Round 9/Rulings: Difference between revisions

Line 293:

;Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat

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

== Ruling 27 ==

;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.

</blockquote>

: 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 28 ==

;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 29 ==

;2021-04-12 | Wotton

: requesting judgement: [https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/831202932480671784 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 30 ==

;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.

@@ Line 293: / Line 293: @@
 ;Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat
 : Response: "the latter". It would be the former if it said "each duck" rather than "all ducks".
+== Ruling 27 ==
+;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:
+ <blockquote>
+ 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.
+ </blockquote>
+: 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 28 ==
+;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 29 ==
+;2021-04-12 | Wotton
+: requesting judgement: [https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/831202932480671784 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 30 ==
+;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.