Round 9/History: Difference between revisions

Line 457:

=== The First Dice Disaster ===

Since Wotton had been accumulating ducks, he had been using the Dice Maiden bot's multiple die roll functionality to generate potential quack numbers for scouting missions en masse. Problem is that, given the input {{Mono|!roll 11d12}}, the bot would return a sorted list of results, for example {{Mono|Wotton Roll: [10, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 5, 5, 4, 3, 1] Result: 67}}. finsook was the first to bring this up<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/817060272077406230</ref> and a judge ruling confirmed our suspicions<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 7]]</ref>. It was determined that no dice rolls made by this method (of which there had been many) had worked. This thrust the gamestate into uncertainty and we decided to resolve that uncertainty by ratifying the gamestate to a specific state (Wotton, Proposal I give up, 4 Mar 2021). ~~Furthermore, we~~ discovered that we could get unsorted dice by using {{Mono|ul}} as an argument to Dice Maiden's roll command.

Since Wotton had been accumulating ducks, he had been using the Dice Maiden bot's multiple die roll functionality to generate potential quack numbers for scouting missions en masse. Problem is that, given the input {{Mono|!roll 11d12}}, the bot would return a sorted list of results, for example {{Mono|Wotton Roll: [10, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 5, 5, 4, 3, 1] Result: 67}}. finsook was the first to bring this up<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/817060272077406230</ref> and a judge ruling confirmed our suspicions<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 7]]</ref>. It was determined that no dice rolls made by this method (of which there had been many) had worked. This thrust the gamestate into uncertainty and we decided to resolve that uncertainty by ratifying the gamestate to a specific state (Wotton, Proposal I give up, 4 Mar 2021). This proposal was passed at the beginning of 8 March 2021. We discovered afterward that we could get unsorted dice by using {{Mono|ul}} as an argument to Dice Maiden's roll command.

=== Targeting the Rich Again ===

Line 523:

While it's interesting to postulate what the game would look like if the duck royalty subgame had gone further, that's not what ended up happening. And now we have this story to show for it.

=== A ~~Potential Abundance~~ of ~~Ducks~~ ===

=== Exactly One Pond ===

In another case of seemingly innocuous but poorly conceived rule text once again stemming from the ponds rule (see {{Heading|Stuck Ducks}}). This time, however, the offending text came from the fix proposal, Proposal The Ducks that Time Forgot (moonroof, 19 Feb 2021). "Each duck lives in exactly one pond<ref>https://infinitenomic.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Round_9/Ruleset&oldid=823#Ponds</ref>." The intent of this phrase was that a duck initially had no pond assignment but could be given one. However, the rule text clearly states that ducks cannot live in no pond. So which pond do ducks live in by default? A ruling confirmed that this was ambiguous but that ducks certainly ''did'' live in a pond upon creation.<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 13]]</ref>. Once again ambiguity crept its way into the ruleset. Random Internet Cat promptly wrote a fix for this and some other issues (Proposal Essential v2, 17 Mar 2021).

Due to the ratification on 8 March (see {{Heading|The First Dice Disaster}}, we did have a reference point. All initial pond assignments before 8 March had worked; those after had not. Only ATMunn and Jumble had joined the game since then, thus the uncertainty was minimal. Small enough, at least, that we could just wait it out.

=== The Possession of Each Player ===

One of the oldest unmodified passages in the ruleset read "Upon joining the game, a duck is created in the possession of each player" (see {{Heading|The First Day (3 Jan 2021)}}). That has some silly grammar that can mean a couple of different things. Does it mean that when (each player) joins the game, a new duck is created in (that player's) possession as it was clearly meant to? Does it mean that when (a player) joins the game, a new duck is created in (each player's) possession? This concern was brought up by Jumble a few hours after joining on 18 March 2021<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/822159997017522206</ref>. The judge ruled that it was working as intended but that it would be better to clarify it<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 12]]</ref>. Legislation was already on the way to fix this, though, so we can count this as another near miss.

@@ Line 457: / Line 457: @@
 === The First Dice Disaster ===
-Since Wotton had been accumulating ducks, he had been using the Dice Maiden bot's multiple die roll functionality to generate potential quack numbers for scouting missions en masse. Problem is that, given the input {{Mono|!roll 11d12}}, the bot would return a sorted list of results, for example {{Mono|Wotton Roll: [10, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 5, 5, 4, 3, 1] Result: 67}}. finsook was the first to bring this up<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/817060272077406230</ref> and a judge ruling confirmed our suspicions<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 7]]</ref>. It was determined that no dice rolls made by this method (of which there had been many) had worked. This thrust the gamestate into uncertainty and we decided to resolve that uncertainty by ratifying the gamestate to a specific state (Wotton, Proposal I give up, 4 Mar 2021). Furthermore, we discovered that we could get unsorted dice by using {{Mono|ul}} as an argument to Dice Maiden's roll command.
+Since Wotton had been accumulating ducks, he had been using the Dice Maiden bot's multiple die roll functionality to generate potential quack numbers for scouting missions en masse. Problem is that, given the input {{Mono|!roll 11d12}}, the bot would return a sorted list of results, for example {{Mono|Wotton Roll: [10, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 5, 5, 4, 3, 1] Result: 67}}. finsook was the first to bring this up<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/817060272077406230</ref> and a judge ruling confirmed our suspicions<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 7]]</ref>. It was determined that no dice rolls made by this method (of which there had been many) had worked. This thrust the gamestate into uncertainty and we decided to resolve that uncertainty by ratifying the gamestate to a specific state (Wotton, Proposal I give up, 4 Mar 2021). This proposal was passed at the beginning of 8 March 2021. We discovered afterward that we could get unsorted dice by using {{Mono|ul}} as an argument to Dice Maiden's roll command.
 === Targeting the Rich Again ===
@@ Line 523: / Line 523: @@
 While it's interesting to postulate what the game would look like if the duck royalty subgame had gone further, that's not what ended up happening. And now we have this story to show for it.
-=== A Potential Abundance of Ducks ===
+=== Exactly One Pond ===
+In another case of seemingly innocuous but poorly conceived rule text once again stemming from the ponds rule (see {{Heading|Stuck Ducks}}). This time, however, the offending text came from the fix proposal, Proposal The Ducks that Time Forgot (moonroof, 19 Feb 2021). "Each duck lives in exactly one pond<ref>https://infinitenomic.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Round_9/Ruleset&oldid=823#Ponds</ref>." The intent of this phrase was that a duck initially had no pond assignment but could be given one. However, the rule text clearly states that ducks cannot live in no pond. So which pond do ducks live in by default? A ruling confirmed that this was ambiguous but that ducks certainly ''did'' live in a pond upon creation.<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 13]]</ref>. Once again ambiguity crept its way into the ruleset. Random Internet Cat promptly wrote a fix for this and some other issues (Proposal Essential v2, 17 Mar 2021).
+Due to the ratification on 8 March (see {{Heading|The First Dice Disaster}}, we did have a reference point. All initial pond assignments before 8 March had worked; those after had not. Only ATMunn and Jumble had joined the game since then, thus the uncertainty was minimal. Small enough, at least, that we could just wait it out.
+=== The Possession of Each Player ===
 One of the oldest unmodified passages in the ruleset read "Upon joining the game, a duck is created in the possession of each player" (see {{Heading|The First Day (3 Jan 2021)}}). That has some silly grammar that can mean a couple of different things. Does it mean that when (each player) joins the game, a new duck is created in (that player's) possession as it was clearly meant to? Does it mean that when (a player) joins the game, a new duck is created in (each player's) possession? This concern was brought up by Jumble a few hours after joining on 18 March 2021<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/518856008605499402/822159997017522206</ref>. The judge ruled that it was working as intended but that it would be better to clarify it<ref>[[Round 9/Rulings#Ruling 12]]</ref>. Legislation was already on the way to fix this, though, so we can count this as another near miss.