Round 9/History: Difference between revisions

Line 577:

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.

=== Divine Infiniquacks ===

After a couple of days of peace Jumble brought a scenario to our attention that could potentially cause a problem. What if a player performed the Divine Scrambler action, whose description read "Cost: N Quacks, where N is a multiple of 20. Targets: Any one entity possessing at least one God Egg. Effect: N/20 God Eggs are transferred from the target to the attacking duck's player<ref>https://infinitenomic.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Round_9/Ruleset&oldid=865#Quack_Attacks</ref>." As negative numbers can also be divisible by twenty, this implied that a player could potentially transfer negative god eggs to themself and transfer negative quacks from themself. There was a very real possibility that this would simply mean the transaction would go the opposite way than was intended. Although amount of quacks possessed got one no closer to winning, it would be rather annoying should someone find a way to exploit this. Fortunately, Random Internet Cat ruled that deducting and transferring negative items doesn't make sense, so performing the Divine Scrambler with negative quacks would not do anything. To keep our bases covered, however, Klink wrote a proposal to limit the action to positive quacks (Proposal Don't Play God, 21 Mar 2021).

== References ==

@@ Line 577: / Line 577: @@
 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.
+=== Divine Infiniquacks ===
+After a couple of days of peace Jumble brought a scenario to our attention that could potentially cause a problem. What if a player performed the Divine Scrambler action, whose description read "Cost: N Quacks, where N is a multiple of 20. Targets: Any one entity possessing at least one God Egg. Effect: N/20 God Eggs are transferred from the target to the attacking duck's player<ref>https://infinitenomic.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Round_9/Ruleset&oldid=865#Quack_Attacks</ref>." As negative numbers can also be divisible by twenty, this implied that a player could potentially transfer negative god eggs to themself and transfer negative quacks from themself. There was a very real possibility that this would simply mean the transaction would go the opposite way than was intended. Although amount of quacks possessed got one no closer to winning, it would be rather annoying should someone find a way to exploit this. Fortunately, Random Internet Cat ruled that deducting and transferring negative items doesn't make sense, so performing the Divine Scrambler with negative quacks would not do anything. To keep our bases covered, however, Klink wrote a proposal to limit the action to positive quacks (Proposal Don't Play God, 21 Mar 2021).
 == References ==
 <references />