Round 9/Rulings - Revision history

RandomNetCat: 11 revisions imported: Import Miraheze archive 2022-10-29

2022-11-25T02:09:24Z

11 revisions imported: Import Miraheze archive 2022-10-29

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:09, 25 November 2022
(No difference)

miraheze>CodeTriangle: make the table of contents more sensible

2021-07-23T23:09:49Z

make the table of contents more sensible

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:09, 23 July 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''This is not representative of the current/final judge rulings. We lost track of everything.'''		<span style="float: right;">__TOC__</span>'''This is not representative of the current/final judge rulings. We lost track of everything.'''

	'''Despite the standard header above used for gamestate tracking documents from Round 9, I believe that this document is correct. --[[User:CodeTriangle\|CodeTriangle]] ([[User talk:CodeTriangle\|talk]]) 23:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)'''		'''Despite the standard header above used for gamestate tracking documents from Round 9, I believe that this document is correct. --[[User:CodeTriangle\|CodeTriangle]] ([[User talk:CodeTriangle\|talk]]) 23:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)'''

miraheze>CodeTriangle: ugtates

2021-07-23T23:08:59Z

ugtates

Show changes

miraheze>CodeTriangle: add some forgotten cases

2021-07-23T21:48:16Z

add some forgotten cases

Show changes

2A02:8071:B68F:9100:7936:E009:1AB3:7262 at 21:32, 4 May 2021

2021-05-04T21:32:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:32, 4 May 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
			'''This is not representative of the current/final judge rulings. We lost track of everything.'''

	== Ruling 1 ==		== Ruling 1 ==

miraheze>Nyhilo: Ruling 31

2021-04-15T19:44:33Z

Ruling 31

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:44, 15 April 2021
Line 330:		Line 330:
	;Ruling \| Judge Random Internet Cat		;Ruling \| Judge Random Internet Cat
	: Response: "false". I find that the wording only permits acting on future scouting rolls ("If the duck ... goes on a scouting mission"), rather than past rolls.		: Response: "false". I find that the wording only permits acting on future scouting rolls ("If the duck ... goes on a scouting mission"), rather than past rolls.

			== Ruling 31 ==
			;2021-04-15 \| Wotton
			: Requesting judgement on the following: "The actions in [https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/831893775608709173 the message] replied being replied to took place simultaneously."

			;Ruling \| Judge Random Internet Cat
			: Response: "false". "Such actions take place in the order specified in the message (or in the order they appear, if no order is specified)." The action of performing a Quacktion is default-method: "The following actions are designated "Quacktions" and can be performed by posting intent to do so in #game-actions.".

miraheze>Nyhilo: Rulings 27, 28, 29, 30

2021-04-15T19:42:18Z

Rulings 27, 28, 29, 30

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:42, 15 April 2021
Line 293:		Line 293:
	;Ruling \| Judge Random Internet Cat		;Ruling \| Judge Random Internet Cat
	: Response: "the latter". It would be the former if it said "each duck" rather than "all ducks".		: Response: "the latter". It would be the former if it said "each duck" rather than "all ducks".


			== Ruling 27 ==
			;2021-04-08 \| Wotton
			: requesting judgement on the following: "If an action contains long clarifying sentences its text can be considered obfuscated in virtue of that fact alone."

			;Ruling \| Judge Random Internet Cat
			: Response: "no". The fact that an action is accompanied by explanatory sentences does not necessarily imply that the action itself is obfuscated.

			: Consider the following hypothetical message by not me:
			<blockquote>
			I feed Random Internet Cat's duck Random Internet Duck.

			This action is permissible under Rule "Ducks", subrule "Feeding Ducks", sentence 1, as Random Internet Duck was a duck that was duly created, and belongs to Random Internet Cat, who is a player due to the fact that e posted intent to join the round at some point and has not since left the round. In my next message, I will instruct a bot in this Discord Guild to generate a random number in order to fulfill the effects of the action, being that Random Internet Duck gains 1d6 quacks, which has been found to be permissible by precedent that generation of the random number in the following message is sufficient to "specify" the parameter of the action.
			</blockquote>
			: The action itself here is clear and has not itself been obfuscated. The fact that the accompanying text is clarifying, but unnecessary, does not invalidate the action. This may be different if the explanation itself contained an action.

			== Ruling 28 ==
			;2021-04-09 \| ATMunn
			: I request judgement on the following statement: "A duck (with at least 5 quacks, of course) may perform the quacktion Hatch Egg with a God Egg."

			;Ruling \| Judge Random Internet Cat
			: Response: "no". Eggs and God Eggs are distinct.

			== Ruling 29 ==
			;2021-04-12 \| Wotton
			: requesting judgement: [https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/831202932480671784 This retrieval attempt] is missing the '''ul''', but it would have failed no matter which die roll is associated with which duck; Was the attempt illegal?

			;Ruling \| Judge Random Internet Cat
			: Response: "Yes". The standard is still to specify a specific random roll for each attempt. Because the result was sorted, the distributions were not equivalent to what was mandated, and thus the specification was invalid.

			== Ruling 30 ==
			;2021-04-12 \| ATMunn
			: I request judgement on the following: "If I were to feed Turkey a Grapemelon Smoothie right now, I would be able to change its potential quack roll."

			;Ruling \| Judge Random Internet Cat
			: Response: "false". I find that the wording only permits acting on future scouting rolls ("If the duck ... goes on a scouting mission"), rather than past rolls.

miraheze>Nyhilo: Add Rulings 24, 25, 26

2021-04-04T01:08:50Z

Add Rulings 24, 25, 26

@@ Line 242: / Line 242: @@
 ;Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat | OVERTURNED
 : Response: "true". The Duck Disciple, as defined in the rules, is a specific entity and references to the Duck Disciple in the rules cannot be supplanted by a named duck.
 ;Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat
 : Amended response: "false" for the same reasons as above.

109.192.195.201: /* Ruling 18 */

2021-03-27T14:49:52Z

Ruling 18

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:49, 27 March 2021
Line 197:		Line 197:

	;Ruling \| Judge Random Internet Cat		;Ruling \| Judge Random Internet Cat
	: ~~Awaiting Judgement~~		: Response: "true". I see no reason to think otherwise.

	== Ruling 19 ==		== Ruling 19 ==

miraheze>Nyhilo: Add Rulings 19, 21, 22, 23

2021-03-23T20:01:29Z

Add Rulings 19, 21, 22, 23

@@ Line 205: / Line 205: @@
 ;Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat
-: Awaiting Judgement
+: Response: "yes".
 == Ruling 20 ==
@@ Line 214: / Line 218: @@
 ;Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat
 : Response: "yes". I found, however, that such an action would have no effect. Quacks are items, and it does not make sense to "deduct" negative items, nor does it make sense to "transfer" negative items.