Do I ‘play’, as you say, Elias IX?

Although “Each Dynasty has a single Captain and is named according to the number of times which that Swashbuckler has been the Captain”, really irks me, and this crazy renaming should be limited for the sake of literary grace. (i.e. having to use “the Captain” whenever referring to the emperor)

AG, I’m really thankful for your assistance to Bucky in this regard.

Haha, I’m not mad. But I won’t vote yet.

I guess what I’m trying to say is,

Even by changing your name to Captain, you still play the role of ‘Swashbuckler’.

Only I actually play the role of ‘Captain’.

Angry Grasshopper doesn’t actually play the role of ‘Angry Grasshopper’, although his avatar may indicate otherwise.

JelloGoesWiggle doesn’t actually play the role of ‘JelloGoesWiggle’, unless e’s actually a piece of jello that wiggles.

And names like ‘Hix’, ‘Rodney’, ‘Kevan’, ‘Josh’, and ‘Banja’, aren’t roles, or even functions, as they are defined by you.

Those names aren’t “functions assumed or parts played by a particular person”. They’re simply names.

It is a posessive ‘of’  as in the ‘voice of Bob’ is the voice that belongs to Bob.  Similarly, the ‘Role of Captain’ is the role belonging to me.

...and during the past three days I have been assuming such functions as voting, moving, dueling etc.

Although I somewhat disagree with your argument(?!), you’ve made a good show. 

C’mon, rewind selecta, if you know what I’m saying.

I still go with the notion that only Elias IX has been playing the role belonging to the ‘Captain’ whereas you’ve been playing your role, belonging to Captain.

I feel there need to be proposals for typographic conventions, like names in brackets (even if ’ is more “natural”, look at the confusion that causes), or nouns,  verbs, and adjectives defined by the ruleset in bold.

I somewhat disagree with this method of victory…

Still, enough is enough.

Although I’m ready for the end of this dynasty, I can’t agree with the method of victory. While I do seem to remember that we’ve had something like this before, my feelings on the subject haven’t really changed: that a certain degree of linguistic latitude has to be permissable, otherwise we end up having to check every rule five hundred times, couching every little thing in swathes of lawyer-speak, and that’s no fun. Yes, you have played an interesting linguistic trick, and yes, a certain, selective, reading of the dictionary could corroborate your point of view, but ultimately I think that it is healthier for the game if neither this, nor any of the DOVs based upon it, pass.

I’m sorry to say Josh is right. (sorry because this dynasty should end right about now)

CoV, since the only reason I voted FOR in the first place was to end the dynasty.

Even though I’ve already voted, I want to point out that the reason I’ve been so obsessed with the idea of tightening up the rules with typographic conventions is that, like Josh, who stated it more eloquently than I can, I’d like to play the game in a manner where the loopholes found are in the actual rules, not weaknesses in the interpretation of English (of which there are unbelievably many).

Serious question:

Would it have been fair for me to buy some ‘Port’ motley at Port, take it aboard the Inquisitor, and then take any actions possible at Port afterwards since if it’s on me, I’m always at (my) ‘Port’?

Addendum to my last comment:

Would it have been fair to buy some “the role of ‘Captain’” motley at port, hold it for 3 days, and declare victory?

Names are defined in the gamestate but roles aren’t, so we have to use common sense to interpret “roles”. Going with “the function assumed or the part played by a particular [Swashbuckler]”, the only meaningful game-specific reading, in my opinion, is that “Captain of the Inquisitor”, “LeChuck” and “The Nerd” are all roles.

I disagree that player names can be considered as roles, and certainly feel that the spirit of the “role” rule change, when players voted on it, was that merely having the name “Captain” wouldn’t qualify.

(As for the Motley stuff, I think we probably should have had Motley pre-approved by the Captain, rather than being vetoable after it had been created.)

COV

CoV .  This is a legal DoV.

Josh said it well. All I can add is that I feel the defined game concept of Captain, as in The Captain of The Inquisitor, matched the phrase “held the role of ‘Captain’” better and was the logical assumption to make. I’m making a number of allowances: omitting the ‘The’, interpreting the undefined construction ‘holding the role of’, as well as restricting the interpretation to a single part of the gamestate. You may say this is unfair and your interpretation was equally or more logical and valid.

My final defense is: this is a grey area and I don’t want to go down the path of naming confusion. We still don’t have a ruleset that can handle it, and I don’t know if we ever will. Not just for Swashbuckler Names but for all freeform objects, including proposals and posts - core parts of the game.

“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.”

Role and name aren’t synonymous.

CoV

It looks like 10 Swashies have voted against it.

1. then e
2. Josh
3. Purplebeard
4. Elias IX (CoV)
5. Kevan
6. Shadowclaw (CoV)
7. Rodney
8. smith
9. The Lone Amigo (CoV)
10. predisastered

If you try to argue that I’m not “the current Captain”, I will squeeze your soul into a small box and throw it into a volcano. Metaphorically, but still.