Call for Judgment: What We Meant Was…
Unpopular with 5 votes AGAINST. Josh
note this only had 4 against votes when it failed, which was not quorum so should not have been failed—Clucky
actually, that means only 4 people were not against, which is less that Quorum, So failing was right even though comment was wrong—Clucky
Adminned at 05 Apr 2025 05:34:10 UTC
Roll DICE115, then select the Nomicer from the list below where result of that dice roll falls within the inclusive number range listed next to that Nomicer’s name. The Nomicer thus selected has achieved victory.
- ais523: 1-33
- DoomedIdeas: 34-44
- JonathanDark: 45-73
- Kevan: 74-93
- SingularByte: 94-115
This would fall under the agreement that this is what was intended to happen, and that current gamestate or interpretation of the Roll Off rule as written doesn’t matter if we all agree on what was intended from our common understanding (ais’ understanding aside). A chop based on Equity seems the most fair in any case.
If this is not agreed-to, then somehow victory must be achieved a different way, either by another CfJ with a different criteria, or by letting the dynasty continue with some other victory condition defined.
I don’t mind going ahead and resolving the chop, but it seems fairer to play on and spend remaining Jokers while that happens, rather than locking down yesterday’s Equity values.
Raven1207: he/they
Not that I have much of a chance of winning but I’m starting to fear that we are ending dynasties with “rolling for luck”