And ah, it failed while I was writing this.

Bit disappointing to see an ambiguous-rule CfJ reaching quorum for an interpretation with no actual discussion of how it could even be read that way.

If we really want to clear this up, the wording should really cover the 0 squabbling politicians case.

I don’t think there was a discussion because the two options were clear. Also, people voted right down the line on who benefited. even the UNSG.

“A CIC is Progressive if there is no other CIC in their Bloc with a higher number of squabbling Politicians.” is intended to cover the 0 squabbling politicians case. If you all have zero, then nobody else in the Bloc has a higher number.

The options and rewards were clear, I just didn’t understand how people were seeing the rule as “ambiguous”. If a rule gives a reward to “the CIC with the most” and several players are tied for “most”, that seems less an ambiguity and more a rule that just doesn’t pay out in this case.

(A quick skim through past dynasties turns up multiple examples where we have a reward for “the player with the most X” and immediately go on to say “in the event of a tie…”.)

I had no horse in that race; my against was coming from a belief in a plural ‘the’.

oh, I wasn’t meaning to imply selfish voting by the UNSG. I just observed that the votes lined up with who got points, even if in the case of pokes in was coincidental.

I drop my objection related to the 0 case.