Thursday, March 02, 2006

Declaration of Victory: Declaration of Victory

11 votes against.  Quorum Reached. —Excalabur.

Adminned at 03 Mar 2006 09:17:34 UTC

According to rule 2.18, “Victory”:

If a Swashbuckler other than Elias IX has held the role of ‘Captain’ for 3 full days, then e may declare victory at any time.

Since according to Bucky/Captain, “a Swashbuckler other than Elias IX has held the role of ‘Captain’ for 3 full days”, clearly, I may declare victory at any time.  Although there is controversy as to whether Captain may declare victory, I am “then e”, and I am declaring victory.

I strongly request that you vote against all four pending DoVs.  Although I feel like the dynasty should come to a close fairly soon, it should not be because of a weakness of English.  If everyone played Nomic the way this game has been played the last couple days, there would be no way to play it except in a language where:
* every word refers to only one thing, and exactly one thing, and
* the grammar is strong enough so that a sentence has only one meaning, if it has a meaning.
Obviously, English fails horribly on both counts, and that’s why Nomic should be played by the meaning of the rules, not the meaning of the grammar.

If the tightening of the ruleset is taken to the extreme, I forsee, ideally, a solution where the ruleset defines core nouns, verbs, adjectives, and maybe even grammatical structures, which the ruleset then extends.  In practice, a hodge-podge of proposals to create this would be even less graceful.  The suggestions to ‘escape’ names in the ruleset, such as ‘Elias IX’ or [Elias IX] (except the ones which were scams), I feel to be working toward this end.  Although minor changes like this are good ideas, taking it to the extreme is not.

Again, if you vote for Bucky’s DoV, you should also vote for mine.  However, for the sake of the game, please do neither; please don’t help set a precedent that could take BlogNomic down forever into exploiting loopholes in an all-too-easily exploited language.

Comments

Kevan:

03-02-2006 15:37:40 UTC

against

Shadowclaw:

03-02-2006 15:51:47 UTC

against This is getting stupid.

Purplebeard:

03-02-2006 16:07:49 UTC

against “A name change may never create a meaning in the Ruleset that was not present before it.”

Personman:

03-02-2006 16:22:16 UTC

against

Hix:

03-02-2006 16:57:16 UTC

against

smith:

03-02-2006 17:02:59 UTC

against you’ve eloquently voiced my worries

Hix:

03-02-2006 17:20:49 UTC

CoV for.  This is a legal DoV.

Bucky:

03-02-2006 18:37:20 UTC

I have to vote against this on capitolization grounds.  if this were the intention of the rule, both “then” and “e” would be capitolized as proper nouns.

Kevan:

03-02-2006 18:41:42 UTC

We already had at least three Swashbucklers who prefer to use lower-case for their names.

The Lone Amigo:

03-02-2006 22:32:01 UTC

against

Argh.

Angry Grasshopper:

03-02-2006 22:43:41 UTC

I’ll vote for this if there is a consensus that the statement “a Swashbuckler other than Elias IX has held the role of ‘Captain’ for 3 full days” is true.

Essentially, you’ve got my vote if Bucky’s DoV passes.

against

predisastered:

03-02-2006 23:09:14 UTC

against

Elias IX:

03-03-2006 00:03:07 UTC

against

Bucky:

03-03-2006 05:37:30 UTC

against quorum

Excalabur:

03-03-2006 09:16:56 UTC

against Higher quorum.