’m not familiar with the Djinn Dynasty, but I think I remember wishes were supposed to affect “the universe”, as it was described in wikipedia. Are the seven Chakras from the GNDT referenced in wikipedia?


06-13-2012 12:15:16 UTC

For reference, here’s the ruleset - - the word ‘Universe’ doesn’t appear in the rule pertaining to wishes.


06-13-2012 12:22:07 UTC

against on the basis that I think you tried to scam the wrong dynasty (I think you should have ended up in dynasty 70). Torn on whether it works apart from that.


06-13-2012 12:30:39 UTC

Actually quite surprised by the response to this. I thought it was pretty solid, certainly didn’t expect it to go down unanimously.

Still, if Kevan, Purplebeard and ais all think it’s illegitimate - and each for a different reason, no less - then it’s probably not on the right track.  against to get out of haitus quicker.


06-13-2012 13:30:10 UTC

against  on technicalities.


06-13-2012 14:55:03 UTC

> So you’re not arguing with the legitimacy of the victory, you just have an emotional preference that some other than me get to use it?

Now I *am* starting to get a little peeved. I’ve presented three different arguments that show why the victory is illegitimate and you accuse me of voting on “emotional preference”? “emotional preference” has nothing to do with it, you cut corners where corners shouldn’t be cut.


06-13-2012 15:09:51 UTC

> If you would like a screenshot to verify then I’ll happily provide it. Otherwise, we’ll just have to wait for DN. Sorry.

Why are we waiting for DN to do anything? The gamestate change happens when he makes the blog post. “reduce the Wishes of the adventurer who made the wish by 1, perform the results of the wish and announce any resultant gamestate or ruleset changes in a blog entry” makes it pretty clear DN has to be the one that performs the results of the wish and announce the change. Unless you’re arguing that part isn’t atomic.

Furthermore, you haven’t refuted the “Dynasty 71 is lost” claim yet outside of a “Well it would’ve been super easy for me to make it unlost” argument. Given my CfJ failed because Toybox/Dynasty100 was blank, you don’t have any precedent to make that claim.


06-13-2012 15:21:58 UTC

Clucky, I have voted against this. It is failing. Have some dignity and leave it along.


06-13-2012 15:29:16 UTC

against For precedent on references to non-gamestate thing, there is a rule in Aaron’s Dynasty, the one right after my first, that does stuff based on a RL Greek Market index.

I personally believe that the wish for Chakras is legitimate, and DK is SUPPOSED to grant the wish, however I don’t think this makes DK legally obligated to automatically grant said wish. While if DK refuses to grant said wish, he must reply with the reasons for not granting it, this does not mean that failing to reply makes the wish automatically granted. Indeed the Djinn is supposed to positively enact the wish by, in fact, enacting the wish. If DK would refuse to grant said wish, Josh could appeal via CfJ and force it to be granted anyway, but we haven’t got that CfJ out yet.

I think this is moot because of an improper jump, however.


06-13-2012 16:05:34 UTC

I’m a bit uncomfortable with the legality of Josh performing the compulsory actions that Darknight failed to take. How to react to players ignoring compulsory (but decision-free) actions is something we should probably address in the appendices.

I’m more uncomfortable with the idea that a piece of clever gameplay is still acceptable even if the player failed to perform all of it (most critically updating the UTD to activate the ruleset, but also posting the Djinn’s blog entry). I know that DoVs are an informal vote, and it wouldn’t be unreasonable for them to be presented as “here’s how I could win unambiguously from the current gamestate, so let’s not drag it out”, but I don’t think there’s a lot of precedent for it. (And I’m not sure the win would be unambiguous; if Josh had gone through due process, an alert rival might have noticed the wiki update and contacted Darknight, bribing them to reject the imminent wish.)

[Rodney] Darknight apparently did grant the wish through a private message, but didn’t post to the blog as required.


06-13-2012 16:14:43 UTC

Kevan - I feel like the actions I performed were legal. Once DN granted the wish, he created a gamestate that wasn’t reflected by the GNDT. Consider this: I didn’t make the posts that he was obliged to make, so it’s not the case that I was performing actions on his behalf as a proxy; instead, I was acting to ensure that the GNDT reflected the gamestate, as detailed in the Glossary. I stand by the legality of that, but would be open to including it in the CfJ series if you’d like it to be separately resolved.

Re. the missing stages, I’ll accept that that’s a legitimate ground for complaint, and did so to Clucky above. I think that it’s also acceptable, however, to ignore minor infractions for the sake of gameplay continuity. If an issue boils down to “I could vote against this, but it would be trivial to fix and then we’d face another DoV on the exact same basis” then as a player I would be inclined to let it slide 98% of the time. I think that the knowledge that the victory clause remains open, and that it can be trivially sniped if the DoV does fail, makes it more of an issue of conscience. Winning dynasties on technicalities is all fair game, and it’s not lost on me that I basically stole the victory for this dynasty from Murphy, but I am generally unhappy to send the game to a fastest-finger-first situation, as “who is online when the hiatus ends” is the lowest possible (and least-interesting) bar to victory imaginable.

Ultimately, though, the UTD is a frustrating but legitimate oversight, and a very viable reason to vote against.


06-13-2012 16:34:30 UTC

ADDITIONAL NOTE: Any failed DoV prevents the maker from making another DoV within five (six?) days, so it’s not “first admin to fail this wins”, it’s “first admin not Josh to fail this wins”, which is kinda tacky, considering Josh found the loophole in the first place. If Josh fails it, he could warp out and we’d carry out the Dynasty, at least until the next guy warped in.


06-13-2012 16:44:19 UTC

[Josh] You updated the GNDT gamestate; Darknight is the only player that the rules permitted to update that gamestate. The rule isn’t “the gamestate magically updates and the Djinn should record this”, it is (and quite rightly) “the Djinn updates the gamestate”.

Agreed that trivial sniping is bad, but if we want to allow pre-emptive DoVs, we should put that in the rules so that everyone’s playing the same way. It’d be unfair for a bunch of players to be carefully arranging their final, intricate gameplans to make sure they get everything right, only to be pipped by a hastily written “if I did the following things without making any mistakes, I’d win” DoV from someone else. (A DoV which would presumably have a lot of strange “but you forgot to reverse the polarity!” “well, I could have done, so imagine I did that too” discussions in voting.)


06-13-2012 16:49:54 UTC

I thought it was canonical that the GNDT reflected gamestate but was not itself gamestate - thus “In the event that the Gamestate and the GNDT are different, any Time Monk may correct the GNDT to comply with the Gamestate.”

I don’t think we allow pre-emptive DoVs, and nor should we. I think some players can sometimes chose to vote in a way that acknowledges the reality of a situation, but as I said above, choosing not to do that is legitimate and correct.


06-13-2012 16:55:15 UTC

My mistake, I thought the Wish rule explicitly said that the Djinn updated the gamestate, but it just says that he must “perform the results of the wish”, which I suppose he could just do by waving his hands and not telling anybody.


06-13-2012 17:05:07 UTC

Right, but I would still argue the “reduces wishes by one, perform wish, make a blogpost” is atomic, and so because he didn’t make the blogpost it doesn’t count until the blogpost is made.

> ADDITIONAL NOTE: Any failed DoV prevents the maker from making another DoV within five (six?) days, so it’s not “first admin to fail this wins”, it’s “first admin not Josh to fail this wins”, which is kinda tacky, considering Josh found the loophole in the first place. If Josh fails it, he could warp out and we’d carry out the Dynasty, at least until the next guy warped in.

Right, but someone can just say “Range: 70-79. Oh look, I rolled an 8. Good thing my correspondence says 8 maps to 71” So unless DK chooses to not grant wishes, this dynasty is basically over after this gets 3 more against votes and a couple more hours pass.

Also maybe its just me, but I find the “Josh showed everyone a loophole to win, but now everyone but him (and me, due to my Throat) can use it because he messed up the first time” delightfully nomicy.


06-13-2012 21:15:59 UTC

On further thought, this isn’t quite so dire, because, as possibly ascertained by this very DoV-failure, DK actually needs to post for the Wish to come true. During that time before he does, any number of other Time Monks can jump to Dynasty 71, and wish “I wish all Chakra wishes were undone/I wish all Chakra fields were blank.” It is conceivable that it is in fact the LAST Time Monk to mail in who gets the victory. Game on!


06-13-2012 21:20:25 UTC

Actually, given that Darknight can pick and chose which requests to allow, I suspect that the Time Monk who will achieve victory is, in fact, Darknight.

Game off!


06-13-2012 21:39:36 UTC

against Darknight cannot win; the Time Buddha cannot win his own dynasty.


06-13-2012 21:45:07 UTC

He can go in, send himself the request, move out then approve it.


06-13-2012 21:58:42 UTC

Actually this is complicated.

If Darknight enters dynasty 71, he becomes Time Buddha until he leaves. Does he become Time Buddha for the purposes of dynasty 100 as well? I don’t think he displaces Purplebeard, he just becomes a kind of secondary Time Buddha until he leaves dynasty 71, which under the current ruleset he can never do.

So in order to win he would need an accomplice to wish it for him.


06-13-2012 22:04:33 UTC

The rule says “Darknight is the Time Buddah”. I think that means he is currently time buddah, not Purplebeard because you moved there after Purplebeard became Time Buddah. I also think the rule makes Darknight Time Buddah, and unless something else makes someone else the Time Buddah, he stays that even if everyone abandons the dynasty.

Still needs two more against votes by my count before we have to really start worrying about all that though.


06-14-2012 00:28:48 UTC

Dynasty 100 says that only a Time Monk in Dynasty 71 would be subject to its Dynastic rules, and thus for any Time Monk in Dynasty 71, Darknight would be Time Buddha for them. So, with Josh being in Dynasty 71, Darknight is HIS Time Buddha, but Purplebeard is Time Buddha for everyone else.

But also, the Time Buddha is not subject to the Dynastic rules of Dynasty 100, and by extension also the Dynastic rules of Dynasty 71, so we would end up with a minor paradox if Darknight were to enter Dynasty 71, since as a Time Monk, he would become Time Buddha, but immediately cease to be subject to the rule making him Time Buddha, thus reverting him to Time Monk.

I love time travel.


06-14-2012 02:34:14 UTC



06-14-2012 03:17:57 UTC



06-14-2012 03:18:01 UTC

against ..... my head