On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:52 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +0000, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to > > > call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies > > > alone. > > > > I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a > > counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) > > I think in the volume needed, we're looking at rules-violation regardless, > someone can correct me if I'm wrong. (I also would not be up to rules- > breaking to stop a Win. A dictatorship maybe but not just a win). > > If we *did* go that route, I'd number the CFJs fractionally and list > them all under a single whole number, so I wouldn't use CFJs that actually > have some interest for anyone. > I'm more willing to use rule-breaking to stop a win that is itself a product of blatant rule-breaking. I would not use it for a different kind of win.
