Round 9/Rulings: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
miraheze>CodeTriangle add some forgotten cases |
||
| Line 167: | Line 167: | ||
;Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat | ;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". | : Response: "false". | ||
== Ruling 15 == | == 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" ({{Mono|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] | ;2021-03-18 | [idle account] | ||
| Line 177: | Line 223: | ||
: 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. | : 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 | == Ruling 19 == | ||
;2021-03-21 | JumbleTheCircle! | ;2021-03-21 | JumbleTheCircle! | ||
| Line 185: | Line 231: | ||
: 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. | : 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 | == Ruling 20 == | ||
;2021-03-21 | JumbleTheCircle! | ;2021-03-21 | JumbleTheCircle! | ||
| Line 193: | Line 239: | ||
: Response: "yes". | : Response: "yes". | ||
== Ruling | == Ruling 21 == | ||
;2021-03-21 | Wotton | ;2021-03-21 | Wotton | ||
| Line 201: | Line 247: | ||
: Response: "true". I see no reason to think otherwise. | : Response: "true". I see no reason to think otherwise. | ||
== Ruling | == Ruling 22 == | ||
;2021-03-21 | ATMunn | ;2021-03-21 | ATMunn | ||
| Line 213: | Line 259: | ||
: 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. | : 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 | == Ruling 23 == | ||
;2021-03-21 | JumbleTheCircle! | ;2021-03-21 | JumbleTheCircle! | ||
| Line 221: | Line 267: | ||
: 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. | : 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 | == Ruling 24 == | ||
;2021-03-22 | JumbleTheCircle! | ;2021-03-22 | JumbleTheCircle! | ||
| Line 229: | Line 275: | ||
: Response: "yes". | : Response: "yes". | ||
== Ruling | == Ruling 25 == | ||
;2021-03-23 | belCavendishNY | ;2021-03-23 | belCavendishNY | ||
| Line 237: | Line 283: | ||
: Reponse: "no". The only possible feeding hadn't yet been completed because no die was rolled. | : Reponse: "no". The only possible feeding hadn't yet been completed because no die was rolled. | ||
== Ruling | == Ruling 26 == | ||
;2021-03-23 | Klink can't read | ;2021-03-23 | Klink can't read | ||
| Line 250: | Line 296: | ||
: Amended response: "false" for the same reasons as above. | : Amended response: "false" for the same reasons as above. | ||
== Ruling | == Ruling 27 == | ||
;2021-03-25 | Wotton | ;2021-03-25 | Wotton | ||
| Line 262: | Line 308: | ||
: (B) True. I see no reason to believe that the duck ceases counting as part of the pond when scouting. | : (B) True. I see no reason to believe that the duck ceases counting as part of the pond when scouting. | ||
== Ruling | == Ruling 28 == | ||
;2021-03-27 | Wotton | ;2021-03-27 | Wotton | ||
| Line 287: | Line 333: | ||
: 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. | : 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 | == Ruling 29 == | ||
;2021-04-04 | Nyhilo | ;2021-04-04 | Nyhilo | ||
: I request a ruling from the honorable @Random Internet Cat . | : I request a ruling from the honorable @Random Internet Cat . | ||
| Line 297: | Line 343: | ||
== Ruling | == Ruling 30 == | ||
;2021-04-08 | Wotton | ;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." | : requesting judgement on the following: "If an action contains long clarifying sentences its text can be considered obfuscated in virtue of that fact alone." | ||
| Line 312: | Line 358: | ||
: 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. | : 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 | == Ruling 31 == | ||
;2021-04-09 | ATMunn | ;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." | : 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." | ||
| Line 319: | Line 365: | ||
: Response: "no". Eggs and God Eggs are distinct. | : Response: "no". Eggs and God Eggs are distinct. | ||
== Ruling | == Ruling 32 == | ||
;2021-04-12 | Wotton | ;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? | : 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? | ||
| Line 326: | Line 372: | ||
: 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. | : 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 | == Ruling 33 == | ||
;2021-04-12 | ATMunn | ;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." | : 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." | ||
| Line 333: | Line 379: | ||
: 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. | : 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 | == Ruling 34 == | ||
;2021-04-15 | Wotton | ;2021-04-15 | Wotton | ||
: Requesting judgement on the following: "The actions in [https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/831893775608709173 the message] replied being replied to took place simultaneously." | : Requesting judgement on the following: "The actions in [https://discord.com/channels/515560801394753537/795369457340907561/831893775608709173 the message] replied being replied to took place simultaneously." | ||