BlogNomic: The Ninth Dynasty of ais523

Sorry all :( It’s my fault

Very clever and an example of dastardly cunning if I ever saw one.  However, I think there is still a good possibility that victory has yet to be obtained.

-First, one can question whether Infinite Loophole is a Gadget.  If you notice, Rule 2.2 is careful to always refer to items in the Gadget Request page as Gadget Requests, not Gadgets.  I would suggest that a Gadget Request does not become a Gadget until it is moved to the list of Approved Gadgets (or is an In-Play Gadget).  I think this is an entirely reasonable interpretation of the rules.
-A Mission may definitely be completed multiple times under the rules, but there still lies the question whether these additional completions count toward attaining the rank of Master Spy.  I would argue that this is not necessarily the case if one looks at the list of Missions completed.  Clucky has completed Basic Training, Fake Passports, and The Great Escape, or 3 Missions; even though e has completed Basic Training 100+ times, e still has only completed these three missions.

There are other niggling details, such as whether stating that an Agent is a Master Spy gives em the Rank of Master Spy, and whether the Infinite Loophole is a proper Gadget Request due to formatting, but the main issue is the first point (since even if the other points defeat this DoV, Clucky can just make a gadget with such wording to essentially grant em victory).

Anyway, even though it doesn’t have meaning in a DoV, I’m going to vote and let others decide whether they want to continue with this dynasty.

Invalid. Pending gadgets are not gadgets.

No one approved the infinite loophole gadget, so it’s not a valid gadget yet. Also, Axeling brings up a good point, since you have only completed 3 missions (although if your infinite loophole did work, you would have a disturbing amount of tickets). I vote against on the basis that there is no gadget entitled “Infinite Loophole” in the game.

* (<STATUS>) Request: <Gadget Name> - ~~~~
** Description: <Description of gadget>”
...
Then the Requester may add the gadget to their List of In-play Gadgets on the wiki and change the STATUS portion of the Gadget Request post to “APPROVED”.

If any one of those three requirements is true, then the gadget is not added to the Requester’s List of In-play Gadget and the STATUS portion of the Gadget Request post must be changed to “DENIED”.

I count four cases in which the ruleset refers to “gadget requests ” as simply “gadgets”. Even if the first two are sketchy, the last two are pretty clear. The word “gadget” in that rule refers to the same thing the word “gadget” in my item does.

I haven’t taken the time to parse this yet, but it looks like a well-reasoned argument.

Even if someone accepts that this gadget exists (as a gadget, not merely a request) what makes Clucky its “owner”?

Its now defined in the ruleset, hix.

An agent is considered to be the Owner of all Gadgets listed in eir section in the “List of In-Play Gadgets”. Gadgets can only be used by their Owner unless otherwise specified in the Gadget’s description.

Very nice, but what makes a requested Gadget into the bona fide real thing?

I’d need to see some argument here, otherwise I must default to CP’s position.

Where in my gadget I won did it say it had to be a “bona fide real thing”?

More argument to support my claim:

There exists a page on the wiki called List of In-play Gadgets, which contains a list of every Agent and the descriptions of the Gadgets which the agent has. There also exists a page on the wiki called List of Approved Gadgets, which lists all Gadgets that have been Approved by legal process. An agent is considered to be the Owner of all Gadgets listed in eir section in the “List of In-Play Gadgets”. Gadgets can only be used by their Owner unless otherwise specified in the Gadget’s description.

Clearly if in order for something to become a “gadget” it needs to be approved, then the bolded clause is not unnecessary. It would be like saying “All 6-foot tall men who are over 60 inches tall”.

Thats three cases where the rule set acknowledges that even pending gadgets are gadgets. I see no case where the rule set says that pending gadgets are not actually gadgets.

And for those of you that wonder how Clucky is getting the power of the gadget, he has a gadget that lets him mimic other gadgets, which he does own.

Ok, and he stil has only completed 3 missions. (Though one of then a hundred times).

true, but in that case I’d say still give him the victory, because he can currently complete any mission as soon as it’s put up. in a few more missions…that’s it.

We can prevent that…

No, I have completed 100 missions. No where in the rules did I say I need to complete 100 different missions. I have indeed completed 100 missions

That’s why DoV’s are voted. The text says “completed 10 missions”. What does that mean? I keep my AGAINST vote, because I believe it means 10 different misisons, not the same mission a lot of times.

The only reason, from my perspective, that Clucky shouldn’t win, is that he hasn’t completed 10 missions yet, but that is the only problem I can possibly see with his declaration.  And even if that were a problem, he holds a gadget that lets him complete missions.