Round 9/Rulings

Ruling 1

2021-02-25 | Wotton

I formally request a judge ruling on the following statement:

Judge rulings and judge ruling requests are game actions.

uwu

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: Response: "true". Whether the Judge is obligated to respond to a request for judgment is part of the gamestate, thus a request (which creates such an obligation) and a ruling (which discharges such an obligation) are game actions. quack

Ruling 2

2021-02-25 | Wotton

I formally request a judge ruling on the following statement:

For the purposes of the ruleset, 'ownership' and 'possession' are interchangeable terms.

uwu

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: Response: "true". I find no natural language reason to draw a distinction between the two terms. quack

Ruling 3

2021-02-25 | Wotton

I formally request a judge ruling on the following question

In the second paragraph of the scouting rule, is the relation between player and duck in the sentence "For a player's duck to return," a relation of possession/ownership or is it a different kind of relation similar to ownership that tracks to which player a duck is returned to?

waddle

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: Response: "The latter."

The text:

During a voting period, a player can send a duck on a scouting mission by rolling a d12 for the duck. When the duck is on the scouting mission, the duck is no longer in possession of the player, thus benefits the duck provides the player are paused. Any upkeep cost of owning the duck is also paused until the duck returns.
The number rolled on the d12 to commence the scouting mission is the potential quacks. If the duck returns, the duck will have this number of potential quacks added to their existing quacks. For a player's duck to return, the player must wait until the end of the voting period the duck was sent on the mission.

This really only admits the referent of "a player" being the player that sent the duck on the scouting mission. As such, in this limited context, the possessive cannot be strictly interpreted as the ownership relation. Duck returning attempts do not fail solely because the player does not possess the duck to be returned.

quack

Ruling 4

2021-03-02 | Nyhilo

I kindly request a ruling on this sentence in the Ponds rule:

If a duck does not have an assigned pond, it must be assigned a pond before any player may interact with that duck.

Specifically the question:

Are you allowed to interact with a duck by assigning them to a pond?

quack

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: I issue the following response: "Yes." I find that the specific clause "Any duck that does not live in a pond may be assigned a pond at any time by its owner by posting in #game-actions." takes precedence over the general prohibition clause in the same rule. quack

Ruling 5

2021-03-02 | Wotton: I quackly request a ruling on the following sentences:; (1) 'Uncolored' is not a color.; (2) Uncolored ducks do not have the same color as other uncolored ducks, nor do they have a different color from ducks that have a color.; waddle waddle

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: Response to (1): "True".; Response to (2): "True".

quack

Ruling 6

2021-03-03 | Wotton

I humbly request a ruling on the following:

One does not need to explicitly mention that they are spending a quack when performing an action that moves a named duck to a different pond.

waddle

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: I issue the following response: "False".

Players may move ducks from one pond to another by spending one quack from that duck and posting in #game-actions.

The action of spending one quack is not given explicitly given any method, but it is described as performable (at least in the context of moving a duck) in the above sentence. It is therefore a default-method action and can be performed by posting in #game-actions (with a duck word). Since no other method is provided to expend a quack, I find that it must be explicitly stated in #game-actions to be performed.

quack

Ruling 7

2021-03-04 | Wotton

I request a ruling on the following:

The current gamestate is untrackable, because some rolls were made by rolling multiple dice at once with @Dice Maiden#9678 and those rolls were automatically sorted. It's impossible to know which result belongs to which roll.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: Response: "false". I find instead that the attempted actions that used improperly-sorted dice rolls failed, as the distribution for each individual roll was not sufficiently close to the distribution specified in the rules. The fact that the bot internally rolled dice with the correct distribution is irrelevant, as the bot does not specify the outcome of those rolls in the order they were rolled.

quack

Ruling 8

2021-03-06 | Nyhilo

I formally request a ruling on the following

Per the statement in Duck Naming Criteria, "All player may give their duck any name", players are able to give a new name to a duck, even if that duck already has a name.

i.e., are we allowed to rename our ducks?

uwu

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: Response: "False". A named duck can be assigned a new name, but I find no authorization to revoke a name in the rules. Quack.

Ruling 9

2021-03-11 | finsook: I ask (properly this time) for a judgement on the following:

Die rolls are game actions, so they require a message ending in a duck word to be performed.

quack

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat | Judgement invalid because of lack of duck word: Response: "false". Based on

A "game action" is any action a player may take that would alter the gamestate.

I find that the rolling of the die has no direct effect on the gamestate. It is merely part of the specification of another action, which is the action that actually affects the gamestate.

Ruling 10

2021-03-11 | Nyhilo

please give me you judgement on the following statement ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

Philosophocratocrates the 4th and Philosophocratocrates the 5th are not currently scouting because they were not named as such at the point they were directed to go scouting.

uwu

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: Response: "false". The names are similar enough (differing only by a single character), and both names of each duck were given in the same message and only associated with one duck. Both ducks were thus specified, and the attempt to send the ducks scouting did not fail for lack of specification of a duck's name. quack

Ruling 11

2021-03-11 | Nyhilo

I humbly request a ruling on the following sentence in the Scouting rule:

A player can only attempt to retrieve each scouting duck once per voting period.

Does this mean

The act of retrieval with regards to a single duck may only be performed once per round.

or A single player may only attempt to retrieve any particular duck once per round.?

To put it another way.

If Player A fails to retrieve a duck, then that duck is stolen by/given to player B, can player B attempt to retrieve that duck as well?

quack

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: Response: "The latter, and yes." "A player" is typically taken to mean "any given player", and I find no reason to deviate from that here. quack

Ruling 12

2021-03-18 | JumbleTheCircle!: Request for Justice: Does everyone get a duck when a player joins?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: Response: "no, but you better clarify it".

Upon joining the game, a duck is created in the possession of each player.

I find that the reading where only the joining player receives a duck to be slightly more plausible than the reading where every player receives a duck, in addition to being more in the best interests of the game.

Ruling 13

2021-03-18 | Nyhilo

I request a judgement [sic] pertaining to the following sentence found in the Ponds rule:

Each duck lives in exactly one pond.

Does this imply the following?

A duck automatically lives in a pond when created, and therefore could never have been assigned a pond initially.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: Response: "true".; err; "yes"

Ruling 14

2021-03-18 | [idle account]: I formally request a ruling on the following: "I possess a duck named jason_sdafbhgjkl eagh tyiukakrw."

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: Response: "false".

Ruling 15

2021-03-18 | [idle account]: I formally request a ruling on the following: The set of legal names cannot be deterministically evaluated, AND, the inability to deterministically evaluate whether a name is legal renders an attempt to give a duck that name invalid.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: 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 16

2021-03-21 | JumbleTheCircle!: RfJ: Is .@everyone. a illegal name because it impersonates players?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: 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 17

2021-03-21 | JumbleTheCircle!: RfJ: Are names impersonating multiple players illegal?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: Response: "yes".

Ruling 18

2021-03-21 | Wotton

I request judgement on the following:

Pond bonuses/losses as described in the pond rule are benefits/upkeep costs of owning ducks for the purposes of the scouting rule.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: Awaiting Judgement

Ruling 19

2021-03-21 | ATMunn: I request justice on the following statement: JumbleTheCircle! successfully fed names impersonating players in the replied-to message.

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: Awaiting Judgement

Ruling 20

2021-03-21 | JumbleTheCircle!: RfJ: Can you use Divine Scrambler with a negative multiple of 20 Quacks?

Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat: 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.