On Thu, 26 Jan 2012, Ed Murphy wrote:
> G. wrote:
> 
> > >            Trombones  Blob, elJefe, General Chaos, Steve
> >               Not in the FLR and before my memory.  Murphy?
> 
> *sorta remembers, looks up details*
> 
> In 1998, Swann and The Threat (a Group with the above-listed members,
> created and named because Swann or someone identified them as the major
> threats to eir ability to win) more or less simultaneously noticed that
> an instrument with Power X could give another instrument Power Y>X, and
> colluded to submit Proposal 3710 ("The Great Officer's Veto Scam") which
> defined Threat Trombones (I think Swann was originally going to call
> them Trumpets).
> 
> Promotor Blob accidentally removed a ">" in the distribution message,
> so CFJs 1089-90 found that the proposal hadn't been distributed (though
> the patent titles may have been ratified into existence at some point),
> and by that time the counterscam proposals were already coming in.  The
> prevention clause bounced around over the years from Rule 1869 to Rule
> 594 to Rule 105 to Rule 2140.  (Rule 105 only protected rule power, so
> there might have been a loophole during 2006-2007, but I think everyone
> was too busy scamming partnerships around that time to notice.)

The earliest ratification that's noted is 03-Nov-2002, but the only
thing that ratified was the number of Champion titles held, not the
categorization (the categories are only covered by a "SHOULD note" and
are not officially named, so probably don't ratify at all). 

Since I just pulled these out of the "unspecified" it's also possible 
that these are all legitimate separate wins by other methods over the 
years that got mis-remembered as referring to the joint trombones event
(the names were listed alphabetically before I separated them, so 
there's nothing showing they all happened together).

Sounds like it should either go in the proposals category (after all,
most other win proposals have some flavor or other that isn't listed)
or back to uncategorized (my preference, actually).

-G.



Reply via email to