Lmao

  I’ve been persistently frustrated by my inability to get any proposals passed, other than trivial fixes, but I don’t think a new dynasty would fix that.

Given the idling issues at the start of the metadynasty, I’m not sure it’s a good idea to suggest that voluntarily idling when you no longer wish to play a dynasty (as four players did in the past week) is sometimes a tactical error.

I haven’t given up on this dynasty just yet. I don’t think I’m alone in that, but I suppose we’ll see.

@Kevan Given the deliberate destruction of my merit lead in the last dynasty I’m not sure I care about the dynamics of that suggestion at all.

EAV to avoid the exclusion keyword.

I just mean putting Titanic (who has taken no game actions in seven days) in the running but not Brendan, SingularByte or myself (who all voluntarily idled three or four days ago); it suggests that inactivity without idling was the more respected play, and perhaps the one to take next time.

But Titanic can be timed out now anyway.

No, I understand what you mean. What I mean is that I perceive such nieceties as “respect for other players” and “maintaining long-term relationships” and “preserving the culture of the game” to be out the window for now, in favour of “do whatever it takes to win” - that’s the lesson I learned from Jumble III, that I’m not going to be the putz who tries to pursue etiquette only to get shafted for it - so will be adjusting my play accordingly.

Titanic has idled; quorum is not changed.

for now. I’m not overly fussed either way, but I’m scratching my head a bit at where to go.

, agreeing w/ jonathan.