Thursday, March 02, 2006

Declaration of Victory: Declaration of Victory

10-4.  All hail our faithful new leader. —Excalabur

Adminned at 02 Mar 2006 19:30:25 UTC

According to Rule 1.9, this Declaration of Victory meets all criteria for being a legal DoV - it has the correct title, and I am of the belief that I have achieved victory. “Every Swashbuckler may respond to the Declaration of Victory saying whether e regards it as legal or illegal”, so let me know if I’ve got the title wrong, or if I don’t really have this belief.

Are we having fun yet?

posted by Kevan at 02 Mar 2006 15:29:25 UTC Comments (17)

Comments

Shadowclaw:

02-03-2006 15:49:29 UTC

against We have far too many DoVs happening.

Purplebeard:

02-03-2006 16:05:10 UTC

against______:AGAINST: _:AGAINST: against against _:AGAINST: against against
__:AGAINST:__:AGAINST: ___:AGAINST: _______:AGAINST:
____:AGAINST: _____:AGAINST: against against __:AGAINST: against against
____:AGAINST: _____:AGAINST: _______________:AGAINST:
____:AGAINST: _____:AGAINST: _______________:AGAINST:
____:AGAINST: _____:AGAINST: against against__:AGAINST: against against

This is my official response saying that I regard this as legal, using the voting icons, as per law 1.9.

Personman:

02-03-2006 16:21:03 UTC

Purplebeard, that is beautiful. Myself, I’m voting for on this one. It is a way to end the dynasty, it doesn’t have to do with making a fake Swashbuckler, and I think Kevan will give us an interesting and worthwhile dynasty should he win.

Hix:

02-03-2006 17:19:05 UTC

for this is a legal DoV.

Josh: Observer he/they

02-03-2006 17:39:39 UTC

¬_¬

for

Rodney:

02-03-2006 18:26:58 UTC

for For the record, I’d like to say that I discovered this loophole way back in the first Dynasty of Truman Capote.

Bucky:

02-03-2006 18:41:17 UTC

against
Implicit in the ruleset is the assumption that for other players to think it is legal, it must fulfill DoV requirements set forth by another rule.

Scaramouche:

02-03-2006 21:57:41 UTC

for Implicit is a really useless word here—as you have well shown, Cap.

Elias IX:

02-03-2006 22:15:27 UTC

for

Apparently Kevan runs really good dynasties.

Shadowclaw:

02-03-2006 22:18:18 UTC

You know what?

for COV.

The Lone Amigo:

02-03-2006 22:31:04 UTC

against

Blech.

smith:

02-03-2006 22:34:42 UTC

against You do not have this belief. I know this because a puddle on my bathroom floor in the shape of jesus told me so.

predisastered:

02-03-2006 23:11:51 UTC

for

Angry Grasshopper:

03-03-2006 01:20:35 UTC

against

Smith thinks for me, I just copy him.

90000:

03-03-2006 02:29:47 UTC

for quorum-1

Rodney:

03-03-2006 02:42:53 UTC

As I haven’t said this yet this Dynasty…

THE SCIVERNDAVERNS ARE COMING!!!

smith:

03-03-2006 03:32:09 UTC

No really, this should not pass. If you want to have Kevan win this dynasty, make a proposal doing so. I can’t bear a DoV like this. I don’t know what to call this kind of scam: ‘absurd reductionism’, how’s that? Using this logic, I could say that only the first sentence of the ruleset is actually the ruleset.