it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards. just gmail sucks. thaks obama.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. -- >From V.J. Rada
