but this feels redundant due to the enactment of DoVs having the side effect of upholding the actions that led up to them.

@SingularByte: right – that’s why we don’t need a full-dynasty uphold, we just need to uphold the DoV itself and then the core rules will do the rest of the job for us.

This can’t hurt

ais, I won’t try to contend with your statement that you are continuing to post out of concern for your concept of game. But the repetition of this position, that your view is the only clear one and therefore outweighs a consensus among every other active player, is tiring. It’s hard for me to see this post as anything but an insistence on validation in the wake of an argument that has already been lost.

If this brings the episode to a close: fine. 

If this enacts, I suppose a side effect will be that you change your vote on the DoV?

@Brendan: it’s different from validation – it’s a process of getting everyone to agree about the gamestate. The main purpose of CFJs at BlogNomic is to reach a gamestate that everyone can agree on, and the way you do that is for the majority of players to vote for a CFJ that changes the gamestate in such a way that the players who held minority view agree that the CFJ made the majority view correct.

As it is – there is disagreement about the current gamestate, and by passing the CFJ, there will then be agreement about the current gamestate. The CFJs are the process by which we come to agree on the gamestate – if one person thinks an action is illegal and other players think it was legal, then you uphold the action, and now everyone is happy that we’re in the gamestate after the action occurred.

Not voting for a CFJ like this one is, in effect, saying “I don’t care whether or not you agree with me and am happy for you to continue with your own version of the gamestate”. I don’t think that’s your actual position – I think you would prefer that I agreed with the rest of the players as to what the gamestate is.

I was planning to post an uphold-the-DoV CFJ at the end of this dynasty regardless of who won, or how, or how contested the win was, simply because the stakes if the DoV turns out to be illegal, even for a reason that nobody noticed, are so high (either permanent Hiatus or a permanent state of victory declarations being illegal). In DoV hiatus, unidling and registering are not possible – therefore, it is possible that eventually there would be no players, and no possible way to get more. It is quite likely, especially in a dynasty with as many awkward rules intepretations as this one, that something went wrong early in the dynasty causing the tracker to be wrong. As such, I think it’s very important to ensure that the dynasty has unambiguously ended, regardless of any mistake that we may have made earlier. In this case, it also has the (beneficial) side effect of causing me to agree who the winner was.

I do admit that I’m surprised that there was so much immediate support for SingularByte’s position; to me, it looked like a speculative and unlikely scam, possibly even one that was intended to delay the game by causing gamestate uncertainty, to make up for the scoring attempt having been sniped earlier, rather than a genuine attempt to win. But I’m often surprised by how other BlogNomic players end up interpreting rules. It makes the game very difficult to play, because most of the rest of the players seem to have an entirely different viewpoint on what rules mean to how I read them.

@Josh: yes, this retroactively causes Raven to achieve victory, and it wouldn’t make sense to vote against in that case.

In that case,  from me as well.

Expediency wins again.