Difference between revisions of "Talk:History of victories"
(Created page with "==Pooling victories== I'd class The Second Dynasty of Pokes as a conventional victory, given that its "pooling" mechanic was out in the open: I think everyone understood ...") |
Cuddlebeam (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I'd class [[The Second Dynasty of Pokes]] as a conventional victory, given that its "pooling" mechanic was out in the open: I think everyone understood that the UN voting system was there so that a slight minority of strong players could push an otherwise unpopular proposal through. For my money it was one of the most nomiclike dynasties of the last few years. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] ([[User talk:Kevan|talk]]) 08:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC) | I'd class [[The Second Dynasty of Pokes]] as a conventional victory, given that its "pooling" mechanic was out in the open: I think everyone understood that the UN voting system was there so that a slight minority of strong players could push an otherwise unpopular proposal through. For my money it was one of the most nomiclike dynasties of the last few years. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] ([[User talk:Kevan|talk]]) 08:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I sip air through my teeth at that. You are right that it was in the open, but it wasn't a victory via an explicitly established dynastic victory mechanic which is how I think is a good guideline to denote Conventional wins. I'll make it Conventional + Pooling for now. Maybe we can call it Dynastically-supported Pooling? I don't know. --[[User:Cuddlebeam|Cuddlebeam]] ([[User talk:Cuddlebeam|talk]]) 09:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:04, 4 July 2019
Pooling victories
I'd class The Second Dynasty of Pokes as a conventional victory, given that its "pooling" mechanic was out in the open: I think everyone understood that the UN voting system was there so that a slight minority of strong players could push an otherwise unpopular proposal through. For my money it was one of the most nomiclike dynasties of the last few years. --Kevan (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I sip air through my teeth at that. You are right that it was in the open, but it wasn't a victory via an explicitly established dynastic victory mechanic which is how I think is a good guideline to denote Conventional wins. I'll make it Conventional + Pooling for now. Maybe we can call it Dynastically-supported Pooling? I don't know. --Cuddlebeam (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
