Kinda makes sense in retrospect, Bob feels outraged extremely rarely compared to Mark and Wade and Wade really liked to bide his time with these things/forgets they exist
Carrying over points has been a thing done for a while now, Wade has kept track of points like you guys asked, and handshake deals were deemed unconstitutional ONLY during tribunals and similar episodes, not outlawed entirely.
Bob's win stands, in my unbiased opinion
Quick edit: AND there was a rule put forward that a host could essentially get away with fuckery if the others don't catch it, and no one called him out in that episode. Wade is entirely lawful.
I think they agreed it shouldn't necessarily be an auto loss, just some amount of points when he starts lens talk. I recall mark losing points for lens talk within the past few episodes
Well that's also blatantly unfair and unconstitutional because that could be considered a personal attack on someone for their hobby. Imagine if Bob lost because his baby kept him up all night, or Wade lost because he hasn't mounted his foam yet
Wade has lost for far pettier and more personal reasons before, lol...
And I'm not just saying that because I'm team Wade. "You lose because you're you" is pretty much always the line of reasoning whenever Mark gives Bob a win\*. And yeah it's all jokes and japes, but I think turnabout is still fair play, and honestly I'd just like to see him bullied a little for all the skipping forward in episodes he's made me do.
\*Which isn't to say that Bob doesn't deserve to win against Wade or anything like that, just that it seems like Mark always cops out on his reasoning when it comes to Wade.
EDIT: (Sorry I keep thinking of new stuff to add, lol) As well as that Bob's baby and Wade's foam aren't 20+ conversations on nearly EVERY episode.... the lens talk is a bit much at this point. Love that Mark has a hobby, would love even more to hear less about it.
Didn't they also state that host power doesn't begin until they start their episode which is what allowed the piss pants rule to steal an episode if you pissed before the host could begin? This would imply that Wade could not give Bob 2 points as his power as host had not started.
Wade effectively wrote himself a reminder to give Bob 2 points at the start of the next episode. Wade was the host of the episode in which those 2 points were relevant.
At 1:03:05 in the previous episode (Spotify timestamp), Wade literally said “you know what, Bob, points to you for the next episode”. You’ve used points or win claims from prior episodes to help your case, so the precedent is there. Sorry Mark, but the loss is fair.
Yeah plus isn't there an episode or two where they've said as soon as someone is declared the winner and given their speech, all powers of the host are handed over? I don't remember if Wade gave his speech yet at the end (and too lazy to relisten) but if so he was already host when he gave those points and thus are valid.
It was declared that a host is a host until they say podcast out see wade wins two and I quit two, Mr Barnes was not the host when those two points were given thus those points were invalid.
Right but he said that he was going to give Bob two points at the beginning of his episode. Like, I'm pretty sure he said it like "two points to Bob when we start" or something?
Also pretty sure in the tribunal they established that if someone dabbles in some fuckery and the others don't say anything about it, they let it slide. Like you have to catch the fuckery right away. Arguably it could be considered right away since they seemingly recorded those episodes one after the other, but it's a different episode entirely when it was called out
The tribunal was a chance to challenge precedents created in the past, if they wanted to challenge it or change it that would have been the time to do so.
The two point were given by Wade with all three members present, so this does not qualify as a hand shake deal. The points were noted as required by the new rules. And in the moment of giving the points no member objected to the validity of the points. The question if point given in previous episode are valid is yes as this already happend when Mark claimed points given by Bob in a previous episode.
The only other thing Mark claims to be unfair is that Wade gave the point while not being the host yet. But it happened multiple times on the podcast already that a non-host awarded points to a other members. Although those point were for the episode itself and the validity of the points were decided by the host in naming the winner of that episode.
Considering all of the things above the 2 points given by Wade to Bob are valid and fair.
This is going to open a whole can of worms that if mark loses this one he can easily push points for bob in any episode and give them to him arbitrarily when it’s his turn to host. Automatically making wade lose.
I mean, yeah, that's just kinda how this podcast is 🤷♀️ that's why they used to make the whose line is it anyways joke, "everything's made up and the points don't matter"
Is anyone else really impressed that he remembered to post this today, knowing they prerecord, sometimes several weeks in advance? The Markiplier subreddit is wondering where he is, turns out he's been preparing to post this poll.
Yes because the storm referenced in small talk (I’m in Columbus I remember lol) was Feb 28th. So this has been a long time lol
I might have to side with mark here, I haven’t even finished the episode yet but… I want to know the rewards lol
I like the carry-over points, and no one has abused it yet via trading wins back and forth because of a pre-prescribed 1000 points or something.
Plus, this is an opportunity for evil chaos mark if you lose the poll
1. This does not constitute a hand-shake deal as there was no reciprocation negotiated and everything occurred within full view of all parties.
2. Mark had every opportunity to object to these points carrying over when they were awarded and did not.
3. Mark himself has benefited from similar 'hold-over points' arrangements in the past. Those incidents occurred prior to the creation of the Distractible Constitution so their legality is not in question. However, it irrefutably illustrate that the precedent had been concretely established at the time the Constitution was drafted and enacted. If this was intended to be outlawed, then all parties had the foreknowledge and ability to do so and chose not to.
Also kind of a shame he hasn't formulated any proper arguments here. Does he even want this to be judged as a handshake deal? He wasn't clear on that.
Yeah, but with the precedent of it being allowed + no one adressing it when they had the chance to ban it before now, would have been hard to argue, I guess.
The closest litigable statute he could appeal to is the one he enacted at the end of the episode in question that effectively states that a Host may attempt a certain degree of shenanigans unless caught/called-out for it.
Playing devil's advocate here for a minute, Mark could make the case that since the points were 'awarded' prior to the use of the phrase "podcast out," the mantle of Host hadn't yet been transferred and so it was not the Host who was engaging in said shenanigans. This would mean that it could not be officially challenged. The arrangement made between Bob and Wade would amount to what is essentially a Points promissory note between one player to another. This would neither be shenanigans perpetrated by the Host nor a handshake deal as it was simply a non-binding verbal agreement. The actionable Host Shenanigans would actually take the form of the current Host (Bob) choosing to honour and enact that promissory note which would provide an avenue for Mark to issue a valid challenge.
That argument is still undermined by the fact that Mark did not raise any objection to the premise at the time that it was made NOR when it was enacted, but only when he discovered that it had been a crucial facet of his loss. Bob and Wade threaded the needle a bit with the parameters of the new Constitution, but ultimately kept it dubiously above board.
I suppose the best argument would be only hinging on this episode in question. Wade promising Bob points for future episode - allowed, (definitely non-binding though, I agree)
Wade awarding points within this episode because of a previous occurance that happened before the episode- probably allowed (there is precedent there, let's say they get annoyed at Mark for bringing up lenses AGAIN and award minus points no one would think it's unfair cause he only mentioned it once this episode, just a question of where they draw the line)
The most shenanigan-y thing would be Wade not announcing these bonus points at any point before the end of the episode.
This might have been the one that if presented right could have convinced me.
On the other hand Wade had made his intentions clear last episode when he promised the points to Bob, and Mark was present and heard this so it was fair to assume he was aware.
I agree, hanging on to those points until the very end was definitely sneaky, but fair. The topic of hidden points was discussed during the drafting of the Constitution and all three came to the agreement that the Host was free to score things in non-standard ways so long as those points were properly recorded and could be easily attributed when held up to scrutiny. I believe Bob fulfilled those expectations here.
Yeah, probably would have still voted "no injustice", but imho would have made for a more interesting argument than "handshake deal!...? No wait uhm...maybe?"
Your first point is valid however your second point is invalid because he is objecting to them there was no time limit placed on when objections can be placed. As to your third argument those hold over points were given when bob was still the host, the term podcast out was never said when wade gave Robert those points so he was not a host but a constant at that time thus the points were invalid.
While there was no time limit imposed on when someone may issue a challenge, if we extrapolate that to mean that a challenge can be levied even after the ramifications of "fuckery" become clear, then any sort of "fuckery" would be pointless in the first place. By all parties voting to allow such actions it is inherently implied that challenges must be raised *before* the final results are revealed.
The hold over points were given in the form of a promissory note not in an official capacity as Hose. Wade said that he would award Bob points next time does not contravene any statues established by the Constitution. Mark allowing this to pass unchallenged has to be taken as a tacit acknowledgement and acceptance. He cold have, at any point in the episode raised a challenge to prevent Wade from following through on said promise and did not.
Unfortunately, Mark's challenge comes down to the claim that there is no precedent for such actions and that is demonstrably false with this premise having had occurred in his favour before. Hold over points have been allowed in the past and have not since been outlawed. This win is a valid win for Bob and a learning moment for all three on doing one's due diligence.
Hold over points were awarded by a host not a constant, it has been established that a host can give role over points but not a constant. If it is allowed for a constant to give points to other constants we are saying that the points given by the host are less effective and therefore not fair in determining the winner.
Also the challenge flag was specifically established for the extent and purpose to challenge after a winner has been declared when they believe "fuckery" has occurred, so the issuing of this flag on the play is being used for it's intended use.
As for your claim of precedent bob awarded Mark ten points when he had the power of host and could give out said points, wade had made it very clear in "Wade wins two" that once you say podcast out you give up your power's of host and transfer them to the winner. In the episode " l quit two" Robert gave Wade a victory but it was pointed out he had promised a win to Mark and as bob said " until I say the phrase that rhymes with slongcast pout" I'm still the host. Robert did not say podcast out when the points were awarded and had the power and office of host when Wade awarded those points thus they are invalid.
1. Constitutions can be amended especially if they noticed they missed things or erred in things mentioned.
2. Wade was not host and does not have any host powers to grant anything ahead of time. He just basically gifted free points for bob making his win solidified.
3. You want a precedent like this enacted? Wait until mark abuses this and shits on wade by gifting points to bob just to spite Wade.
1. They can. This probably *should* be amended. But as it stands, it's legal.
2. That just means that points were non-binding. Wade provided a promissory note then chose, when acting as host, to honour it.
3. Again, I'm not saying that this is something that **should** be legal. I'm saying that it's something that there is no ruling against doing. This would be an excellent case to turn around and make an amendment on. You can't however make something retroactively illegal.
This vote is far closer than I could have anticipated. Legally speaking, although dubious, the actions against Mark were entirely constitutional in my opinion. Although, this is perhaps a dangerous precedent for us to set and could cause a constitutional crisis where non hosts are now suddenly awarding each other points for future episodes and could cause all sorts of legal mayhem.
Mark I love you but the points were valid. Everyone was present when the points were given. You made no protest when they were given and only protested when they allowed Bob to win! There's been no injustice in my eyes.
I think because they've moved points between episodes in times before the tribunal this point move is fair.
However, it is possible that as the new season starts a rule can be put in place that all points must be earned or lost in the single episode.
I think it makes the most sense to start everyone with a clean slate of points, otherwise the points genuinely don't matter because one person never really has a chance.
As all parties were there for the giving of early points, no handshake deal was had. Mark was given the opportunity to voice dissent when the points were originally given and failed to do so. Sorry Mark
Technically though Wade wasn't the official host of that episode, he was awarded the winner but he didn't have the authority to award points, not until this current episode so those points should be invalid since he wasn't the current host of the last episode
But that's my opinion, I'm enjoying the chaos, lol!
There was no handshake deal but that isn't the crux. ReSoning isn't fully right but it was before speeches and the official ending to a podcast. To keep all fairness, the host stays host til after that so those points have no value.
I do recognize this has happened in early episodes but the tribunal seems to have been a form of a "reset" for the podcast. So bit all previous factors may be set.
This isn't a hill worth dying on, just an opinion. Real curious the outcome
In order for injustice to have occured, you'd have to prove definitively that Mark was either unaware, which we have proof he was aware, or that the points made were not marked down, in either case, the points were verbalized previously, and even if it was a handshake deal, that doesn't negate the deal itself as handshakes were only banned during a tribunal.
Normally I’d say it’s fine but Wade didn’t declare the points at the beginning so it seems iffy. Kind of like a last minute reason to give Bob the win. If he had stated those extra points in this episode then I’d side with Bob winning.
Sorry Mark, but Wade carrying over points doesn't violate the constitution. In the episode prior, Bob says something along the lines of "of course the philosophy guy wins the philosophy episode" and wade responded with "Yeah! You know what, points to you for the next episode". Nobody questioned it, and delivering points into future episodes has been a thing for a while.
Nah, man. You not only heard the points being given (which means it wasn't a secret handshake deal), you responded to the statement when they were given. He even restated it. You didn't call it out at the time, therefore, he gets away with it.
Wade said that Bob would have 2 points to carry over into the next episode in the episode that it happened, where was the protest then?🤨 (Also, I'm not convinced that I would be in an episode if I supported this, so I'm legally obligated to support Wade)
Dear Mr Mark I Pliers, NO where in the official distractible constitution does it state what you have claimed as injustice. There must be written records of point allocation, you now have no more appeals to the subreddit left and 2 red flag challenges (which is to challenge the hosts written points, if correct host must spin wheel of distractible).
Wasn't a handshake deal since you were present. Plus you've used points from a previous episode to win before. Not to mention this type of point system was not discussed on the tribunal. No injustice here. Unless money for the reddit is involved
There is no legal ground in the constitution for this specific case, so this is not about justice, it's more of making a case for futute rulings.
Now with that out of the way we will have to look at the ways to see this.
Either we think that judges should not hold grudges (could not resist) and only declare points based on their time in power (from the start of an episode to "podcast out", anything not recorded is no mans land and anything goes)
Or judges should be human, and carry all their bagage and bias into their term.
As much as i would like to be bribed by mark, i have to decide against him.
I want real human judges, not emotion drained machines that can not be told apart from AI
You have likely seen it by now, but this is my take on the situation ---> [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/distractible/s/hyRpbv72iJ)
I honestly don't think a handshake deal was struck, but I do think points were not properly documented and applied. I do think you have a case, but convincing everyone else is the challenge. I'm on your side, but the Wade loyalists are strong.
I will gladly stand on your side and defend your argument as your “lawyer” Mark if I get to briefly join the podcast call for a few minutes as a guest. Otherwise, Wade was right and no injustice was done. Wade has my support but I can easily be bribed to support you Mark ;)
I vote we should demand Punishment from Mark for bullying the voting process! Trying to threaten us into voting for him. Smh. It's like threatening a jury.
He was there when the points were given. And I'm pretty sure handshakedeals can't be secret iirc.
Unfortunately, as much as I think there has been a lot of unnecessary complaining from his competitors (see them having more points on two occasions recently and still demanding more) Mark is still in the wrong. No complaint was made at the time the points were given and since early on in Distractible, it has been stated that as soon as the mantel of winner has been cast that person is the judge and thus arbitrator of points.
They all have pretty bad memories for these things so maybe that's why it feels fresh and new, but unfortunately this is the way it is and has been.
Sorry buddy, wish you had won honestly! But fair is fair.
~~Might be a blessing in disguise since he might be too busy to properly host an episode anyway~~
No injustice. However I think an amendment should be made that, points from last episode need to be announced or claimed by the recipient at the beginning of the next episode otherwise they’re invalid
I don't believe Wade was the host yet at the end of the last episode (isn't the rule that host doesn't switch till the end of the episode when the current host says 'Podcast Out') and shouldn't have been able to give away points.
I would normally hold my allegiance with our glorious Leader Wade. However. On this matter I stand with Mark. He was the embodiment of logic and reason. I will not stand to have our God of Lenses treated as some lowly surf of the middle ages. Mark is right...this heinous discretion will not stand.
I'm surprised so many people voted that injustice was afoot😂, what essentially happened was mark got a taste of the same medicine he gave Wade not too long ago. He legit cashed in 5 points at the end of an episode to beat wade.Points that he might as well have gotten from the aether for all we know and now the same rule has worked against him and here he is bribing the subreddit🤣 Such a mark thing to do😂
If Wade had been the host when he gave the initial two points, I’d say no injustice. But winning doesn’t immediately confer all host powers. So at the time the points were given, Wade had no power to do so. Carry over points are fine if properly noted, but Wade wasn’t hosting.
While I do agree with what you're saying, I'd also say that as host he has the choice to honor his word as a contestant. So giving Bob those points is in a sense, I guess you can say, honoring his own word. Also he did properly note them when he said he would give those points and at the end when he explained why he gave those points.
Really it boils down to: he's host, he gives points.
He is welcome to give Bob two points during this episode for any reason but two points already on the board from last episode should be invalid because he wasn’t host last episode. IMO there’s a difference in “I’m giving you two points because of something you did last time” and “You had two points to start with because of something you did last time.”
Agreed. The current host remains in play until theyve said "podcast out". Wade gave 2 points before that was said, when he was not the host so those points are invalid. Now if like you said, if tried to say "I'm awarding 2 extra points because I said I would, Bob here's 2 more points" that would be one thing. There is injustice here.
Beyond that, I'm most certain that A. Mark probably doesn't actually care but is having fun. And B. Mark is probably also trying to see how many people will defend him for the sake of defending him (just blindly jumping to his side) a bit is a bit after all :)
Mark, I believe you no matter what, and if it wasn’t for those 2 points Wade gave Bob, last episode, you would have won, fair and square. Mark, winner of today’s episode.
I feel like for the previous point to count it would've had to be mentioned upfront at the beginning of the episode before or during the small talk section.
IF we rule that there was injustice, then i think any and all of marks wins from previous episodes where he won due to a point carryover should be effectively erased. Not transferred but erased. Fair is fair
I CANNOT believe the absolutely disgusting betrayal that happened in this episode. The injustice that I just witnessed left me gobsmacked and mortified. Is there a word for that? Gobified? Mortismacked?
How dare, HOW DARE this long middle faced little man Mark think he could turn us against Wade. I WON’T HAVE IT.
Btw Wade, your eyes are looking pretty today.
Whether or not there was injustice has the same answer as whether or not Wade doesn't win every philosophy episode. Those 2 extra points were given to Bob because he pointed out that Wade wins every philosophy episode, so the validity of those points is based on the validity of that claim.
I agree honestly, I don’t think points should be given prior to being official host, which Wade was not at the time. He was in winner status, not host status. Injustice was afoot.
I will only point out that previously this situation occurred due to handshake deals, so this poll and therefore ruling will set a new precedence that will honestly not be used a lot. However, I do not think it is within the authority of winner to predetermine points prior to their episode as that could lead to giving points outside of recording thus creating an unfair precedence that has not been seen by the trio. I don't think that would happen as these three usually are pretty fair to one another, but I'd rather not see the temptation exists for any of them. Which it's pretty close if Mark or Bob were to take advantage of that, not sure
The problem was the carry over points weren't discussed until the very end to push it in Bob's favor. If it was discussed earlier in the episode when emotions weren't heated it would be a different situation.
I believe points can only be given by the current host of an episode, meaning any points given by the winner of an episode mean nothing as they currently do not have the power to give points. At the same time points should not be allowed to be awarded for actions during a previous episode.
Mark has been completely and utterly SCAMED!!!!! He has been wronged and any other thoughts go completely against what the triangle of fairness stands for.
Sorry fella, but points were promised fairly in the last episode, and if anything, it would have been an injustice of Wade betrayed Bob by not honoring his points!
As much as I would love for Mark to bring viewers/listeners in for agreeing with him, I cannot find a violation of the rules set forth in the Distractible Constitution. Therefore I must cast my vote for “No Injustice Here”. Sorry Mark.
I feel bad for all the suckers who think Mark would actually hold up his end of the bribe. He's too busy with the movie and causing people to crash their cars for his lens addiction
This is honestly way closer than I expected. Currently >!113 vs 119!<.
Edit: Obviously the numbers are going to change constantly, but these were the numbers after I voted.
It was injustice because Markiplier said he'd bring anyone defending him on to the podcast, and I, for one, truly believe it was injustice. Wait... this is a throwaway account, if I go onto the podcast, people will know who I am and I'll be associated with my anonymous account and be held accountable for my posts!
Nevermind! NO INJUSTICE HERE AT ALL!!!
When Wade stole Mark's episode using the handshake deal with Bob, he clearly asked Mark himself what constituted ending an episode. Mark said "you have to say podcast out", so since the episode was over, Wade making Bob win still stands
While I \*am\* a Markus Pliers fan, I do believe that what happened was lawful.
Carry Over Points are not banned by the Distractible Constitution, and (While I don't believe this to be a handshake deal) Handshake Deals were only banned during Council Meetings, they're entirely lawful otherwise.
Sorry Mark, but I don’t see any injustice here. Keep in mind I would say the same thing if it were Bob or Wade making this post. What I would do is propose this being added to the bylaws of Distractible so that post-episode points can’t be awarded by the winner of that particular episode in the future. I think for now Bob’s win still stands.
The points were given before the speeches, and before Bob proclaimed "Podcast out", so I feel like they should be valid, since it never specifically came up during the Council (or if it did, I don't remember it).
I don't know why but I didn't expect Mark to be the first to use the "SUBREDDIT DEFEND ME" Rule
Kinda makes sense in retrospect, Bob feels outraged extremely rarely compared to Mark and Wade and Wade really liked to bide his time with these things/forgets they exist
I didn’t either.
HAPPY CAKE DAYYYY!! :D
Lol didn't realize but ty
Carrying over points has been a thing done for a while now, Wade has kept track of points like you guys asked, and handshake deals were deemed unconstitutional ONLY during tribunals and similar episodes, not outlawed entirely. Bob's win stands, in my unbiased opinion Quick edit: AND there was a rule put forward that a host could essentially get away with fuckery if the others don't catch it, and no one called him out in that episode. Wade is entirely lawful.
They also agreed that Mark can't win *any* episode he mentions lenses in, and nobody's remembered that or utilized it yet. :(
I think they agreed it shouldn't necessarily be an auto loss, just some amount of points when he starts lens talk. I recall mark losing points for lens talk within the past few episodes
Well that's also blatantly unfair and unconstitutional because that could be considered a personal attack on someone for their hobby. Imagine if Bob lost because his baby kept him up all night, or Wade lost because he hasn't mounted his foam yet
Wade has lost for far pettier and more personal reasons before, lol... And I'm not just saying that because I'm team Wade. "You lose because you're you" is pretty much always the line of reasoning whenever Mark gives Bob a win\*. And yeah it's all jokes and japes, but I think turnabout is still fair play, and honestly I'd just like to see him bullied a little for all the skipping forward in episodes he's made me do. \*Which isn't to say that Bob doesn't deserve to win against Wade or anything like that, just that it seems like Mark always cops out on his reasoning when it comes to Wade. EDIT: (Sorry I keep thinking of new stuff to add, lol) As well as that Bob's baby and Wade's foam aren't 20+ conversations on nearly EVERY episode.... the lens talk is a bit much at this point. Love that Mark has a hobby, would love even more to hear less about it.
Youre not wrong at all
MAY LENSES TAKE THE WORLD! MAY LENSES TAKE THE WORLD!
Didn't they also state that host power doesn't begin until they start their episode which is what allowed the piss pants rule to steal an episode if you pissed before the host could begin? This would imply that Wade could not give Bob 2 points as his power as host had not started.
They also stated that if no one calls someone out on fuckery, they can get away with it
Wade was not the host when he gave those two points.
Wade effectively wrote himself a reminder to give Bob 2 points at the start of the next episode. Wade was the host of the episode in which those 2 points were relevant.
At 1:03:05 in the previous episode (Spotify timestamp), Wade literally said “you know what, Bob, points to you for the next episode”. You’ve used points or win claims from prior episodes to help your case, so the precedent is there. Sorry Mark, but the loss is fair.
Plus it should not be seen as a handshake deal since it occurred in front of Markiplier, without any agreement or recompense from Bob.
I would also argue that Mark bribbing the listeners is in itself unfair!
Yeah plus isn't there an episode or two where they've said as soon as someone is declared the winner and given their speech, all powers of the host are handed over? I don't remember if Wade gave his speech yet at the end (and too lazy to relisten) but if so he was already host when he gave those points and thus are valid.
It was declared that a host is a host until they say podcast out see wade wins two and I quit two, Mr Barnes was not the host when those two points were given thus those points were invalid.
Right but he said that he was going to give Bob two points at the beginning of his episode. Like, I'm pretty sure he said it like "two points to Bob when we start" or something? Also pretty sure in the tribunal they established that if someone dabbles in some fuckery and the others don't say anything about it, they let it slide. Like you have to catch the fuckery right away. Arguably it could be considered right away since they seemingly recorded those episodes one after the other, but it's a different episode entirely when it was called out
He had not given his speech
The only precedents that would matter, in this case, would be the episodes since the tribunal I would imagine.
It should… why look at the past when no rules were established
The tribunal was a chance to challenge precedents created in the past, if they wanted to challenge it or change it that would have been the time to do so.
The two point were given by Wade with all three members present, so this does not qualify as a hand shake deal. The points were noted as required by the new rules. And in the moment of giving the points no member objected to the validity of the points. The question if point given in previous episode are valid is yes as this already happend when Mark claimed points given by Bob in a previous episode. The only other thing Mark claims to be unfair is that Wade gave the point while not being the host yet. But it happened multiple times on the podcast already that a non-host awarded points to a other members. Although those point were for the episode itself and the validity of the points were decided by the host in naming the winner of that episode. Considering all of the things above the 2 points given by Wade to Bob are valid and fair.
This is going to open a whole can of worms that if mark loses this one he can easily push points for bob in any episode and give them to him arbitrarily when it’s his turn to host. Automatically making wade lose.
I mean, yeah, that's just kinda how this podcast is 🤷♀️ that's why they used to make the whose line is it anyways joke, "everything's made up and the points don't matter"
Don't fall for the Markiplier Promise™!
I fell for the Markiplier Promise...
CURSE YOU, MARKIPLIER PROMISE™
Why? It's not like Mark to make a promise he can't fulfill. I mean when has he *ever* done that?
Is anyone else really impressed that he remembered to post this today, knowing they prerecord, sometimes several weeks in advance? The Markiplier subreddit is wondering where he is, turns out he's been preparing to post this poll.
Yes because the storm referenced in small talk (I’m in Columbus I remember lol) was Feb 28th. So this has been a long time lol I might have to side with mark here, I haven’t even finished the episode yet but… I want to know the rewards lol
Sorry, but he DID say it in the previous episode. It's Mark's fault if he didn't catch it at the end! Twice, actually. He said it TWICE!!
I like the carry-over points, and no one has abused it yet via trading wins back and forth because of a pre-prescribed 1000 points or something. Plus, this is an opportunity for evil chaos mark if you lose the poll
That’s definitely what’s going to happen…
1. This does not constitute a hand-shake deal as there was no reciprocation negotiated and everything occurred within full view of all parties. 2. Mark had every opportunity to object to these points carrying over when they were awarded and did not. 3. Mark himself has benefited from similar 'hold-over points' arrangements in the past. Those incidents occurred prior to the creation of the Distractible Constitution so their legality is not in question. However, it irrefutably illustrate that the precedent had been concretely established at the time the Constitution was drafted and enacted. If this was intended to be outlawed, then all parties had the foreknowledge and ability to do so and chose not to.
Handshake deals were only outlawed during the Tribunal, so even if it was a handshake deal it isn’t against the Law™️
Also kind of a shame he hasn't formulated any proper arguments here. Does he even want this to be judged as a handshake deal? He wasn't clear on that. Yeah, but with the precedent of it being allowed + no one adressing it when they had the chance to ban it before now, would have been hard to argue, I guess.
The closest litigable statute he could appeal to is the one he enacted at the end of the episode in question that effectively states that a Host may attempt a certain degree of shenanigans unless caught/called-out for it. Playing devil's advocate here for a minute, Mark could make the case that since the points were 'awarded' prior to the use of the phrase "podcast out," the mantle of Host hadn't yet been transferred and so it was not the Host who was engaging in said shenanigans. This would mean that it could not be officially challenged. The arrangement made between Bob and Wade would amount to what is essentially a Points promissory note between one player to another. This would neither be shenanigans perpetrated by the Host nor a handshake deal as it was simply a non-binding verbal agreement. The actionable Host Shenanigans would actually take the form of the current Host (Bob) choosing to honour and enact that promissory note which would provide an avenue for Mark to issue a valid challenge. That argument is still undermined by the fact that Mark did not raise any objection to the premise at the time that it was made NOR when it was enacted, but only when he discovered that it had been a crucial facet of his loss. Bob and Wade threaded the needle a bit with the parameters of the new Constitution, but ultimately kept it dubiously above board.
I suppose the best argument would be only hinging on this episode in question. Wade promising Bob points for future episode - allowed, (definitely non-binding though, I agree) Wade awarding points within this episode because of a previous occurance that happened before the episode- probably allowed (there is precedent there, let's say they get annoyed at Mark for bringing up lenses AGAIN and award minus points no one would think it's unfair cause he only mentioned it once this episode, just a question of where they draw the line) The most shenanigan-y thing would be Wade not announcing these bonus points at any point before the end of the episode. This might have been the one that if presented right could have convinced me. On the other hand Wade had made his intentions clear last episode when he promised the points to Bob, and Mark was present and heard this so it was fair to assume he was aware.
I agree, hanging on to those points until the very end was definitely sneaky, but fair. The topic of hidden points was discussed during the drafting of the Constitution and all three came to the agreement that the Host was free to score things in non-standard ways so long as those points were properly recorded and could be easily attributed when held up to scrutiny. I believe Bob fulfilled those expectations here.
Yeah, probably would have still voted "no injustice", but imho would have made for a more interesting argument than "handshake deal!...? No wait uhm...maybe?"
Your first point is valid however your second point is invalid because he is objecting to them there was no time limit placed on when objections can be placed. As to your third argument those hold over points were given when bob was still the host, the term podcast out was never said when wade gave Robert those points so he was not a host but a constant at that time thus the points were invalid.
While there was no time limit imposed on when someone may issue a challenge, if we extrapolate that to mean that a challenge can be levied even after the ramifications of "fuckery" become clear, then any sort of "fuckery" would be pointless in the first place. By all parties voting to allow such actions it is inherently implied that challenges must be raised *before* the final results are revealed. The hold over points were given in the form of a promissory note not in an official capacity as Hose. Wade said that he would award Bob points next time does not contravene any statues established by the Constitution. Mark allowing this to pass unchallenged has to be taken as a tacit acknowledgement and acceptance. He cold have, at any point in the episode raised a challenge to prevent Wade from following through on said promise and did not. Unfortunately, Mark's challenge comes down to the claim that there is no precedent for such actions and that is demonstrably false with this premise having had occurred in his favour before. Hold over points have been allowed in the past and have not since been outlawed. This win is a valid win for Bob and a learning moment for all three on doing one's due diligence.
Hold over points were awarded by a host not a constant, it has been established that a host can give role over points but not a constant. If it is allowed for a constant to give points to other constants we are saying that the points given by the host are less effective and therefore not fair in determining the winner. Also the challenge flag was specifically established for the extent and purpose to challenge after a winner has been declared when they believe "fuckery" has occurred, so the issuing of this flag on the play is being used for it's intended use. As for your claim of precedent bob awarded Mark ten points when he had the power of host and could give out said points, wade had made it very clear in "Wade wins two" that once you say podcast out you give up your power's of host and transfer them to the winner. In the episode " l quit two" Robert gave Wade a victory but it was pointed out he had promised a win to Mark and as bob said " until I say the phrase that rhymes with slongcast pout" I'm still the host. Robert did not say podcast out when the points were awarded and had the power and office of host when Wade awarded those points thus they are invalid.
1. Constitutions can be amended especially if they noticed they missed things or erred in things mentioned. 2. Wade was not host and does not have any host powers to grant anything ahead of time. He just basically gifted free points for bob making his win solidified. 3. You want a precedent like this enacted? Wait until mark abuses this and shits on wade by gifting points to bob just to spite Wade.
1. They can. This probably *should* be amended. But as it stands, it's legal. 2. That just means that points were non-binding. Wade provided a promissory note then chose, when acting as host, to honour it. 3. Again, I'm not saying that this is something that **should** be legal. I'm saying that it's something that there is no ruling against doing. This would be an excellent case to turn around and make an amendment on. You can't however make something retroactively illegal.
That’s fair and most likely mark will abuse this to spite Wade now
This vote is far closer than I could have anticipated. Legally speaking, although dubious, the actions against Mark were entirely constitutional in my opinion. Although, this is perhaps a dangerous precedent for us to set and could cause a constitutional crisis where non hosts are now suddenly awarding each other points for future episodes and could cause all sorts of legal mayhem.
This is where another flag will be called for the subreddit to deliberate.
Why wait until then… this should be hashed out now lol
Sorry Mark this time there wasn't any injustice, there isn't anything in the constitution that prohibit what Wade did
Mark himself admitted to carrying over points, if he can do it so can Wade/Bob
That was in the past before constitution
Anything done in the past should not affect post constitution. If it did what point was there for them to sit down and establish some type of rules
All I'm saying is, the rules state that they have to call out if someone breaks a rule. If they don't call it, they can get away with it.
The amount of lawyering going on in this section is impressive.
Mark I love you but the points were valid. Everyone was present when the points were given. You made no protest when they were given and only protested when they allowed Bob to win! There's been no injustice in my eyes.
Points can’t be given by contestants only the host which bob was at the time the points were “given”
This is a fair point, but the points were given post-win. Wouldn't this make him the host?
No because the phrase “podcast out” wasn’t said yet. And that’s when the host powers transfers to the other.
And now we’ll see if the lensers rise up! 🙌🏼
Jesus has spoken. Lensers, ready thy lens and gird thy loins.
Lensers 🤝
🤝🏼
lensersss
Unite under the glass 🙏📷
Let's gooooo!!!
I think because they've moved points between episodes in times before the tribunal this point move is fair. However, it is possible that as the new season starts a rule can be put in place that all points must be earned or lost in the single episode.
I will side with Mark because he offered rewards. Lemme see them, Mark.
Exactly, he's in the wrong but gimme dat merch! Turns out Mark really learned a lot from the mock election pizza party.
I feel the same way. Go, Mark!
Hahaha the way this made me cackle 🤣
Lol ah bribery...I want a prize too
I think it makes the most sense to start everyone with a clean slate of points, otherwise the points genuinely don't matter because one person never really has a chance.
wait why is marks tag "i'd f\*ck an alien"
HAHAHA I just noticed that! 🤣🤣🤣
You wouldn't fuck an alien?
As all parties were there for the giving of early points, no handshake deal was had. Mark was given the opportunity to voice dissent when the points were originally given and failed to do so. Sorry Mark
Technically though Wade wasn't the official host of that episode, he was awarded the winner but he didn't have the authority to award points, not until this current episode so those points should be invalid since he wasn't the current host of the last episode But that's my opinion, I'm enjoying the chaos, lol!
There was no handshake deal but that isn't the crux. ReSoning isn't fully right but it was before speeches and the official ending to a podcast. To keep all fairness, the host stays host til after that so those points have no value. I do recognize this has happened in early episodes but the tribunal seems to have been a form of a "reset" for the podcast. So bit all previous factors may be set. This isn't a hill worth dying on, just an opinion. Real curious the outcome
I can't believe they would do this! (I have not listened to the episode, yet)
In order for injustice to have occured, you'd have to prove definitively that Mark was either unaware, which we have proof he was aware, or that the points made were not marked down, in either case, the points were verbalized previously, and even if it was a handshake deal, that doesn't negate the deal itself as handshakes were only banned during a tribunal.
Normally I’d say it’s fine but Wade didn’t declare the points at the beginning so it seems iffy. Kind of like a last minute reason to give Bob the win. If he had stated those extra points in this episode then I’d side with Bob winning.
Sorry Mark, but Wade carrying over points doesn't violate the constitution. In the episode prior, Bob says something along the lines of "of course the philosophy guy wins the philosophy episode" and wade responded with "Yeah! You know what, points to you for the next episode". Nobody questioned it, and delivering points into future episodes has been a thing for a while.
OUTRAGEOUS INJUSTICE HAS TAKEN PLACE HERE ON THIS PODCAST
MARK’S LOSS IS FAIR POINTS WERE ASSIGNED THERE IS PRECEDENT GAVEL
Nah, man. You not only heard the points being given (which means it wasn't a secret handshake deal), you responded to the statement when they were given. He even restated it. You didn't call it out at the time, therefore, he gets away with it.
Wade said that Bob would have 2 points to carry over into the next episode in the episode that it happened, where was the protest then?🤨 (Also, I'm not convinced that I would be in an episode if I supported this, so I'm legally obligated to support Wade)
Sorry big daddy mark, but big daddy bob takes this one
The bribery in this message alone Mark is absurd, how dare you presume we are so easily influenced.
Dear Mr Mark I Pliers, NO where in the official distractible constitution does it state what you have claimed as injustice. There must be written records of point allocation, you now have no more appeals to the subreddit left and 2 red flag challenges (which is to challenge the hosts written points, if correct host must spin wheel of distractible).
Wasn't a handshake deal since you were present. Plus you've used points from a previous episode to win before. Not to mention this type of point system was not discussed on the tribunal. No injustice here. Unless money for the reddit is involved
There is no legal ground in the constitution for this specific case, so this is not about justice, it's more of making a case for futute rulings. Now with that out of the way we will have to look at the ways to see this. Either we think that judges should not hold grudges (could not resist) and only declare points based on their time in power (from the start of an episode to "podcast out", anything not recorded is no mans land and anything goes) Or judges should be human, and carry all their bagage and bias into their term. As much as i would like to be bribed by mark, i have to decide against him. I want real human judges, not emotion drained machines that can not be told apart from AI
You have likely seen it by now, but this is my take on the situation ---> [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/distractible/s/hyRpbv72iJ) I honestly don't think a handshake deal was struck, but I do think points were not properly documented and applied. I do think you have a case, but convincing everyone else is the challenge. I'm on your side, but the Wade loyalists are strong.
I will gladly stand on your side and defend your argument as your “lawyer” Mark if I get to briefly join the podcast call for a few minutes as a guest. Otherwise, Wade was right and no injustice was done. Wade has my support but I can easily be bribed to support you Mark ;)
I vote we should demand Punishment from Mark for bullying the voting process! Trying to threaten us into voting for him. Smh. It's like threatening a jury. He was there when the points were given. And I'm pretty sure handshakedeals can't be secret iirc.
Unfortunately, as much as I think there has been a lot of unnecessary complaining from his competitors (see them having more points on two occasions recently and still demanding more) Mark is still in the wrong. No complaint was made at the time the points were given and since early on in Distractible, it has been stated that as soon as the mantel of winner has been cast that person is the judge and thus arbitrator of points. They all have pretty bad memories for these things so maybe that's why it feels fresh and new, but unfortunately this is the way it is and has been. Sorry buddy, wish you had won honestly! But fair is fair. ~~Might be a blessing in disguise since he might be too busy to properly host an episode anyway~~
No injustice. However I think an amendment should be made that, points from last episode need to be announced or claimed by the recipient at the beginning of the next episode otherwise they’re invalid
Thats true. They’re going to do whatever they want lol. Hey if this causes another evil version of the three so be it
Poor mark.
Damn it, my notification for this post was wayyy too late. Mark is just a salty loser. smhhh
I don't believe Wade was the host yet at the end of the last episode (isn't the rule that host doesn't switch till the end of the episode when the current host says 'Podcast Out') and shouldn't have been able to give away points.
They've carried points b4 without being host so, invalid
I would normally hold my allegiance with our glorious Leader Wade. However. On this matter I stand with Mark. He was the embodiment of logic and reason. I will not stand to have our God of Lenses treated as some lowly surf of the middle ages. Mark is right...this heinous discretion will not stand.
I'm surprised so many people voted that injustice was afoot😂, what essentially happened was mark got a taste of the same medicine he gave Wade not too long ago. He legit cashed in 5 points at the end of an episode to beat wade.Points that he might as well have gotten from the aether for all we know and now the same rule has worked against him and here he is bribing the subreddit🤣 Such a mark thing to do😂
Listen, I just want merch already.
Yes! Please let us give you our money!
If Wade had been the host when he gave the initial two points, I’d say no injustice. But winning doesn’t immediately confer all host powers. So at the time the points were given, Wade had no power to do so. Carry over points are fine if properly noted, but Wade wasn’t hosting.
While I do agree with what you're saying, I'd also say that as host he has the choice to honor his word as a contestant. So giving Bob those points is in a sense, I guess you can say, honoring his own word. Also he did properly note them when he said he would give those points and at the end when he explained why he gave those points. Really it boils down to: he's host, he gives points.
He is welcome to give Bob two points during this episode for any reason but two points already on the board from last episode should be invalid because he wasn’t host last episode. IMO there’s a difference in “I’m giving you two points because of something you did last time” and “You had two points to start with because of something you did last time.”
Agreed. The current host remains in play until theyve said "podcast out". Wade gave 2 points before that was said, when he was not the host so those points are invalid. Now if like you said, if tried to say "I'm awarding 2 extra points because I said I would, Bob here's 2 more points" that would be one thing. There is injustice here. Beyond that, I'm most certain that A. Mark probably doesn't actually care but is having fun. And B. Mark is probably also trying to see how many people will defend him for the sake of defending him (just blindly jumping to his side) a bit is a bit after all :)
Mark, I believe you no matter what, and if it wasn’t for those 2 points Wade gave Bob, last episode, you would have won, fair and square. Mark, winner of today’s episode.
While you are my favorite host Mark, I shall never disparage the justice system in your favor. No biases here.
Prove it in court Mark.
Mark could have protested it the last episode and didn't. So yea just no. Mark you done goofed yourself
Mark I gotta be honest buddy, I wanna side with you... I really do... But...
It’s interesting to see how many of us chose the wrong answer even tho there was no injustice in sight 👀
I feel like for the previous point to count it would've had to be mentioned upfront at the beginning of the episode before or during the small talk section.
Mark lose bob win
IF we rule that there was injustice, then i think any and all of marks wins from previous episodes where he won due to a point carryover should be effectively erased. Not transferred but erased. Fair is fair
I CANNOT believe the absolutely disgusting betrayal that happened in this episode. The injustice that I just witnessed left me gobsmacked and mortified. Is there a word for that? Gobified? Mortismacked? How dare, HOW DARE this long middle faced little man Mark think he could turn us against Wade. I WON’T HAVE IT. Btw Wade, your eyes are looking pretty today.
They should not promise or give points in previous episodes…it immediately makes it disadvantageous for the other.
Whether or not there was injustice has the same answer as whether or not Wade doesn't win every philosophy episode. Those 2 extra points were given to Bob because he pointed out that Wade wins every philosophy episode, so the validity of those points is based on the validity of that claim.
Injustice
I agree honestly, I don’t think points should be given prior to being official host, which Wade was not at the time. He was in winner status, not host status. Injustice was afoot.
I support Mark completely and utterly for all of time. Injustice was afoot!!
No injustice here, Mark
In all honesty, I didn't see anything wrong besides a bit. So far, it looks like he didn't get his injustice justice
I will only point out that previously this situation occurred due to handshake deals, so this poll and therefore ruling will set a new precedence that will honestly not be used a lot. However, I do not think it is within the authority of winner to predetermine points prior to their episode as that could lead to giving points outside of recording thus creating an unfair precedence that has not been seen by the trio. I don't think that would happen as these three usually are pretty fair to one another, but I'd rather not see the temptation exists for any of them. Which it's pretty close if Mark or Bob were to take advantage of that, not sure
I love Mark’s user flair
Hehehe
Didn't mark talk about lenses at the end? That's a minus point right?
sure does
Handshake deals were only banned DURING the tribunal which it is not, Wade is fully in the right here
This was way closer then I thought it would be
The problem was the carry over points weren't discussed until the very end to push it in Bob's favor. If it was discussed earlier in the episode when emotions weren't heated it would be a different situation.
God damnit
I SUPPORT MARK!! MILFORD FOR LIFE!!
I'm always on your side, Mark!
You loose lens boy
#WadeDidNothingWrong
Handshake deals were only outlawed during the tribunal And Wade has the right as judge to give points as he pleases. Bob wins!
I believe points can only be given by the current host of an episode, meaning any points given by the winner of an episode mean nothing as they currently do not have the power to give points. At the same time points should not be allowed to be awarded for actions during a previous episode.
Wade wasn't host when "giving" those points, how would they count? Also, you need to talk about lenses more, Mark 👍
Good point
JUSTICE FOR MARK
I think you’re just salty because of your extremely long mid-face
MARK WINS
Mark has been completely and utterly SCAMED!!!!! He has been wronged and any other thoughts go completely against what the triangle of fairness stands for.
“So we’re doing it… We’re actually voting for Mark…” “Let’s be honest: We’re voting against Bob.”
Time to show how bad some peoples memories are
Sorry fella, but points were promised fairly in the last episode, and if anything, it would have been an injustice of Wade betrayed Bob by not honoring his points!
Hot take: Mark is whinning again.
As much as I would love for Mark to bring viewers/listeners in for agreeing with him, I cannot find a violation of the rules set forth in the Distractible Constitution. Therefore I must cast my vote for “No Injustice Here”. Sorry Mark.
I'm just here for the totally real rewards.
The episode was still in Bob’s hands on the last podcast so Wade giving the host points is unfair advantage for next time UNJUSTICE IS AFOOT
You guys love carrying points over to different episodes, this wasn't even something that happened a year later because the fans reminded you!
I feel bad for all the suckers who think Mark would actually hold up his end of the bribe. He's too busy with the movie and causing people to crash their cars for his lens addiction
Mark should of won he did more in the episode.
you won by the same shenanigans, you have no right to complain Mark, just suck it up ma dude
This is honestly way closer than I expected. Currently >!113 vs 119!<. Edit: Obviously the numbers are going to change constantly, but these were the numbers after I voted.
wade or i will poop yourself
Honestly, half-points shouldn't even exist.
I just want Mark to spin the wheel.
I haven’t gotten to that episode yet im in the middle of a relistinening
What would the triangle of fairness say, Mark
sorry mark but not sorry because i don't care
Mark finish shadows over loathing that why I'm voting for if you don't i will side with Wade forever.
I am so sorry, Mark.
It was injustice because Markiplier said he'd bring anyone defending him on to the podcast, and I, for one, truly believe it was injustice. Wait... this is a throwaway account, if I go onto the podcast, people will know who I am and I'll be associated with my anonymous account and be held accountable for my posts! Nevermind! NO INJUSTICE HERE AT ALL!!!
As a centrist, I support Mark in order to maintain balance. Even if he's wrong.
fair is fair
I want merch so there was very much injustice
Im just waiting for my rewards
I voted injustice, though it was by accident, fuck.
When Wade stole Mark's episode using the handshake deal with Bob, he clearly asked Mark himself what constituted ending an episode. Mark said "you have to say podcast out", so since the episode was over, Wade making Bob win still stands
I'm siding with Mark. The man is tired and has a long midface. He needs the support
All hail Mark. 🫡I will blindly follow your lead
While I \*am\* a Markus Pliers fan, I do believe that what happened was lawful. Carry Over Points are not banned by the Distractible Constitution, and (While I don't believe this to be a handshake deal) Handshake Deals were only banned during Council Meetings, they're entirely lawful otherwise.
r/worldwadesupremacy
Under the rule “fair’s fair” there is no injustice here. Sorry mark you profit from this loophole and wade should also have that opportunity
Mark is in a grappling for power with Bob over project distraction, choose the lesser evil that we know better
✨represents wade support , for his scalp shineth brighter than Mark's fire starting lenses
Sorry Mark, but I don’t see any injustice here. Keep in mind I would say the same thing if it were Bob or Wade making this post. What I would do is propose this being added to the bylaws of Distractible so that post-episode points can’t be awarded by the winner of that particular episode in the future. I think for now Bob’s win still stands.
The points were given before the speeches, and before Bob proclaimed "Podcast out", so I feel like they should be valid, since it never specifically came up during the Council (or if it did, I don't remember it).
Oh it was unjust alright, but it was also constitutional. Sorry, Mark!
Love ya Mark but I'm no dick rider you lost fair and square!
Mark under estimates our love for Wade
man I missed this