Thursday, March 29, 2007

Declaration of Victory: Lets try again

5-2. Congratulations.—Chronos

Adminned at 30 Mar 2007 04:06:54 UTC

I still have completed 100 missions.

The rules still say I win.

Its not my fault the time frame is too short and people were not clear on the rules.

So I propose again.



03-29-2007 20:33:32 UTC

Apparently I need to vote for my own DoV’s o_0


03-29-2007 20:50:52 UTC

against Yes, you do…

And, guy, nothing personal here. It’s only this is a very funny Dynasty and I don’t want to stop playing it so soon, due to a narrow misinterpretation of language.

You have (as have I) completed 3 missions. One of them you have completed 100 times, congratulations, but that doesn’t make you have completed 102 missions. Just 3 of them.


03-29-2007 21:03:13 UTC

That is to be determined. The first DoV was shot down mainly because people were not sure if my gadget use was legal. Now that that it is being cleared up, whats left is to decide if “10 missions” means “10 different missions” or “A mission 10 times”


03-29-2007 21:24:45 UTC



03-29-2007 23:02:16 UTC

for I still don’t think you’ve won, but this is a Mastermind-dependent game and I think Amni is trying to show that e doesn’t want to run it anymore.

Angry Grasshopper:

03-29-2007 23:08:43 UTC



03-29-2007 23:32:36 UTC

Axeling, if you do not think I won, don’t vote for the DoV. <_< Amnistar is still very capable of running the game. I don’t want to achieve victory simply because people want to end the dynasty.

Angry Grasshopper:

03-30-2007 00:02:56 UTC

Copy-pasted from the CfJ.

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.


03-30-2007 00:57:26 UTC

WEll, not this one, I think the earlier one is the CFJ that makes the win.  The use of the gadget loophole was very well done.


03-30-2007 01:14:44 UTC


While I’d like to see the Dynasty continue, I can’t find enough hard support in the current Ruleset to refute the DoV to my own satisfaction. But I can see Clucky’s vicious chain of reasoning. So I believe that, given the current Ruleset, the DoV is legitimate.


03-30-2007 02:29:17 UTC

Even though it is entirely against the spirit of the rule, I’m willing to admit (even though I still firmly believe it’s ridiculous) that with the current phrasing, it’s not clear whether pending gadgets are gadgets, and give you that. I do, however, still believe that you’ve only completed 3 missions (or however many are available at this point, which is less than ten). I can twist English to suit me too:

The rule “Missions” states:
“Completed By - List of all agents that have completed the mission”
Technically, no matter how many times you complete the mission, your name would only be on there once, since you are, in fact, still an agent that completed the mission.

There is no section on the wiki with a list of agents and the missions they’ve completed, there is only a list of missions, each containing a list of agents that have completed them. Necessarily, the only way to compute the number of missions an agent has completed for the purposes of attaining victory would be to look at each mission page and look for that agent’s name on the Completed By list.

In fact, it appears that no agent named “Clucky” has completed the mission “Basic Training.” An agent named “Cluckyx100” has, but I don’t know who that is.



03-30-2007 08:55:07 UTC

Yes, I realize what “Cluckyx100” is supposed to mean, but since you’re claiming victory based on Amnistar’s mistakes, I see no reason I can’t use his mistakes here as a counter-arguement (not that the last line there is my real arguement… That would be the two paragraphs preceeding it).

Since the timeout on DoVs is so short, I doubt anyone is actually going to see my argument before your victory is declared (not that anyone would agree with me, but there’s always a chance)... I guess I’ll just say kudos to you for winning via things I *STILL* don’t believe the rules allow you to do. Good thing your DoV doesn’t require me to ever agree with you.

At least I understand why all the veterans here freak out about the tiniest possible bit of ambiguity… Lesson learned.

against  (for good emphasis)