Seriously, anyone who is confused about the definition of “Olympian” should take a long look at Core Rule 2 (Olympians).  It’s the most important Keyword in the whole Ruleset, except possibly for “Gamestate”.

When I authored the original “Rivals” rule, I took great care not to misuse “Olympian” and to instead use “competitor”.

  Yeah, I think that it’s a good idea.

I know this is all my fault for using “Competitor” and “Olympian” as the same thing in some of my write ups. <_< HOWEVER. Spike still loses. Here are the five things scored:

V-http://blognomic.com/archive/pieces_of_eight/
I-http://blognomic.com/archive/running_for_leader/
E-http://blognomic.com/archive/proposal_give_me_a_hand/
N-http://blognomic.com/archive/a_procedural_conclusion/
Y-http://blognomic.com/archive/we_need_weapons/

Spikes new score is:

SPIKE: 32 + 9 = 41 + 35 = 76 + 53 = 129 + 8 = 137

Or a good deal LESS than his old score. So really I ask, what is the point? Unless I am reading this wrong and the CfJ is saying to re-run the whole event, in which case i’ll vote against because that isn’t fair.

Where did my go?

I was too lazy to do the rescore myself and I take Clucky’s word for it that I still lose.  It sounds like this is moot.

I wasn’t proposing it be re-run, just spike rescored, and since that rescoring says he still loses noting needs to be changed.

(CoV) just in case “determination of the results of the ‘Scrabble Thing’ event be re-run” is meant to force a reroll.

to remove any doubt—I didn’t want anyone else’s score to be recalculated, just mine.

Anyways, is this all cleared up now?

Clucky will use “competitors” during his event stuff. “Olympians” will now never be used to refer to the rivals. Yay =)

Sure, not trying to be difficult, but this IS how a nomic is meant to play.  Look at how previous round have been won. (Commiting suicide to declare victory, locking other players out of the game through loopholes, etc)