Friday, October 16, 2009

Declaration of Victory: Declaration of Victory

15 votes against, after 24 hours. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 17 Oct 2009 02:29:40 UTC

This DoV is coming from 2003.

Rule 2.2.2, The First Speaker, establishes me (JeffSheets) as the Speaker for the first game. Thus, the ruleset mandates that I am an entity within the first game, which must (for lack of other identifying details) be assumed to be the first game of BlogNomic. As a player in that game I am bound by its rules as well as the rules of the ruleset of the current round.

Rule 9 of the Round One ruleset states that I can claim either 10 or 2 gold for passing the proposal that changed my name; it doesn’t matter which, really, as Rule 21 says that “If each and every Subject possesses more Gold than the Emperor, then the Emperor’s Dynasty collapses into bankcruptcy and comes to an end. A new Dynasty begins with the richest Subject as its Emperor (resolve ties by having the previous Emperor choose).” As the only entity currently entitled under the ruleset to exist in Game 1, I have more gold than the Emperor (who does not exist) and may thus declare victory.

At least y’all can carry on voting during this.

Comments

Josh:

10-16-2009 09:38:08 UTC

Explicit for

Josh:

10-16-2009 09:44:56 UTC

(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)

Kevan:

10-16-2009 09:45:38 UTC

against 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.)

Kevan:

10-16-2009 09:48:23 UTC

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.

Josh:

10-16-2009 09:50:26 UTC

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.)

Josh:

10-16-2009 09:51:36 UTC

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.

Kevan:

10-16-2009 10:16:01 UTC

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.

Josh:

10-16-2009 10:22:52 UTC

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.)

Kevan:

10-16-2009 10:47:25 UTC

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.)

Josh:

10-16-2009 10:49:58 UTC

Well played, sir.  against

(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.)

Wakukee:

10-16-2009 11:08:26 UTC

“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.  against

Josh:

10-16-2009 11:19:03 UTC

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…

spikebrennan:

10-16-2009 13:32:53 UTC

against
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.

Klisz:

10-16-2009 14:13:15 UTC

against  This is even worse than my DoV…..

Josh:

10-16-2009 14:23:24 UTC

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.

Wooble:

10-16-2009 14:24:58 UTC

against

Shem:

10-16-2009 14:27:43 UTC

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

Excalabur:

10-16-2009 14:28:00 UTC

against I would’ve voted against this on general principles.

ais523:

10-16-2009 14:29:53 UTC

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

Excalabur:

10-16-2009 14:31:57 UTC

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

Excalabur:

10-16-2009 14:32:53 UTC

Currently 9 against.

Kevan:

10-16-2009 14:35:38 UTC

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

Josh:

10-16-2009 14:56:08 UTC

Sorry Excalabur!

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

Oze:

10-16-2009 16:50:09 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

10-16-2009 17:34:54 UTC

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

Ienpw III:

10-16-2009 19:22:34 UTC

against

arthexis:

10-17-2009 00:10:57 UTC

against

Ienpw III:

10-17-2009 00:40:26 UTC

^^ Idle player

Oranjer:

10-17-2009 01:43:20 UTC

against

Darknight:

10-17-2009 02:58:37 UTC

against

Darknight:

10-17-2009 03:32:23 UTC

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

Excalabur:

10-17-2009 06:00:04 UTC

Aleph_null.

Excalabur:

10-17-2009 06:00:51 UTC

Though I expected JeffSheets to have something more elaborate planned…

Bucky:

10-17-2009 06:22:54 UTC

against .  The first game ended during the Switch Metadynasty.

Qwazukee:

10-17-2009 06:57:38 UTC

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