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 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
 * Response: "true". I see no reason to think otherwise.

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
 * Response: "yes".

Once per voting period, a player may feed another player’s duck by announcing which duck they with to feed in #game-actions
 * 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 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.

Ruling 21

 * 2021-03-22 | JumbleTheCircle!
 * RfJ: If someone changed their name to a duck name, would the "names impersonating players" clause then delete that duck name?


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

Ruling 22

 * 2021-03-23 | belCavendishNY
 * i request justice on the following statement: i have fed a duck this voting period, as of the time of this message


 * Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat
 * Reponse: "no". The only possible feeding hadn't yet been completed because no die was rolled.

Ruling 23

 * 2021-03-23 | Klink can't read
 * I request justice on the following statement: my duck named The Duck Disciple cannot be the target of the Ritual Quack Attack listed under the rule Duck God subrule Duck Disciple.


 * Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat | OVERTURNED
 * Response: "true". The Duck Disciple, as defined in the rules, is a specific entity and references to the Duck Disciple in the rules cannot be supplanted by a named duck.


 * Vote of Confidence to Overturn | Random Internet Cat | 6-1 in favor to overturn


 * Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat
 * Amended response: "false" for the same reasons as above.

Ruling 24

 * 2021-03-25 | Wotton
 * requesting a judgement on the following:
 * (A) A scouting duck still gains/loses quacks through the pond rule, because the benefits are provided to the duck, not the player.
 * (B) The scouting rule only pauses direct benefits/costs to the player/the scouting duck itself; Scouting ducks are taken into account when calculating the quack gain/loss of non-scouting ducks in the same pond and thus indirectly provide benefits to the non-scouting ducks in the same pond.


 * Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat
 * Response:
 * (A) False. I don't buy this. What's good for the duck is good for the person.
 * (B) True. I see no reason to believe that the duck ceases counting as part of the pond when scouting.

Ruling 25

 * 2021-03-27 | Wotton
 * (A) It's currently legal to feed your own duck with a grape.
 * (B) The effect of a fruit does not always take place after the associated feeding action i.e. the effect of a fruit can make the associated feeding action legal, even if that action would be illegal otherwise.


 * Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat | OVERTURNED
 * Responses:
 * (A) "false".

Fruit are items that can be fed to a duck as specified in the Feeding Ducks subrule.
 * explicitly limits the applicability of fruits in the fruit table to the following from Feeding Ducks:

Once per voting period, a player may feed another player’s duck by announcing which duck they with to feed in #game-actions, and optionally adding one valid fruit.
 * (B) "false". Fruit can only be fed as part of an otherwise-legal feeding action, as ruled above.


 * Vote Of Confidence to Overturn | Nyhilo | 2-1 in favor to overturn
 * I would like to initiate a public vote of confidence to overturn this ruling.


 * The second column of the Fruits table is not listed merely as the fruits' "effects" or "benefits", it is the fruits' descriptions. As such, the text of the descriptions column hold the same weight as rule text as the initial paragraph of the Fruits rule.


 * 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 26

 * 2021-04-04 | Nyhilo
 * I request a ruling from the honorable @Random Internet Cat.
 * In the Duck Disciple rule, does all ducks that dealt damage to that Duck Disciple gain 1d6 quacks.
 * mean we roll 1d6 for each individual duck that dealt damage, or that we roll 1d6 once, and all participating ducks receive that amount?


 * 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.
 * 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: 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.