On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, nichdel wrote: > I also think that we don't want to let the conditions for historied (as > in multiple winners) titles slip in meaning too much.
Interesting to mention "winners" in this regard; the categories of Champion in the Herald's Report are about 50-75% informal, reconstructed from collective memory several years ago - anything "unspecified" was just before that collective memory. Some (e.g. Musicianship, Manic) were specifically named Win Conditions in the Rules. Some (Proposal, Paradox) are classic nomic ways to win that may or may not have been defined at the time of winning. Some are Herald's discretion - for example High Score counts several methods of obtaining markers - be they points, credits, or something else. Cards covers two completely different eras/mechanics (though with the similarity that winning entailed collecting a winning hand). Exact meaning on these could certainly slip over time! At least one is a meta-method: The President was claimed to have won by some method or other, but the win was invalidated, but the Title of Champion had somehow ratified in the mean time. So the Herald decided that it didn't count as the purported type of win, but rather that it was by ratification. -G.
