Round 9/History: Difference between revisions

Line 634:

Immediately after this, idle argued (and requested a ruling) that impersonation is subjective, to be determined by the person being impersonated<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 15]]</ref>. Cat ruled that this was untrue, providing the counterexample that naming a duck "Random Internet Cat" is impersonation no matter how Cat himself felt about it. idle asked whether impersonation in the context of these rules is the same thing as string equivalence. Cat ruled in the negative, citing that "KIink" (spelled with a capital {{Mono|i}} in place of a lowercase {{Mono|L}}) still impersonates Klink<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 16]]</ref>.

Cat then officially ruled that idle's mass naming did not "specify" a set of names as required by the Ducks rule<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 14]]</ref>. Specification requires that the set be able to be determined by one person. The duck naming criteria involve subjectivity, as demonstrated by ~~his~~ previous rulings. Thus the set of names idle attempted to assign to their ducks cannot be deterministically evaluated by any given person.

Cat then officially ruled that idle's mass naming did not "specify" a set of names as required by the Ducks rule<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 14]]</ref>. Specification requires that the set be able to be determined by one person. The duck naming criteria involve subjectivity, as demonstrated by her previous rulings. Thus the set of names idle attempted to assign to their ducks cannot be deterministically evaluated by any given person.

All the while, in #nomic, players were finally having the tricky discussion of whether textualism was actually harming the game more than helping it. After all, the ruleset was not written with nearly the same rigor as it was now being interpreted with. Random Internet Cat claimed that he would honor a clause in the ruleset specifying that intent mattered more than text<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/822225271901257769</ref>. This was debated and eventually Wotton posted a proposal that would add such a line (Proposal 🧑‍⚖️ 🐱, 18 Mar 2021). The proposal was self-killed on 24 March 2021 due to uncertainties about its wording.

All the while, in #nomic, players were finally having the tricky discussion of whether textualism was actually harming the game more than helping it. After all, the ruleset was not written with nearly the same rigor as it was now being interpreted with. Random Internet Cat claimed that she would honor a clause in the ruleset specifying that intent mattered more than text<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/822225271901257769</ref>. This was debated and eventually Wotton posted a proposal that would add such a line (Proposal 🧑‍⚖️ 🐱, 18 Mar 2021). The proposal was self-killed on 24 March 2021 due to uncertainties about its wording.

In the meantime, Proposal Essential v2 passed on Sunday 21 Mar 2021, clearing the names of all multi-named ducks, including Phil. the 4th and 5th, A, and Jumble's duck Nothing, putting an end to this story that generated hundreds of messages of discussion.

Line 685:

On 21 March 2021, Klink renamed her duck Ellery Queen to The Duck Disciple<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/823052637364027412</ref>. Throughout March, Nyhilo had been writing a proposal which would define a special gamestate entity of named The Duck Disciple (Proposal Duck Disciple Redux, 17 Mar 2021). I still don't understand what this proposal or the rule it created did, but it passed at the end of 20 March. Hours later, the name change came. Klink performed actions with The Duck Disciple (the duck) several times, even renaming them after {{Heading|The Great Unnaming}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/823967613159604315</ref>.

Klink requested a judgement on whether or not The Duck Disciple (the duck) could be targeted by quack attacks since using them on The Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) was a large part of the Duck Disciple Rule. Random Internet Cat stated in ~~his~~ ruling that the entities were different, but wrote "true" in the official response when the wording supported "false"<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 26]]</ref>. After realizing the mistake, Random Internet Cat attempted to amend the ruling, but it was impossible to do so. As it turned out, rulings were actually binding. This meant that Klink's duck had turned into the Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) which was explicitly stated to not exist in any player's inventory. Cat made a vote of confidence on the judgement, a rule-defined action which allowed the decision to be changed but which would take time. Since judge rulings applied retroactively, if this motion passed then everything would work with minimal hiccups. But for now, Klink's duck was out of her hands.

Klink requested a judgement on whether or not The Duck Disciple (the duck) could be targeted by quack attacks since using them on The Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) was a large part of the Duck Disciple Rule. Random Internet Cat stated in her ruling that the entities were different, but wrote "true" in the official response when the wording supported "false"<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 26]]</ref>. After realizing the mistake, Random Internet Cat attempted to amend the ruling, but it was impossible to do so. As it turned out, rulings were actually binding. This meant that Klink's duck had turned into the Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) which was explicitly stated to not exist in any player's inventory. Cat made a vote of confidence on the judgement, a rule-defined action which allowed the decision to be changed but which would take time. Since judge rulings applied retroactively, if this motion passed then everything would work with minimal hiccups. But for now, Klink's duck was out of her hands.

=== ''Actually'' Deleting Duck Words ===

Line 813:

Jumble requested a judgement on the question of whether ducks were lost when a player ceased to be a player<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 54]]</ref>. If not, players could generate as many ducks as they cared to specify by repeatedly leaving and rejoining the game, an action which had no limits to its performance. Before this RFJ was even resolved, Jumble, Wotton, and [idle account], with various wordings, rejoined the game unreasonably large amounts of times. Some players tried to do so an infinite number of times<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/836927962808975390</ref> (which was deemed ineffective by ruling<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/839212839394344992</ref>). Some players attempted to do the same, but with a supertask<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/836929305409355786</ref>. idle later admitted to setting up the duck generation scam<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/837023317231403028</ref>.

When Random Internet Cat got back, he ruled that "[d]ucks are items, and it is heavily implied that items can only be owned by players." idle was quick to point out that quacks are items as well<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/837022400704151552</ref>. Cat overturned the ruling (as well as another RFJ asking the same thing<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 55]]</ref>) and discussion continued.

When Random Internet Cat got back, she ruled that "[d]ucks are items, and it is heavily implied that items can only be owned by players." idle was quick to point out that quacks are items as well<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/837022400704151552</ref>. Cat overturned the ruling (as well as another RFJ asking the same thing<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 55]]</ref>) and discussion continued.

More back-and-forth took place, as well as a few other scams that ended up not being consequential enough to talk about, and after a day of relative calm, on 30 April, Cat capitulated, judging the previous RFJs called over the issue as well as the four others<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 57]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 59]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 62]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 63]]</ref> in favor of the duck generators. The community discussed using every trick in the book to recover the gamestate but there just wasn't enough interest. To this day, we don't know what the final gamestate or ruleset is, and I doubt you'll find anyone who cares enough to figure it out.

@@ Line 634: / Line 634: @@
 Immediately after this, idle argued (and requested a ruling) that impersonation is subjective, to be determined by the person being impersonated<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 15]]</ref>. Cat ruled that this was untrue, providing the counterexample that naming a duck "Random Internet Cat" is impersonation no matter how Cat himself felt about it. idle asked whether impersonation in the context of these rules is the same thing as string equivalence. Cat ruled in the negative, citing that "KIink" (spelled with a capital {{Mono|i}} in place of a lowercase {{Mono|L}}) still impersonates Klink<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 16]]</ref>.
-Cat then officially ruled that idle's mass naming did not "specify" a set of names as required by the Ducks rule<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 14]]</ref>. Specification requires that the set be able to be determined by one person. The duck naming criteria involve subjectivity, as demonstrated by his previous rulings. Thus the set of names idle attempted to assign to their ducks cannot be deterministically evaluated by any given person.
+Cat then officially ruled that idle's mass naming did not "specify" a set of names as required by the Ducks rule<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 14]]</ref>. Specification requires that the set be able to be determined by one person. The duck naming criteria involve subjectivity, as demonstrated by her previous rulings. Thus the set of names idle attempted to assign to their ducks cannot be deterministically evaluated by any given person.
-All the while, in #nomic, players were finally having the tricky discussion of whether textualism was actually harming the game more than helping it. After all, the ruleset was not written with nearly the same rigor as it was now being interpreted with. Random Internet Cat claimed that he would honor a clause in the ruleset specifying that intent mattered more than text<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/822225271901257769</ref>. This was debated and eventually Wotton posted a proposal that would add such a line (Proposal 🧑‍⚖️ 🐱, 18 Mar 2021). The proposal was self-killed on 24 March 2021 due to uncertainties about its wording.
+All the while, in #nomic, players were finally having the tricky discussion of whether textualism was actually harming the game more than helping it. After all, the ruleset was not written with nearly the same rigor as it was now being interpreted with. Random Internet Cat claimed that she would honor a clause in the ruleset specifying that intent mattered more than text<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/822225271901257769</ref>. This was debated and eventually Wotton posted a proposal that would add such a line (Proposal 🧑‍⚖️ 🐱, 18 Mar 2021). The proposal was self-killed on 24 March 2021 due to uncertainties about its wording.
 In the meantime, Proposal Essential v2 passed on Sunday 21 Mar 2021, clearing the names of all multi-named ducks, including Phil. the 4th and 5th, A, and Jumble's duck Nothing, putting an end to this story that generated hundreds of messages of discussion.
@@ Line 685: / Line 685: @@
 On 21 March 2021, Klink renamed her duck Ellery Queen to The Duck Disciple<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/823052637364027412</ref>. Throughout March, Nyhilo had been writing a proposal which would define a special gamestate entity of named The Duck Disciple (Proposal Duck Disciple Redux, 17 Mar 2021). I still don't understand what this proposal or the rule it created did, but it passed at the end of 20 March. Hours later, the name change came. Klink performed actions with The Duck Disciple (the duck) several times, even renaming them after {{Heading|The Great Unnaming}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/823967613159604315</ref>.
-Klink requested a judgement on whether or not The Duck Disciple (the duck) could be targeted by quack attacks since using them on The Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) was a large part of the Duck Disciple Rule. Random Internet Cat stated in his ruling that the entities were different, but wrote "true" in the official response when the wording supported "false"<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 26]]</ref>. After realizing the mistake, Random Internet Cat attempted to amend the ruling, but it was impossible to do so. As it turned out, rulings were actually binding. This meant that Klink's duck had turned into the Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) which was explicitly stated to not exist in any player's inventory. Cat made a vote of confidence on the judgement, a rule-defined action which allowed the decision to be changed but which would take time. Since judge rulings applied retroactively, if this motion passed then everything would work with minimal hiccups. But for now, Klink's duck was out of her hands.
+Klink requested a judgement on whether or not The Duck Disciple (the duck) could be targeted by quack attacks since using them on The Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) was a large part of the Duck Disciple Rule. Random Internet Cat stated in her ruling that the entities were different, but wrote "true" in the official response when the wording supported "false"<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 26]]</ref>. After realizing the mistake, Random Internet Cat attempted to amend the ruling, but it was impossible to do so. As it turned out, rulings were actually binding. This meant that Klink's duck had turned into the Duck Disciple (the gamestate entity) which was explicitly stated to not exist in any player's inventory. Cat made a vote of confidence on the judgement, a rule-defined action which allowed the decision to be changed but which would take time. Since judge rulings applied retroactively, if this motion passed then everything would work with minimal hiccups. But for now, Klink's duck was out of her hands.
 === ''Actually'' Deleting Duck Words ===
@@ Line 813: / Line 813: @@
 Jumble requested a judgement on the question of whether ducks were lost when a player ceased to be a player<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 54]]</ref>. If not, players could generate as many ducks as they cared to specify by repeatedly leaving and rejoining the game, an action which had no limits to its performance. Before this RFJ was even resolved, Jumble, Wotton, and [idle account], with various wordings, rejoined the game unreasonably large amounts of times. Some players tried to do so an infinite number of times<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/836927962808975390</ref> (which was deemed ineffective by ruling<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/839212839394344992</ref>). Some players attempted to do the same, but with a supertask<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/836929305409355786</ref>. idle later admitted to setting up the duck generation scam<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/837023317231403028</ref>.
-When Random Internet Cat got back, he ruled that "[d]ucks are items, and it is heavily implied that items can only be owned by players." idle was quick to point out that quacks are items as well<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/837022400704151552</ref>. Cat overturned the ruling (as well as another RFJ asking the same thing<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 55]]</ref>) and discussion continued.
+When Random Internet Cat got back, she ruled that "[d]ucks are items, and it is heavily implied that items can only be owned by players." idle was quick to point out that quacks are items as well<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/837022400704151552</ref>. Cat overturned the ruling (as well as another RFJ asking the same thing<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 55]]</ref>) and discussion continued.
 More back-and-forth took place, as well as a few other scams that ended up not being consequential enough to talk about, and after a day of relative calm, on 30 April, Cat capitulated, judging the previous RFJs called over the issue as well as the four others<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 57]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 59]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 62]]</ref><ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 63]]</ref> in favor of the duck generators. The community discussed using every trick in the book to recover the gamestate but there just wasn't enough interest. To this day, we don't know what the final gamestate or ruleset is, and I doubt you'll find anyone who cares enough to figure it out.