On Mon, 12 May 2014, omd wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > The rules once said some Item could be "Decreased by N". I found a > > scam way to have N come out negative (it wasn't lower bounded). So > > of course I tried to "Decrease" the Item by a negative amount and > > get lots of said Item (I think a winning amount). > > 'Twas me, at least in the instance I remember.
Oh, haha, that's the one. I remembered that I'd made a formal argument in the case and had lost, but thought that meant I'd been the scammer, not a mere overturned judge (No wonder I couldn't remember the scam particulars, it was bugging me!) -G.
