Explicit

(By the by, I also fulfil my criteria under rule 2 by “maintain[ing] an active weblog”; you may assume that I contacted myself with the URL before posting this DoV)

Rule 1.9: “If a Player (other than the Leader) believes that he has achieved victory in the current Dynasty...” - even if you win that game, and even if we recognise that you are playing and have won that game, you haven’t won the Fifth Metadynasty of BlogNomic.

(Also, for what it’s worth, that isn’t the Round One ruleset, it’s the Round Two one. The “Imperial Bankcruptcy” rule didn’t come in until The First Dynasty of Myke.)

Furthermore, I see nothing to suggest that being a “Speaker” for a game means that you are a player of it. Going with “normal English usage”, I’d assume you were its archivist or spokesperson.

It’s a rule in the current dynasty that allows me to declare victory, though. By explicitly designating me as a player in Round 1, the ruleset in implictly mandating that the Round 1 ruleset applies to me in the current dynasty.

(Admittedly the ruleset dating issue is a problem, but the wiki identifies this as the ruleset for the first round - so although the wiki has no mandate under the ruleset, I think it still qualifies as the “official” first dynasty ruleset, even if that is factually inaccurate. We should fix that though.)

Furthermore, I see nothing to suggest that being a “Speaker” for a game means that you are a player of it. Going with “normal English usage”, I’d assume you were its archivist or spokesperson.

The nature of my role is irrelevant; all that really matters is that the ruleset defines me as an entity in the first game. As an entity in the game I must be subject to its ruleset.

A game entity would have been subject to its ruleset, but you could only actually win Round One if you were specifically a Subject. “Gold” and “Square D7” were also entities in the first game, but they weren’t Subjects.

Fun as it is to dig these things up, though, I’ll just push all of my chips onto the fact that Rule 21 did not exist during Round One.

As detailed in the second comment, though, I met the mandated requirements in Rule 2 to be a player - I had my own blog, I messaged an admin and my name appears in the sidebar. Thus, I was a player under the terms of that ruleset.

(To be honest if the ruleset dating problem is the only failing in this DoV then I’ll be amazed. For the time being, though, and despite the fact that you are undeniably a more reliable record than the wiki, I’m sticking to the official line - that in the lack of an accurate provable record, the link in the wiki remains orthodox, insofar as it can be said that BlogNomic maintains a historical orthodoxy.)

Archive.org has the original proposal for Imperial Bankcruptcy - it came in on the 22nd of April 2003, a couple of weeks after Round One had already ended.

(And yes, there are lots of other interesting issues here - are Round One and Fifth Metadynasty two entirely separate Nomics, does it matter that Round One has explicitly “ended” - but I’m resisting the urge to get too sidetracked.)

Well played, sir. 

(There are plenty of other ways that I can exploit this, though - for example, the rules for changing my name are much more slack in the old ruleset. I think this’ll be the only DoV on the subject, though. Otherwise it would just be tiresome.)

“The Speaker for the first game shall be JeffSheets”—As the dynasty has passed, the interpretation of the rule that is most logical is not that JeffSheets retrospectively becomes the speaker for the dynasty, but that the speaker for the first dynasty shall retrospectively become entitled “JeffSheets”. As there was no speaker, we can fairly say that, until there is a speaker, the title of name of “JeffSheets” holds no true meaning. 

I’ve accepted the failure of this (fun though it was!) - but that doesn’t really hold water, logically, Wak. If a player is referred to by name in the Ruleset then the ruleset is referring to that player; that’s really the only logical conclusion to take…

per Kevan.  “first game” =/= Round One of Blognomic, for a start.  Also, nothing in the current ruleset incorporates the Round One ruleset by reference, so the Round One ruleset is not in force and is not gamestate.

  This is even worse than my DoV…..

Harsh! At least mine was, y’know. Creative. And yours was genuinely quite bad… (Although I adnmit that I would never have posted this if we hadn’t allowed voting during hiatus.)

Spike - the ‘“first game” =/= Round One of Blognomic’ problem was the biggest one that I was anticipating, I must admit.

The Round One rules are only documented at all for historical record; they’re not gamestate.  Nice try though.

I would’ve voted against this on general principles.

You haven’t achieved victory /this/ dynasty. (I wonder if your post here causes you to achieve victory in Round 1 despite our votes?)

Thanks for holding up the game while get a quorum, by the way.

Currently 9 against.

We have to wait a full 24 hours to resolve a DoV, even if it reaches quorum before that time.

Sorry Excalabur!

We could probably make the Acting Leader leader for the purposes of Rule 1.9, baring the first paragraph.

I like the creativity, but no Rules from Round One are Gamestate….

^^ Idle player

Honestly guys, just how many different ways can you find to try to loophole a victory?

Aleph_null.

Though I expected JeffSheets to have something more elaborate planned…

.  The first game ended during the Switch Metadynasty.

Ooh, I totally forgot about that, good call Bucky.