You are not the Electors, as a single collective entity, so you have not achieved victory.

@Clucky nah, not sold on that. The meaning of the word was clear, as evidenced by the fact that Kevan successfully used it to win.

Kevan didn’t declare victory because of achieving victory, he declared it because Rule 2.1 authorized him to do so without that requirement.

Time exists.

Per Clucky.

@Brendan what do you mean, time exists?

The rules and precedent seem clear enough on this: if you’ve achieved victory in a dynasty then you’ve achieved victory, and the passage of time doesn’t erase that.

Per Clucky, I don’t think this sentence means the same thing as “each Elector has achieved victory”.

If this DoV had been posted while the ruleset still said that, then sure, I’d go with that. But it doesn’t. Because the rules changed. Because this is Nomic.

A victory already achieved doesn’t go away just because the conditions that granted it have ended.

From Slack:

But V&A straightforwardly says “If you believe you have achieved victory in this dynasty”

And Representations of the Gamestate says that the fact of the occurance of past actions are gamestate

And Operant Conditioning established that achieving victory is an action

We have a fair bodyweight of precedent that establishes that “achieved victory” is a status that doesn’t go away just because the rule that authorised it is repealed - it may have occurred in the past but the past is still gamestate, and other actions don’t cease to be valid once the rule that permitted them is repealed.

The precedent Josh refers to is here:
https://blognomic.com/archive/you_never_know_your_luck_until_you_try_it

the point remains, that the singular entity of Bucky did not achieve victory. Neither did Kevan. The ruleset was very clear that the electors, as a singular collective entity, achieved victory. But the “singular collective entity” bit makes it clear to me that individual electors did not achieve victory, only the collective group did.

cov