Round 9/History: Difference between revisions

Line 525:

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.

== (18 Mar 2021 - ???) ==

== (17 Mar 2021 - ???) ==

The story here gets a bit asynchronous. Starting on 18 March, we found a truly ludicrous amount of potential vulnerabilities in quick succession, within some of which we actually found the first real ruleset breaks since February.

The story here gets a bit asynchronous. Starting on 17 March, we found a truly ludicrous amount of potential vulnerabilities in quick succession, within some of which we actually found the first real ruleset breaks since February.

=== Exactly One Pond ===

Line 534:

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.

=== A Duck Named A ===

Under the rules of 17 March, there was no way to rename a duck. You could, however, assign your duck additional names. Some used this power for good. Nyhilo, for example, decided to give shortened names to his ducks: {{Mono|Phil. the 4th}} to {{Mono|Philosophocratocrates the 4th}} aka {{Mono|Philostophocratocrates the 4th}} and {{Mono|Phil. the 5th}} to {{Mono|Philosophocratocrates the 5th}} aka {{Mono|Philostophocratocrates the 5th}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/821656843679039509</ref>.

Others, however, used this power to sabotage the gamestate. idle assigned to their duck {{Mono|Dialetheia}} "every name which consists of one character and begins with 'A'<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/821618833366319156</ref>. Initial conversation about this action revolved around whether this actually assigned more than one name. The definition of the word "character" is not given by the ruleset and natural language doesn't help much either. Consensus seemed to shift toward the interpretation that no variation on the character "A" was assigned since under most reasonable definitions those characters do not "start with 'A'." Random Internet Cat proposed to fix the ambiguity by removing all names from ducks with multiple names and limit the amount of duck names to one, alongside some other changes (Proposal Essential v2, 17 Mar 2021).

The next day, idle posted the following in #game-actions<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/822202621346709584</ref>:

[20:19:40] since you all can't behave

[20:20:33] I give my duck A all names which consist of characters and contain fewer than 9,001 characters

[20:21:41] if i can't have multiple names i'm going to have all of them first

</blockquote>

Klink argued that since some of those names were illegal that the action failed. In response to this, idle performed the same action, this time appending "and are not illegal." Rulings were requested left and right. Random Internet Cat argued that the action failed due to lack of specification, whereas the "A" assignment succeeded because the set of names could be evaluated reasonably easily. After some back-and-forth in #game-actions (public service announcement: please do not discuss things in the actions channels), Cat declared the following<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/822214784443219999</ref>:

[21:08:00] oh I have a solution to the duck woes

[21:08:25] it would be very mutually assured destruction though

[21:09:14] but since I only have one duck it's not that bad for me, so...

[21:10:12] I declare that I can be addressed by all legal duck names that [idle account] has assigned to eir duck known as A, other than "A" itself.

[21:10:30] therefore, all such names are now impersonating a player (me), and the duck loses them

[21:12:14] alright I'm done please stop addressing me by those duck names I just gave myself

</blockquote>

Immediately after this, idle argued (and requested a ruling) that impersonation is subjective, to be determined by the person being impersonated. 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.

Cat then officially ruled that idle's mass naming did not "specify" a set of names as required by the Ducks rule. 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.

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. 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.

=== The Possession of Each Player ===

@@ Line 525: / Line 525: @@
 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.
-== (18 Mar 2021 - ???) ==
+== (17 Mar 2021 - ???) ==
-The story here gets a bit asynchronous. Starting on 18 March, we found a truly ludicrous amount of potential vulnerabilities in quick succession, within some of which we actually found the first real ruleset breaks since February.
+The story here gets a bit asynchronous. Starting on 17 March, we found a truly ludicrous amount of potential vulnerabilities in quick succession, within some of which we actually found the first real ruleset breaks since February.
 === Exactly One Pond ===
@@ Line 534: / Line 534: @@
 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.
+=== A Duck Named A ===
+Under the rules of 17 March, there was no way to rename a duck. You could, however, assign your duck additional names. Some used this power for good. Nyhilo, for example, decided to give shortened names to his ducks: {{Mono|Phil. the 4th}} to {{Mono|Philosophocratocrates the 4th}} aka {{Mono|Philostophocratocrates the 4th}} and {{Mono|Phil. the 5th}} to {{Mono|Philosophocratocrates the 5th}} aka {{Mono|Philostophocratocrates the 5th}}<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/821656843679039509</ref>.
+Others, however, used this power to sabotage the gamestate. idle assigned to their duck {{Mono|Dialetheia}} "every name which consists of one character and begins with 'A'<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/821618833366319156</ref>. Initial conversation about this action revolved around whether this actually assigned more than one name. The definition of the word "character" is not given by the ruleset and natural language doesn't help much either. Consensus seemed to shift toward the interpretation that no variation on the character "A" was assigned since under most reasonable definitions those characters do not "start with 'A'." Random Internet Cat proposed to fix the ambiguity by removing all names from ducks with multiple names and limit the amount of duck names to one, alongside some other changes (Proposal Essential v2, 17 Mar 2021).
+The next day, idle posted the following in #game-actions<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/822202621346709584</ref>:
+<blockquote>
+[20:19:40] since you all can't behave<br>
+[20:20:33] I give my duck A all names which consist of characters and contain fewer than 9,001 characters<br>
+[20:21:41] if i can't have multiple names i'm going to have all of them first
+</blockquote>
+Klink argued that since some of those names were illegal that the action failed. In response to this, idle performed the same action, this time appending "and are not illegal." Rulings were requested left and right. Random Internet Cat argued that the action failed due to lack of specification, whereas the "A" assignment succeeded because the set of names could be evaluated reasonably easily. After some back-and-forth in #game-actions (public service announcement: please do not discuss things in the actions channels), Cat declared the following<ref>https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/822214784443219999</ref>:
+<blockquote>
+[21:08:00] oh I have a solution to the duck woes<br>
+[21:08:25] it would be very mutually assured destruction though<br>
+[21:09:14] but since I only have one duck it's not that bad for me, so...<br>
+[21:10:12] I declare that I can be addressed by all legal duck names that [idle account] has assigned to eir duck known as A, other than "A" itself.<br>
+[21:10:30] therefore, all such names are now impersonating a player (me), and the duck loses them<br>
+[21:12:14] alright I'm done please stop addressing me by those duck names I just gave myself
+</blockquote>
+Immediately after this, idle argued (and requested a ruling) that impersonation is subjective, to be determined by the person being impersonated. 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.
+Cat then officially ruled that idle's mass naming did not "specify" a set of names as required by the Ducks rule. 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.
+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. 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.
 === The Possession of Each Player ===