Monday, October 18, 2021

Declaration of Victory: Petition to the People of Blognomic

It is a requirement of posting a DoV that the player believe they’ve actually won, which TyGuy6 clearly does not, so this is not a legal DoV. - redtara

Adminned at 18 Oct 2021 15:50:14 UTC

I believe it was clear I was headed for victory, or my teammates were, who were going with me to the Dirac-Anderson Summit when Kevan (current Drone) revealed his plan to arrest our ability to do so, by placing VETO votes one both measures intended to arrange said victory. I assert these VETO votes were in bad faith, misusing the emperor’s privilege which is expected to be used in the interest of the players,, not of this dynasty alone, but of Blognomic at large. Having thus reduced his station to a tyranny, on the mere basis of proposals which would allow emperors wins, he expects his allies with whom he has conspired to arrange a high probability of his own victory.

Is this the intention of these proposals, that powers only held by the emperor should be used in the course of normal play, and in particular, as an underhanded surprise in the last day possible? Was it not always within the emperor’s power to control the course of the game, and why should he change how he would use this power?

I call upon Kevan to return the powers of the emperorship to their intended use, and the players to reject the opposite course if he continues in it.

If I have not won by the rules, had my team not won in your minds, at least, prior to some of your alliance with the GM? Had not the speed of proposals been ebbing for some time, and the dynasty been in want of the usual return to its simpler base?

I had not intended to declare victory personally, until this moment. Nor was my share in it to be more than that of my other three teammates. Nor would it be, if this is passed. I do not expect this to pass. I only ask for a return to sanity.


Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 10:37:35 UTC

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.

Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 10:41:00 UTC

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

Kevan: he/him

18-10-2021 10:43:00 UTC

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.



18-10-2021 10:45:12 UTC


Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 10:57:51 UTC

against 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.

Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 11:02:38 UTC

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.


18-10-2021 11:06:14 UTC

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

Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 11:11:54 UTC

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.

Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 11:22:02 UTC

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


18-10-2021 11:38:01 UTC

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.


18-10-2021 12:02:08 UTC

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’.  against

Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 12:03:57 UTC

@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.”

Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 12:04:52 UTC

“Victory and Ascesnions”? Good lord.


18-10-2021 12:09:52 UTC

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

Zack: he/him

18-10-2021 12:41:59 UTC

against 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”.

Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 12:42:34 UTC

Oh, I didn’t even notice that one

Zack: he/him

18-10-2021 12:51:21 UTC

for 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.

Brendan: he/him

18-10-2021 13:20:05 UTC


Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 13:25:15 UTC

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.

redtara: they/them

18-10-2021 13:29:08 UTC

@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.  for

redtara: they/them

18-10-2021 13:31:50 UTC

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.

Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 13:33:15 UTC

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.

Zack: he/him

18-10-2021 13:44:43 UTC

@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.

Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 13:45:21 UTC

@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?

redtara: they/them

18-10-2021 14:02:13 UTC

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.


18-10-2021 14:03:13 UTC

@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.


18-10-2021 14:06:06 UTC

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

Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 15:03:33 UTC

for for stability reasons

Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 15:03:43 UTC

for for stability reasons

Clucky: he/him

18-10-2021 15:23:34 UTC

unidling to vote against 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”

redtara: they/them

18-10-2021 15:49:32 UTC

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.