Well played!

I have had some spurious wins in my time, but even I would be embarrassed to sincerely try to claim this one.

eh

I am leaving this to your guy’s thing

To clarify for people who are confused: after “Is it Winning if You Say So?” enacted, it actually doesn’t matter how the rules are interpreted, and whether or not the whole “Winning Team” thing worked – the win no longer relies on those.

The rules say “The author of an enacted Kingmaker has achieved victory.” It’s undisputed that I posted “Kingmaker: Conditionally flavour text?”, and that JonathanDark attempted to enact it, so the only possible ways the win could fail would be if a) the post isn’t a Kingmaker post or b) the post wasn’t legally enacted.

For a), the post in question was upheld as a valid Kingmaker by “Is it Winning if You Say So?”. This means that even if it wasn’t a valid Kingmaker when posted, it retroactively became a valid Kingmaker when the CFJ was enacted.

For b), the requirement to enact a Kingmaker is “If a Kingmaker has FOR votes from every Meeple on the same team as its Author, it can be enacted by any Admin”. There is clearly nobody on my team except for me, and I voted FOR. If I set my team legally, then all 1 of the people on my team voted FOR. If my attempt to set my team failed, then all 0 of the people on my team voted FOR. Thus, in either case, the post was legally enacted.

As such, regardless of whether or not the scam worked, I legally achieved victory – the CFJ fixed any steps that didn’t work. (This is not surprising – the whole point of CFJs is to resolve disputes via taking us to a gamestate where it’s obvious whether or not something worked, and the CFJs did their job here.)

For complete avoidance of doubt, I am not confused, and also think that a multi-paragraph defence of this shambles of a “win” is extremely embarrassing.