Oh. So because I discover a loop hole, a perfectly legit loop hole, you want to change the past? That isn’t nomic. Fine. Fix the hole to prevent me from abusing it in the future, but I obtained my gadget and those tickets legally and they shouldn’t legally be taken away from them.

This CfJ (and your DoV, by the way) tests the legality of your actions.

Close the loophole if you want, but if it is neccessary to make a change to close a loophole, then the hole was legal.

My opinion is: the hole doesn’t exist. All the changes proposed in the CfJ are either to clarify English usage or to correct undue actions taken by Clucky based upon eir incorrect (in my view) interpretation of that wording.

And yet in my dynasty, Doremi clearly abused the english language to achieve victory and everyone still gave eim the victory. It doesn’t really matter what you *want* the rule to say, it is pretty clear what the rule says. “Gadgets” refers, in the rules, to both pending gadgets and approved gadgets. You cannot say that the word “gadgets” my my gadget only refers to pending gadgets simply because its abusable that way.

It doesn’t really matter what *you* want, either… Let’s se what the others’ votes come out…

The rules are a muddle (using both Gadget Request, and as Clucky points out, gadget.)  I think when there’s a tenuous case, we have to rely on common sense and the spirit of the rule (I’m perfectly fine with literal interpretations if there’s a strong case).  And I agree with Chronos; this isn’t an admission of a loophole, but a clarification of the rules.

The thing is, this is changing the rules, not clarifying. The rules originally defined a gadget to mean both pending and approved gadgets. You can say “well, it wasn’t intended that way” but I haven’t seen any evidence that supports the rules defining gadgets as only “approved gadgets”.

I agree that both loopholes (existence of ‘Gadgets’, and definition of ‘Mission’) are tenuous—the former much more than the latter.

I could be persuaded to accept the ambiguity in the wording on ‘missions’. The bit about Gadgets seems tedious to me.

Amnistar has voted to legitimize Clucky’s DoV in any case.

While I’m still (quickly) considering the shenanigans with the 102 vs. 3 completed Missions, I can see the Gadget loophole. If we’re to close that (if the DoV doesn’t succeed), that’s fine, but I don’t agree with penalizing Clucky for what I see as a frustrating yet crafty and legitimate exploitation of that hole.