Round 9/Rulings

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. --CodeTriangle (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ruling 1

2021-02-25 | Wotton

I formally request a judge ruling on the following statement:

Judge rulings and judge ruling requests are game actions.

uwu

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "true". Whether the Judge is obligated to respond to a request for judgment is part of the gamestate, thus a request (which creates such an obligation) and a ruling (which discharges such an obligation) are game actions. quack

Ruling 2

2021-02-25 | Wotton

I formally request a judge ruling on the following statement:

For the purposes of the ruleset, 'ownership' and 'possession' are interchangeable terms.

uwu

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "true". I find no natural language reason to draw a distinction between the two terms. quack

Ruling 3

2021-02-25 | Wotton

I formally request a judge ruling on the following question

In the second paragraph of the scouting rule, is the relation between player and duck in the sentence "For a player's duck to return," a relation of possession/ownership or is it a different kind of relation similar to ownership that tracks to which player a duck is returned to?

waddle

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "The latter."

The text:

During a voting period, a player can send a duck on a scouting mission by rolling a d12 for the duck. When the duck is on the scouting mission, the duck is no longer in possession of the player, thus benefits the duck provides the player are paused. Any upkeep cost of owning the duck is also paused until the duck returns.

The number rolled on the d12 to commence the scouting mission is the potential quacks. If the duck returns, the duck will have this number of potential quacks added to their existing quacks. For a player's duck to return, the player must wait until the end of the voting period the duck was sent on the mission.

This really only admits the referent of "a player" being the player that sent the duck on the scouting mission. As such, in this limited context, the possessive cannot be strictly interpreted as the ownership relation. Duck returning attempts do not fail solely because the player does not possess the duck to be returned.

quack

Ruling 4

2021-03-02 | Nyhilo

I kindly request a ruling on this sentence in the Ponds rule:

If a duck does not have an assigned pond, it must be assigned a pond before any player may interact with that duck.

Specifically the question:

Are you allowed to interact with a duck by assigning them to a pond?

quack

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

I issue the following response: "Yes." I find that the specific clause "Any duck that does not live in a pond may be assigned a pond at any time by its owner by posting in #game-actions." takes precedence over the general prohibition clause in the same rule. quack

Ruling 5

2021-03-02 | Wotton

I quackly request a ruling on the following sentences:

(1) 'Uncolored' is not a color.

(2) Uncolored ducks do not have the same color as other uncolored ducks, nor do they have a different color from ducks that have a color.

waddle waddle

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response to (1): "True".

Response to (2): "True".

quack

Ruling 6

2021-03-03 | Wotton

I humbly request a ruling on the following:

One does not need to explicitly mention that they are spending a quack when performing an action that moves a named duck to a different pond.

waddle

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

I issue the following response: "False".

Players may move ducks from one pond to another by spending one quack from that duck and posting in #game-actions.

The action of spending one quack is not given explicitly given any method, but it is described as performable (at least in the context of moving a duck) in the above sentence. It is therefore a default-method action and can be performed by posting in #game-actions (with a duck word). Since no other method is provided to expend a quack, I find that it must be explicitly stated in #game-actions to be performed.

quack

Ruling 7

2021-03-04 | Wotton

I request a ruling on the following:

The current gamestate is untrackable, because some rolls were made by rolling multiple dice at once with @Dice Maiden#9678 and those rolls were automatically sorted. It's impossible to know which result belongs to which roll.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "false". I find instead that the attempted actions that used improperly-sorted dice rolls failed, as the distribution for each individual roll was not sufficiently close to the distribution specified in the rules. The fact that the bot internally rolled dice with the correct distribution is irrelevant, as the bot does not specify the outcome of those rolls in the order they were rolled.

quack

Ruling 8

2021-03-06 | Nyhilo

I formally request a ruling on the following

Per the statement in Duck Naming Criteria, "All player may give their duck any name", players are able to give a new name to a duck, even if that duck already has a name.

i.e., are we allowed to rename our ducks?

uwu

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "False". A named duck can be assigned a new name, but I find no authorization to revoke a name in the rules. Quack.

Ruling 9

2021-03-11 | finsook

I ask (properly this time) for a judgement on the following:

Die rolls are game actions, so they require a message ending in a duck word to be performed.

quack

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat | Judgement invalid because of lack of duck word

Response: "false". Based on

A "game action" is any action a player may take that would alter the gamestate.

I find that the rolling of the die has no direct effect on the gamestate. It is merely part of the specification of another action, which is the action that actually affects the gamestate.

Ruling 10

2021-03-11 | Nyhilo

please give me you judgement on the following statement ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

Philosophocratocrates the 4th and Philosophocratocrates the 5th are not currently scouting because they were not named as such at the point they were directed to go scouting.

uwu

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "false". The names are similar enough (differing only by a single character), and both names of each duck were given in the same message and only associated with one duck. Both ducks were thus specified, and the attempt to send the ducks scouting did not fail for lack of specification of a duck's name. quack

Ruling 11

2021-03-11 | Nyhilo

I humbly request a ruling on the following sentence in the Scouting rule:

A player can only attempt to retrieve each scouting duck once per voting period.

Does this mean

The act of retrieval with regards to a single duck may only be performed once per round.

or A single player may only attempt to retrieve any particular duck once per round.?

To put it another way.

If Player A fails to retrieve a duck, then that duck is stolen by/given to player B, can player B attempt to retrieve that duck as well?

quack

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "The latter, and yes." "A player" is typically taken to mean "any given player", and I find no reason to deviate from that here. quack

Ruling 12

2021-03-18 | JumbleTheCircle!

Request for Justice: Does everyone get a duck when a player joins?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "no, but you better clarify it".

Upon joining the game, a duck is created in the possession of each player.

I find that the reading where only the joining player receives a duck to be slightly more plausible than the reading where every player receives a duck, in addition to being more in the best interests of the game.

Ruling 13

2021-03-18 | Nyhilo

I request a judgement [sic] pertaining to the following sentence found in the Ponds rule:

Each duck lives in exactly one pond.

Does this imply the following?

A duck automatically lives in a pond when created, and therefore could never have been assigned a pond initially.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "true".

err

"yes"

Ruling 14

2021-03-18 | [idle account]

I formally request a ruling on the following: "I possess a duck named jason_sdafbhgjkl eagh tyiukakrw."

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Finding 1: When assigning a duck name, the name shall be "specified".

This is based on precedent, common sense, and the following rules examples of requirements to specify:

If a Quack Attack requires targets, these must be specified in the same message as the action intent.

Such actions take place in the order specified in the message (or in the order they appear, if no order is specified).

I find that the requirement to specify persists even if the word "specify" is not used, but no stronger requirements are placed on the action.

Finding 2: "all names which consist of characters and contain fewer than 9,001 characters and are not illegal" is not a valid specification of duck names.

Putting aside whether such an exceedingly large set is valid in a specification, restricting the set to names that "are not illegal" make the specification invalid. This is because of the criteria for a name being illegal:

• names impersonating players
• names violating Discord's TOS or the rules of the Infinite Nomic Discord server
• names longer than 9,000 characters or shorter than 0
• names made illegal by other rules of this nomic
• Jeffery

The last criterion is easy to evaluate and removes only a single name from the set of potential names, as are the third criterion and the fourth criterion (no other rule makes duck names illegal). However, the other two criteria are squishy and can only be evaluated by humans, who are bound to disagree and argue about whether any specific name satisfies the criteria. In fact, the requests for justice immediately preceding this ruling are perfect examples of why this the set is not specified -- people disagree about the standard for impersonation, and they would surely disagree about Discord's ToS or the Infinite Nomic Discord Rules as well.

Therefore, because the specification of the set cannot be deterministically evaluated by any individual person, the attempt fails, and no duck has the name in the statement.

Response: "false".

Ruling 15

2021-03-18 | [idle account]

I formally request a ruling on the following: Impersonation is a subjective state determined by the potential victim, which may be waived at their preference.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "false". Counterexample: naming a duck "Random Internet Cat" is impersonating me, no matter how I feel about it.

Ruling 16

2021-03-18 | [idle account]

I formally request a ruling on the following: impersonation is the objective state achieved when two representative strings of text (i.e. names) are identical.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "false". Naming a duck "KIink" (KIink) is impersonating Klink, but the text is not identical.

Ruling 17

2021-03-18 | [idle account]

I formally request a ruling on the following: explicit disavowel of the intent to impersonate, or direct clarification or distinguishment on the part of the infringing party, renders impersonation impossible.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

no ruling found

Ruling 18

2021-03-18 | [idle account]

I formally request a ruling on the following: The set of legal names cannot be deterministically evaluated, AND, the inability to deterministically evaluate whether a name is legal renders an attempt to give a duck that name invalid.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "false". The first part is true, the latter is not. An attempt to give any specified name can be evaluated through the judicial process, and it either succeeded or did not. We can evaluate that success through the judicial process. The issue is that it is necessary (but not sufficient) for an attempt at the action of assign a duck name to succeed. "I assign <some duck> the name 'Random Internet Cat'." contains a specification of a name, but the attempt still fails because the specified name is illegal. [idle account]'s previous attempt failed because the non-determinism affects the action's specification.

Ruling 19

2021-03-21 | JumbleTheCircle!

RfJ: Is .@everyone. a illegal name because it impersonates players?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "no". I find that it impersonates no specific set of players. I do not rule on whether a name can be illegal due to impersonating two or more specific players or whether it must be a single player.

Ruling 20

2021-03-21 | JumbleTheCircle!

RfJ: Are names impersonating multiple players illegal?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "yes".

Ruling 21

2021-03-21 | Wotton

I request judgement on the following:

Pond bonuses/losses as described in the pond rule are benefits/upkeep costs of owning ducks for the purposes of the scouting rule.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "true". I see no reason to think otherwise.

Ruling 22

2021-03-21 | ATMunn

I request justice on the following statement: JumbleTheCircle! successfully fed names impersonating players in the replied-to message.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "yes".

Once per voting period, a player may feed another player’s duck by announcing which duck they with to feed in #game-actions

The standard here is (implicitly) to "specify" the duck. I find that the given name is similar enough to the true name (without there being any other names it could reasonably be) for the duck to be specified.

Ruling 23

2021-03-21 | JumbleTheCircle!

RfJ: Can you use Divine Scrambler with a negative multiple of 20 Quacks?

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.

Ruling 24

2021-03-22 | JumbleTheCircle!

RfJ: If someone changed their name to a duck name, would the "names impersonating players" clause then delete that duck name?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "yes".

Ruling 25

2021-03-23 | belCavendishNY

i request justice on the following statement: i have fed a duck this voting period, as of the time of this message

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Reponse: "no". The only possible feeding hadn't yet been completed because no die was rolled.

Ruling 26

2021-03-23 | Klink can't read

I request justice on the following statement: my duck named The Duck Disciple cannot be the target of the Ritual Quack Attack listed under the rule Duck God subrule Duck Disciple.

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.

Vote of Confidence to Overturn | Random Internet Cat | 6-1 in favor to overturn

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Amended response: "false" for the same reasons as above.

Ruling 27

2021-03-25 | Wotton

requesting a judgement on the following:

(A) A scouting duck still gains/loses quacks through the pond rule, because the benefits are provided to the duck, not the player.

(B) The scouting rule only pauses direct benefits/costs to the player/the scouting duck itself; Scouting ducks are taken into account when calculating the quack gain/loss of non-scouting ducks in the same pond and thus indirectly provide benefits to the non-scouting ducks in the same pond.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response:

(A) False. I don't buy this. What's good for the duck is good for the person.

(B) True. I see no reason to believe that the duck ceases counting as part of the pond when scouting.

Ruling 28

2021-03-27 | Wotton

(A) It's currently legal to feed your own duck with a grape.

(B) The effect of a fruit does not always take place after the associated feeding action i.e. the effect of a fruit can make the associated feeding action legal, even if that action would be illegal otherwise.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat | OVERTURNED

Responses:

(A) "false".

Fruit are items that can be fed to a duck as specified in the Feeding Ducks subrule.

explicitly limits the applicability of fruits in the fruit table to the following from Feeding Ducks:

Once per voting period, a player may feed another player’s duck by announcing which duck they with to feed in #game-actions, and optionally adding one valid fruit.

(B) "false". Fruit can only be fed as part of an otherwise-legal feeding action, as ruled above.

Vote Of Confidence to Overturn | Nyhilo | 2-1 in favor to overturn

I would like to initiate a public vote of confidence to overturn this ruling.

The second column of the Fruits table is not listed merely as the fruits' "effects" or "benefits", it is the fruits' descriptions. As such, the text of the descriptions column hold the same weight as rule text as the initial paragraph of the Fruits rule.

If the sentence "You may use grapes to feed one of your own ducks instead of another's." was included in the initial paragraph, it would undoubtedly be accepted as an exception to the other sentence without question. Because the fruit descriptions are a part of the rule text, I argue that they also have the ability to apply any assertion they wish, including specifying exceptions to rules - other and self.

Ruling 29

2021-04-04 | Nyhilo

I request a ruling from the honorable @Random Internet Cat .

In the Duck Disciple rule, does

all ducks that dealt damage to that Duck Disciple gain 1d6 quacks.

mean we roll 1d6 for each individual duck that dealt damage, or that we roll 1d6 once, and all participating ducks receive that amount?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "the latter". It would be the former if it said "each duck" rather than "all ducks".

Ruling 30

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:

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.

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 31

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 32

2021-04-12 | Wotton

requesting judgement: 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 33

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.

Ruling 34

2021-04-15 | Wotton

Requesting judgement on the following: "The actions in 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.".

Ruling 35

2021-04-15 | JumbleTheCircle

RfJ: If someone incorrectly executes a step in a multi step action, what should they do?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "I dunno." Why are you asking me for advice?

Ruling 36

2021-04-15 | Wotton

Rfj: "JumbleTheCircle! should re-roll this result"

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "I dunno". I find that the retrieval action has been fully specified, as the authorization to retrieve and the authorization to gain loot are separate in the rules text, without the former explicitly being contingent on the latter. Jumble cannot therefore make a separate retrieval attempt. The loot action, however, has not yet been fully specified. Jumble can fully specify the loot action by properly rolling a 2d6. As for whether e should, /shrug.

Ruling 37

2021-04-15 | Wotton

Requesting judgement on the following: "When a smoothie is created, the owner of the duck that performed the quacktion that generated the smoothie gains the generated smoothie."

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "true".

Ruling 38

2021-04-16 | Nyhilo

Judgement. What are the specifics of how descriptions are combined, per the smoothie section of the Fruit rule?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "The combined description is the result of concatenating the descriptions of the individual fruits in an unspecified order."

Ruling 39

2021-04-16 | Nyhilo

Malicious request for judgment. Regardless of the gibberish tacked onto the end, was a smoothie still created here?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "yes".

Default-method game actions may be performed by, clearly and without obfuscation, announcing intent to do so in #game-actions-ä9, provided that any rules-defined conditions placed on its performance are fulfilled and that any necessary parameters are specified clearly and without obfuscation.

Performing a quacktion is a default-method game action. All necessary parameters were specified clearly and without obfuscation, and intent to do so was announced clearly and without obfuscation. All conditions were, afaict, fulfilled.

Ruling 40

2021-04-23 | ATMunn

request for judgement: "It would be legal for me to feed another player's duck this voting period."

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response "true". I find that having fed another player's duck is evaluated continuously, and at this point you have not fed another player's duck in this voting period.

Ruling 41

2021-04-25 | JumbleTheCircle

RfJ: What did Wotton's smoothie made just right now do to the gamestate?

(obligation to submit a ruling discharged)

Ruling 42

2021-04-25 | JumbleTheCircle

RfJ: Is "Grape Orange Smoothie" a valid smoothie name?

(obligation to submit a ruling discharged)

Ruling 43

2021-04-25 | JumbleTheCircle

RfJ: Does checking for adopting proposals happen before any proposals taking effect?

(obligation to submit a ruling discharged)

Ruling 44

2021-04-25 | Wotton

RfJ: Is it legal to give one's duck a name of style that is not listed in the ruleset?

(obligation to submit a ruling discharged)

Ruling 45

2020-04-25 | ATMunn

RfJ: How many RfJs is too many RfJs?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "one".

Ruling 46

2021-04-25 | JumbleTheCircle

RfJ: Is "Enacting" synonymous with "take effect"?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "no". Rules are enacted once but take effect continuously.

Ruling 47

2021-04-25 | JumbleTheCircle

RfJ: Did EP911 cause the linked proposal to take effect, despite it saying to "enact" the proposal?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "no", regretfully. "Enact" and "take effect" have such specific legal meanings that they cannot be read as each other, even if the intent is clear.

Ruling 48

2021-04-25 | JumbleTheCircle

RfJ: Ca judges make rulings on metaruleset proposals?

(obligation to submit a ruling discharged)

Ruling 49

2021-04-25 | Wotton

rfj: the inventory lists in the wiki's gamestate page are not exhaustive lists.

(obligation to submit a ruling discharged)

Ruling 50

2021-04-25 | Nyhilo

rfj: In the proposal Does anyone stir a smoothie?, is it the case that the two styles included in the table therein are the only styles that someone is allowed to give to their smoothie, as of this request for justice?

(obligation to submit a ruling discharged)

Ruling 51

2021-04-26 | JumbleTheCircle

RfJ: Does Kubby currently exist as a player?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "yes". E became a player After 23:59:59 on 2021-04-24, and that action was not eliminated by the ratification

Ruling 52

2021-04-26 | JumbleTheCircle

RfJ: What is the current status of Kubby's ducks, if any?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "E has a duck named Kunimitsu." Same reason as before.

Ruling 53

2021-04-27 | Wotton

I formally request a ruling on the following statement:

"The following actions failed, because they attempt to give names that were illegal under the ruleset at the time:"

https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/835668747711938571

https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/835666509761871872

https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/835666652807954442

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "not sure". I think we actually don't know what the ruleset was at the time.

Ruling 54

2021-04-28 | JumbleTheCircle

RfJ: Is duck ownership lost when someone leaves a game?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat | OVERTURNED

Response: "yes". Ducks are items, and it is heavily implied that items can only be owned by players, even if that is not explicitly stated anywhere.

Self-overturned by Judge Random Internet Cat

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

New response: "no".

Ruling 55

2021-04-28 | JumbleTheCircle

RfJ: Do players who stop being players still have items?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat | OVERTURNED

Response: "no".

Self-overturned by Judge Random Internet Cat

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

New response: "for all current items, yes".

Ruling 56

2021-04-28 | [idle account]

RfJ: is the round over? with Proposal :duck::exploding_head: in mind of course

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "no".

Unless otherwise specified, the voting period for proposals made in Period One is Period Two, and the voting period for proposals made in Period Two is the next week's Period One.

Unless otherwise specified, "unless otherwise specified" means "unless otherwise specified by a rule"

Ruling 57

2021-04-28 | Nyhilo

rfj: Requesting ruling on the following statement:

If a player leaves the game, they lose ownership of all their items and do not gain them back if they rejoin.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat | OVERTURNED

Response: "true".

Self-overturned by Judge Random Internet Cat

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

New response

"false".

Ruling 58

2021-04-28 | Wotton

rfj: "not sure" is a truth-value (I just want to annoy idle)

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "no". Being "sure" of something is a purely subjective experience.

Ruling 59

2021-04-28 | Nyhilo

rfj: As per the replied-to message, Jumble now only owns 1 duck, and has no items.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Ruling 60

2021-04-28 | Wotton

rfj: an overturned ruling is equivalent to ruling in favour of the negation of the initial ruling

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "false".

Ruling 61

2021-04-28 | Wotton

re-rfj

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response:

(A) "true" per arguments to overturn Ruling 25.

(B) "false" based on a narrow definition of "effects". The effects are the results of the feeding action, and grapes do not change those, only make the feeding action legal in the first place.

Ruling 62

2021-04-28 | Wotton

re-rfj

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "false".

Ruling 63

2021-04-29 | JumbleTheCircle

RfJ: How many ducks do I have?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "a lot".

Ruling 64

2021-05-04 | Wotton

rfj: this action was successful

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "true". The performer set forth intent for the very large number of actions to be performed, which is the standard.

Ruling 65

2021-05-04

rfj: this action was successful

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

Response: "false". Performing something infinitely is not an action nor is it naturally possible, and intent was not set forth for the action to be performed any other amount of times.