To be honest, Kevan I’d like to hear your case, but I don’t believe that Emperors should be allowed to win in any case.

If nothing changes, I’d vote For. Sorry, Kevan.

(note that allow to win ≠ allowing a banck mantle pass, although I’m critical of that but the Democracy had spoken.)

We took a vote on whether to allow the Emperor to win their own dynasty as part of a team and people voted yes: the rules should allow this. When it enacted I reminded everyone that my declared Imperial Style included “will not consider fairness when [taking game actions]” and “may assist a scam if the rules allow them to”.

I’d earlier proposed to disallow it, explicitly pointing out that we were playing “a proposal-focused dynasty where judicious vetoes could probably change the outcome of the endgame”, but consensus was to keep it in the ruleset.

I don’t see how my actions can be a surprise, after that.

Kevan is right; we have tested this using several votable matters; TyGuy, you even voted in favour of this one that specified this exact outcome!

Even if you do now disagree with that outcome, you can’t DoV because you might have achieved Victory if the rules were different; DoVs are for situations where you believe that you have achieved Victory, and you patently have not. The correct venue to resolve this is through a CfJ, as it hinges on a disagreement in the interpretation of the rule. This puts the game into a hiatus and is an abuse of the DoV category.

I’d be happy to see the case play out via CfJ but using a DOV like this is not cool.

I’m not 100% convinced that this isn’t an abuse of the Fair Play provision against “A Citizen should not make a DoV primarily to delay the game by putting it into Hiatus”; only the cabal can attest as to whether their actions are in good faith but “I do not expect this to pass” suggests that it is not.

I’m pretty obviously part of the cabal, and I vouch for that they made this in good faith.

Cuddlebeam, your presence in the cabal notwithstanding, do you sincerely believe that TyGuy has achieved Victory in the current dynasty?

That’s has - not could have, not should have, not would have, but has.

Every Citizen may cast Votes on that DoV to indicate agreement or disagreement with the proposition that the poster has achieved victory in the current Dynasty

It’s opening a very sinister door if we start considering DoV votes to be based on factional considerations of self-interest.

Josh, you are right; they haven’t achieved victory.

Oh, I didn’t see that. I was just voting whatever I wanted because of Votable Matters:

“Each Citizen may cast one Vote on a Votable Matter by making a comment to the Official Post that comprises that Votable Matter using a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST, or DEFERENTIAL.”

Apparently we can do a Votable Matters-enabled vote, or a Victory and Ascension-enabled vote.

First of all, “An Interregnum is the period between dynasties, ‘‘after’’ a DoV has been enacted…” There is no Interregnum at this moment, as far as I can tell, and would an admin please remove the indicators!

Secondly, my intention of this DoV is to point out the Drone’s disregard for the public expectations concerning what constitutes a fair (though it has always been a legal) use of the VETO power. You’re right, I should have proposed a change by CfJ, instead; I didn’t think of that in the moment, but I do think this fits in nicely with other “fair play” rules.

Finally, no, I did not win according to the rules as written. I had a loose justification in my mind for what I considered a ‘virtual win’, but I concede this point, that nowhere is there written a way that I ‘actually won’. 

@TyGuy The banner is a hiatus banner, not an interregnum one; the game is in hiatus as per the rule Victory and Ascesnions, “If there is at least one pending DoV, BlogNomic is on Hiatus.”

“Victory and Ascesnions”? Good lord.

Right, sorry. I apologize for initiating a hiatus. It was not my intention! (That text was a little hard to find.)

Regardless of what Kevan did, Cuddlebeam should not have been able to pick up an Antimatter Cable without a toolbox because “ If two contradicting parts [of the ruleset] have equal precedence, the part with more limited scope applies”.

Oh, I didn’t even notice that one

CoV because I misinterpreted the rules. There’s no point in playing if Kevan is just going to veto anything that doesn’t allow him to win.

I think you’re being too fatalistic, Zack, but I also continue to insist that votes on this should reflect whether Ty *has* achieved victory, not of players are grumpy about the mechanic. There are CfJs for the latter.

@Josh testing things through votable matters doesn’t matter anymore don’t you know?

One of the nice things about DoVs is they are self-ratifying, so we can vote any way we like. 

Also in general there is a logical step from “players can be emperor twice in a row” to “it is fine and good for emperors to be active partisans in dynasties even if that runs counter all dynastic gameplay and flavour” that Kevan seems to think follows directly. I’m completely unconvinced.

I agree with Zack’s interpretation, but I think the M-word is the better solution.

TyGuy haven’t achieved victory, but the Game is possibly unplayable.

@Josh If not for Kevan’s Veto, TyGuy6 would have achieved victory, in an unstoppable way. Therefore I believe Ty achieved victory for all intents and purposes.

There is a BIG leap from a player being allowed to pass the mantle back to the emperor, to the emperor actively blocking any other player from winning. Therefore Kevan’s veto sets a dangerous precedent and can’t be allowed to stand, or else I for one won’t be sticking around after this dynasty.

@redtara “One of the nice things about DoVs is they are self-ratifying, so we can vote any way we like.”

Sure, but there’s still an ongoing cultural conversation about conventions: do you really want to live in a world where players can elect to vote for or against DoVs for whatever reason they like, on the grounds that it’s self-ratifying? How long until valid DoVs are getting voted down because opposing cabals think that they can also win if the game goes on a bit longer?

As you know Josh I’m big on conversations about convention but conventions only work when people are willing to abide by them, so it’s a bit rich to have convention wielded as a double standard here. Kevan has acted completely unconventionally here so we’re already out of those waters. Requiring some players to abide by conventions while others get a free pass to pursue their own self interest does not result in an overly playable game. The fact is that voting for this DoV directly repudiates the bad behaviour of the emperor and his pasties and also has the immediate effect of removing somebody from a position of power that they have unilaterally decided is fine for them to casually abuse. As such it helps to ESTABLISH a convention about how future situations like this will be dealt with. If the mere possibility of emperors winning justifies what has unfolded then the self-ratifying nature of DoVs also justifies attempts to use *that* process in unconventional ways.

@redtara, I have to side with Josh on this one. If you want me to win, we can CfJ a victory or bypass a questionable VETO just as easily. I should have put what I wanted to happen in CfJ form.

This is part of an ongoing discussion in #current_dynasty in Discord, FYI.

for stability reasons

for stability reasons

unidling to vote cause adversarial emperors are part of the game. you can’t just go “I’m mad the emperor voted my proposal that would’ve let me win”

If we consistently apply your rules interpretations you didn’t properly unidle so your vote has no effect, Clucky.

Also, I think this DoV is actually illegal as TyGuy6 has admitted that at the time of writing it they didn’t believe they’d actually won. There is precedent for adminning on this basis so I’m going to close this as illegal. https://blognomic.com/archive/i_havent_won_but_still/