Really? Really. This… this is either the most sublime attempt at a scam I have ever seen, or the dumbest. But, just so you know, it says you’ve achieved victory. Not that upon passing this you have, or that you can declare victory at any time. I might be wrong, but this seems to just be stating that you have, in fact, achieved victory before, but not that you have declared it. But even further, you may have joined my Party, but your Tory ideals remained. I WILL NOT hand this government over to you.

This makes me nervous.

There’s something fishy about this, but I can’t put my finger on it…

The most likely and obvious scheme would be for Josh to use their (potential) 11 Political Capital to swing the vote at the last minute, possibly aided by a Green filibuster.

This doesn’t look like a functional scam; the rule under deliberation merely consists of a correct observation (see http://blognomic.com/archive/i_am_the_victor/)

Hang on; think about it.

@Bucky: “has achieved victory” is the rubric used for basically every DoV ever. As a non-player, I’m not sure what your stake is in trying to shift that just to prevent a transient scam?

For the record, though, “x has achieved victory” remains effective because it is consistent with the format set out in rule 1.7 (“If a Honourable Member (other than the Speaker) believes that they have achieved victory in the current Dynasty”). Taken in isolation, it is possible to deliberately confuse the present perfect and past perfect tenses, but the ruleset doesn’t acknowledge the dynastic history, and has no concept of past victories, only victory in the present tense, so it would not legitimate to use prior wins as a source when considering valid interpretations of rules unless that was explicitly permitted elsewhere in the ruleset. What is legitimate is following keywords set out elsewhere in the ruleset. 1.7 asks me if I have achieved victory in this dynasty; the dynastic rule from this proposal would say I have achieved victory. It would be a linguistic contortion to interpret that in any other way.

Oh, and the purpose of this isn’t victory, it’s extortion. As Purplebeard says, I can crap out 11 votes at the enactment threshold, and so can Skju, so simple AGAINST votes won’t cut it here. If you guys want to stop this from passing, you’ll need to spend some Political Capital.

It’s not a functional scam if it was intended in by the rule’s supporters. That being said - everyone can do the same and be on ‘equal’ ground. :

Josh can only lose 8 Credibility 5 times, so he could have 6, but he wouldn’t be Corrupt, so he couldn’t gain 4. Skju can only gain six and be stuck with four Credibility. As such, we aren’t facing 22, we’re facing 14. Seeing as there are five of us, me, Larry, Purplebeard, Klisz and Skju could pay the measly sum of 3 and overpower you there. And you have to take care of the Deliberation, so you’ll have even less. And I still say this Proposal is merely stating a fact. It needs to be qualified, with an event. If it said “after the passing of this Proposal, Josh has achieved victory” it would work. I honestly, honestly believe that your sentence is moot.

Your within your rights to argue against convention - just because something has ever been thus, doesn’t mean it always will be - but in this case your onto nothing. The sentence is in the present continuous tense, which is used to describe an ongoing status (see http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentcontinuous.com). Victory doesn’t have to occur just once ; it can be an ongoing state. While there are other verb structures that this sentence adheres to, they are not appropriate for the ruleset, which only works in the present tense by default and only interacts with itself, and has no concept of my earlier victories.

Meanwhile, this passes a few hours before the deliberation and you’ve missed a couple of ways in which I can tank 2 credibly in a pinch. Tick tick, clock is ticking.

* Spitemaster should be in the list, not Skju. Sorry.

I am afraid your link is broken. And you’ve forgotten something.

Probably. That’s partly the point of the stalking horse, though.

What you forgot was that the time-scale of deliberations is half that of Proposals.

Annoyingly, this proposal cannot be resolved until 53 hours have passed since it was posted.

Oh hey, I just realised that this clause only restricts when a proposal may be failed, not when it may be enacted. Josh would’ve won if they had logged on in time to swing the vote and enact this before the Deliberation was resolved.

Yeah, I suspected that Raichu had forgotten that. I was quite sure my scam was watertight.

Alas, internet difficulties. Not the first victory they’ve wrecked; also not the last.

The thing that I actually genuine did forget (or not notice, at least) is that the proposal at the head of the queue can’t be resolved, so this would have been stuck anyway. Which should worry Purplebeard, given that this is going to be in the queue for the next few days :)

You were fine there, unless I’m missing something: Resolving the issue has five votes against and can be failed at any time.

The exact time that my proposals can resolve doesn’t really matter, as far as I can tell. The only thing that really matters is what happens just before the deadline, whenever that may be.

I didn’t forget it; in fact, I went to Enact the Deliberation just 5 minutes after Purplebeard. Normally I rely on e-mail notifications, but they’ve lagged out tremendously.

@PB - quorum is 6? What am I missing there?

With Henri’s there WAS six against, so between 15:53:16 and 17:33:18 there would have been no way to stop it, but it wasn’t the oldest Pending proposal, so Josh didn’t screw up.

Josh was referring to the oldest proposal, Resolving the issue. In either case, you don’t need a quorum of AGAINST votes to fail a proposal, you just need enough to ensure that a quorum of FOR votes can’t be reached, so 5 AGAINST votes is enough to fail a proposal right now.

Okay, that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification. And stalling: 

with 3 political capital attached.

CoV