Nothing is happening here, so I'll just reply to an older post to pass the time.

Exactly. And the first century had only 99 years. The first millenium had 999. Because the monk/theologician who defined the Christian count of years in the year 525 decided to not use a 0 for the first century. The argument was, that the birth of Christ was a single moment and didn't take a whole year. So the year he was supposedly born in was counted as the year before his birth. -1. Since his birth supposedly took place towards it's end. It would have been just as valid to define it as the year 0.

So, it was an arbitrary decision to remove the year 0 from the first century. But that's no reason to remove the first year from all other centuries too and mathematically the omission of the 0 is nonsense. Mathematically it is quite well defined: decades start with the number 0. So do the 100-s and the 1000-s. Everyone who argues that centuries and millennia start with year 1 is just pedantic, nitpicky - and wrong. It's just something that some people invented for the sake of having an argument. No other reason.

No. A century is defined exactly as that 100 years. Not 99. A "century" with 99 years is not a century. By definition.

Just like we don't have a month 0, January is month 1. If we define a "decamonth" as a period of 10 months, then it would last from 01-01 (1st of Jan) till 31-10 (31st of October). The second decamonth would start on 1st of Nov and would end prematurely because a year has only 12 months.

Of course we could divide the year into "outghts months" and "tens months" in which case the months 01, 02... 09 would be the oughts and 10, 11, 12 to be the tens. But since the "outghts" have only 9 months, it can't be a decamonth. By definition.

I have no problem with people making a subdivision called the seventies and defining it as 1970-1979. Sure, go ahead. And since it lasts 10 years it is a decade. Just like we can have "the first decade of Mozart's life".

But if we specifically say the the first millennium of the calendar then it lasted from 01-01-01 till 31-12-1000. By definition. Just like the first decade lasted 01-01-01 till 31-12-10. By definition. I see no reason to cut the decade short by one, just because we use a decimal number system that makes it "nicer". If we were using a hexadecimal numbering system, the first decade would last from 01 till 0A. And the second from 0B till 14. Of course if we were doing that, we'd probably define a "hexade" instead, but that's besides the point.

Consider this: we can say "In the 1800s" to mean 1800-1899, but we say "nineteenth century" (lasting 1801 till 1900). Because it's the nineteenth period of 100 years.

^that ought to be "hexadecade"

Enough people are confused by concepts such as the 14th century thinking that it is 1400's anyway...
Doesn't change the meaning of the terms.

But if you are talking about a new decade, that really is any 10 year period of time, so arguing whether 2020 is part of it is just a matter of perspective.

Exactly.

And a century is also any 100 year period. For example "The first century of the Elbonian empire's existence" could be 1725-1824 (both inclusive).

The period 1250-1349 is a century. 1800-1899 is a century. But 1801-1900 is the 19th century (of the Gregorian/Julian calendar).

Is 2020 the start of a decade? Yes. Heck, let's give this decade a name: "the 2020s". Just like any year is the start of a decade. But the 203rd decade of the Gregorian/Julian calendar starts on 01-01-2021.

Let's conjure Joe, so that the game can continue.

Joe! Joe! Iä! Joe fthagn!

Maybe we can start discussing whom can Joe pick?

I suggest one of the upcoming bunch: Lift, Micro, myself.

Micro #5 seems to be scene's choice for both his "meta" plans. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being and assume scene was genuinely going for "good meta" instead of being a carefully-planning scum, until proven otherwise. Other than that, none of Lift/micro stands out.

My top pick is myself because I know myself.

You're my top pick too!

1 - you're the only person who's considered discussing who I should vote for
2 - the way you started the game made no sense and that might be a good thing? Did we get that link to the game you were referencing? What was it about?
3 - I checked the sky and the galaxys have not aligned meaning it's not your turn to draw scum.


Anybody got any objection to me nominating ZFR? Anybody got any preference for whom I should nominate?

'
(^ this little moth was resting on the word 'galaxys' up there but I brushed it off and it flew down here)

How about a possible fascist like Lift? Isn't he or hasn't he been fascist in many games? o.0 :D o.0

I'd pick him and then(if you're both elected) see what policy card he picks from what you hand him.

Or you could pick someone else, or try to pass the presidency(or whatever it is called when one does that in this game...I forget the exact term atm)

But as always it is your call.

??? o.0

Are you trying to throw some shade based on the draws of previous games? Or was that a joke?

For the record: Of course I would be Liftin' my hand if you ask for volunteers and would be Raisin' to the occasion should you nominate me. But I'm totally fine with ZFR. He's one of the more active players and what he wrote so far looked OK. So let's get him and Joe tested.

I was mostly joking, but also wanted to test you a bit seeing as you(iirc) said before you'd been fascist many times....plus remember the motto of such games....trust no one besides yourself and those hard confirmed(that bit applies more in mafia games I guess...dunno about secret hitler in general as I haven't played much of it yet).

Ok then, but let's see WHO joe picks and then what happens. :)

Of course all this is likely moot until we get that one replacement needed(for whoever asked to be replaced), and we also need to have Op poke scene a bit, I think...and two others are on the cusp of the 2 day limit as well. o.0

I think ZFR is largely correct, but I fall into the camp of people who considers the decade to start with the year ending in 0, the century the same, etc. Partially because of all the fuss about seeing the transition from 1999-2000, and the conditioning of my brain to "this is how it ought to be...the new century, millennium, and decade start on the same date." Thus, to my mind, the 21st century started in the year 2000, which does mean that, going back in history, the 1st century started with the year 0 AD, but that isn't something to worry about overmuch.

However, it isn't worth fighting over.
I have 0 objection to ZFR being Chancellor of this gov, but would also enjoy the chance. I know I am lib, and I also know that cannot tell a scummy ZFR from a good-guy ZFR.

Thus, I want to see who Joe actually nominates. :D

I would also like to move forward, but I think joe should be given some time to weigh his options carefully.

Also we still have to wait for a replacement for the one player who quit(from the mafia admin thread there seems to be hints that SPF is asking, though he could also be joking), if all votes are needed to be done to progress.

I assume you meant government. ;)
======================================================

(Also to Op: You can call off the poking sticks [asked for in post 132] from scene...we found him. :))
======================================================

This, and I myself want to see this silly debate on when stuff starts and ends to switch to something else....anything else.....at this point. :D

(Bzzt.....how....about.....a....nice.....game......of.....chess? :))