Monday, July 10, 2017

Declaration of Victory: Cuddlebeam… SMASH

Reached quorum 10-0 and is 12 hours old. Enacted by card.

Adminned at 11 Jul 2017 02:50:45 UTC

I’ve destroyed 4 Artefacts, and am not a cultist, I win

Comments

Sphinx:

07-10-2017 14:40:42 UTC

Checks out. Although I’m not sure it’s even necessary for you not to be a cultist?

for

Sphinx:

07-10-2017 14:44:55 UTC

Oh right, to destroy them, you need to be a non-cultist.

pokes:

07-10-2017 14:46:34 UTC

:Sphinx:

Kevan:

07-10-2017 15:04:11 UTC

Can we get some details of how you think you achieved this? Anonymising the names of any donors is obviously fine.

pokes:

07-10-2017 15:11:05 UTC

I donated some Artefacts - out of my own reserve, not any Artefacts from anyone else that I may have been entrusted with; those are safe.

Cuddlebeam:

07-10-2017 15:28:17 UTC

I give full endorsement from my behalf to anyone who has collaborated with me to share whatever information about our contact that they desire.

I don’t know if people would want to share it, but they’re cool with it, I will.

Cuddlebeam:

07-10-2017 15:36:47 UTC

(That said, there was no scam, I just got Artefacts the old fashioned way. Enough people gave them to me.)

Kevan:

07-10-2017 15:38:00 UTC

[pokes] How many? I just want to know what chain of events we’re voting on the legality of here, and whether it involves anything more nuanced than some Explorers giving 3 Artefacts to Cuddlebeam.

pokes:

07-10-2017 15:44:17 UTC

@Kevan. Not 3, so I can’t confirm the victory myself, hence a :Sphinx: vote.

Sphinx:

07-10-2017 15:47:10 UTC

I’ll just say that Cuddlebeam was a participant in the arresting mission.

Cuddlebeam:

07-10-2017 16:01:37 UTC

I don’t see how there can be much doubt when Sphinx has greenticked it himself.

Kevan:

07-10-2017 16:14:39 UTC

It’s unclear from the comments given whether Sphinx’s approval means “yes, Cuddlebeam was handed 3 Artefacts in a completely unremarkable manner” or something more like “Cuddlebeam has privately convinced me that Artefacts can be destroyed even if held by other players”.

I’d defer to the first, I’d like to hear more details and judge it for myself if it was the latter.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:

07-10-2017 16:15:32 UTC

for

Sphinx:

07-10-2017 16:28:11 UTC

Yes, Cuddlebeam was in possession of at least three artefacts and destroyed all of them, no other artefacts were destroyed.

Thunder:

07-10-2017 16:47:26 UTC

for
What’s the next dynasty?

Kevan:

07-10-2017 17:08:44 UTC

[Sphinx] But Cuddlebeam is claiming to have destroyed four here. Would destroying three have been enough to meet “destroyed the most Artefacts” regardless?

Dewaldo:

07-10-2017 17:15:01 UTC

for
Good one Cuddlebeam!

card:

07-10-2017 17:25:41 UTC

for I think I know what happened

Sphinx:

07-10-2017 18:01:03 UTC

Yes, Cuddlebeam destroyed four artefacts and noone else destroyed any.

Kevan:

07-10-2017 18:20:38 UTC

Alright then, that meets the victory condition.

for

orkboi:

07-10-2017 21:06:35 UTC

well done!

Axemabaro:

07-10-2017 21:45:07 UTC

for  imperial  for  for  for  for  for

Sinq:

07-11-2017 02:28:50 UTC

for