Forgive me, but how much can you actually do if you are the only person
party to a contract, unless there's a pre-existing rules bug? Or is the
issue just that it would make such a bug exploitable with one person
instead of two?
Jason Cobb
On 7/18/19 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
8210 Jason
(Again, still new at assessor)
I'm going to act under the assumption that this evaluates to FOR, since
basically everything has the reflexive property on equality. If this is
incorrect, just tell me, and I'll fix it.
Jason Cobb
On 7/18/19 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
8205 R. Lee
Yeah, this was what I was thinking of - I remembered things not working because
of that specific prohibition, and confused that with it _only_ being possible
for by-announcement actions.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, July 13, 2019 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
Here's a draft judgement. I'll publish it later if nobody objects.
> === CFJ 3757 ===
>
>omd has 1 Blot.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:Jason Cobb
>
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 04:13, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If it helps, the thought I had in mind was:
> If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter
> the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing
> an action, that action is a fee-based
Wait until you see how broken those rules are...
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 7:50 AM nch wrote:
>
> Speak for yourselves. I have a spaceship.
>
> On 7/18/19 9:41 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > ha when do we ever
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/17/2019 11:12 PM,
Speak for yourselves. I have a spaceship.
On 7/18/19 9:41 AM, Rebecca wrote:
ha when do we ever
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/17/2019 11:12 PM, Rebecca wrote:
it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting
attempts for free wins without
ha when do we ever
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 7/17/2019 11:12 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting
> > attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics.
>
> Well it's something to do
On 7/17/2019 11:12 PM, Rebecca wrote:
it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting
attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics.
Well it's something to do right now when we don't *have* any other
game mechanics.
Historically Victory By Apathy has been a good way to bring activity
back into the game during a lull. And the fact that it proves a testing
ground for these kinds of claims makes it a sort of release valve. Jason
Cobb could have tried other actions that would've caused more gamestate
Would you rather me have ratified that I had millions of coins? I could
get a win that way, too.
Jason Cobb
On 7/18/19 2:12 AM, Rebecca wrote:
it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting
attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics.
On Thu,
it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting
attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:11 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 15:24 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> > I create
On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 15:24 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> I create the following proposal
>
> Name: NO MORE APATHY
> AI: 1
> Text: Repeal rule 2465 "Victory By Apathy"
Huh? This incident is evidence that the rule is working by design.
Assume for a thought experiment this case is broken. Then if we
13 matches
Mail list logo
