I had seen this and was planning on it so kudos to you.

“Winning the game” ≠ Achieved victory for the current Dynasty.

“The game” is a term already used in the ruleset to refer to, well this “game”, for example here: “Upon doing so, the game immediately goes into Hiatus, if it hasn’t already.”

And I believe that “to win” means to “gain victory”. It’s the normal English use of the word: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/win?s=ts

I agree but the game is also used in context of a Bloggsball game. There exists an overloading of the term in the ruleset. Based on context of the sub-rule and locality of the sub-rule, “game” in this instead more than likely refers to a Bloggsball game and not the dynasty.

I agree. Formally, we can divide the key phrase as:

[target word] = (interpretation1/interpretation2/...interpretationx)

The team that scores more points during the [game]=(game of Bloggsball/game of Blognomic) wins the [game]=(game of Bloggsball/game of Blognomic).

Formally, it could be one or the other, but we don’t know for sure which because its ambiguous, so we’re at a bit of a stalemate there. So the only reasons left to use to decide for one or the other are informal ones unfortunately (which is kind of why I believe this play is “risky”, but hey, it could work, so I’m going for it).

The team wins the game. You are not a team. You are the manager. 

Exactly.

“A Full Team is a Manager employing three Bloggers.”

I’m part of that Team.

Or rather, think of it as “A Full Team is a Manager doing X”

I’m that Manager, because I’m doing X, therefore I’m a Full Team, ergo a Team, the Team who wins the game.

By the definition of Full Team you personally have won the game. But I believe, as Matt does, that “the game” in the rule refers to the Bloggsball game, not Blognomic.

Why would you think this would work?

However, given the ambiguity we have no way of establishing this.

Why would you think this would work?

Conceded that you are part of the team. Question to more experienced player: Do victory conditions usually call it “winning the game”?

No, it’s usually called “achieving victory” or “has achieved victory”

The Second Dynasty of Amnistar c. 2007 https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Ruleset_45#Buyout
The First Dynasty of Bucky c. 2007 https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Ruleset_46#Buyout
The First Dynasty of spikebrennan c. 2007 - 2008 https://blognomic.com/archive/victory_conditions_take_2/
The Ninth Dynasty of Kevan c. 2011 https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Ruleset_94#Death
The Eighth Dynasty of Josh c. 2013 https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Ruleset_115#It.27s_good_to_be_King

Thanks card. Nice try Cuddlebeam, and good job on spotting that you could play your own team, too. I think my vote stands though. It is pretty clear in context that the game in question is not the whole dynasty.

I think it’s fairly clear that the spirit of the rule refers to the bloggsball match, but I think both interpretations are equally valid.

per Matt

To clarify, achieving victory is different than winning.  Achieving victory means that the dynasty ends, a new one starts with you as the Emperor, etc.  Winning presumably means that Blognomic is over.  There is no provision for winning Blognomic in the ruleset, and if there was, it wouldn’t be achieved by passing a DoV anyway.  You can make the argument that you’ve won Blognomic and that therefore the game is over, but I think there will be a CFJ if you do that.

I disagree

Terms that are explicitly defined in the ruleset overrule standard English definitions.  If achieving victory meant winning in the ruleset, the game would have ended after the first dynasty.  But it didn’t, so clearly they are not the same.

Yes, but in the same way, we’ve had discrepancies in rule interpretation between us and precedents before, argumentum ad “precedent” doesn’t apply always unless there is (current) consensus on the precedent itself.

The rules clearly refer to the match between the player, not blognomic. Nice try.

It’s not an argument from precedent, Cuddlebeam, it’s an argument based on the fact that “victory” has a specific definition in the ruleset.  The fact that Blognomic has never been won is just evidence in support of that.

Ah, ok. I can see that, but I disagree with it because there is no instance of victory being defined like how Idle, Proposals, etc are all defined, so I don’t think that Victory is a keyword (or at least, not one stricter than for example “purchasing”, which hasn’t got strictly defined mechanics yet we make it synonym to “buying” and such).

There is literally an entire section called “Victory and Ascension” which basically exists to define what achieving victory means

Woops lol. That’s true. I still believe that it’s not stricter than “purchasing”/“buying” though.