On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > ATMunn (A, C): I win the game.
> I realized also, don't I have a blot? I assume I can expunge it, but I haven't
> yet.
Missed that - unfortunately the rule self-repealed now so it's too late to
try again.
> >
I understand more theories are the last thing we probably need right now
but oh well.
Let me make a chart for reference.
A and B B and C C and A
- - -
VJ Rada L.Cuddles
Margaux CoronaAris
PSS TrigonMurphy
G.twg ATMunn
In
On 10/9/2018 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
ATMunn (A, C): I win the game.
I realized also, don't I have a blot? I assume I can expunge it, but I
haven't yet.
If so, for someone in B, that means someone in (A, C) can win, which
means someone in (C) can win, does this block people in (B) from
Ok, Here's my catalog of events. Want to see if we can condense cases
before figuring out what raft of CFJs are needed.
Corona, Trigon, VJ Rada start out with Blots, therefore CANNOT win.
Announcements made (including Slates of announcers):
Trigon (B, C): I cause the Slate B players to
Well, it's all in the same category, so it's not a huge burden to
write (x500) in the report.
But yes, there have been some "technically infinite" wins in the past
I think - this isn't the first time a winning condition failed to reset
itself.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue,
Sorry if that breached a norm of the game; I just thought it was a
potentially fun scam to run.
I thought I saw that repeat awards of victories in the Herald’s report were
denoted “(x2)” or “(x3)”, etc., so didn’t think it would bloat the report.
If Herald report bloat is a concern, we can put
On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 19:59 -0400, D Margaux wrote:
> And one more at the deadline to try to get the last word on the RR
> victories.. :-)
>
> 500. I win by Round Robin.
>
> As I read the rule, there’s no limit to the number of times an
> eligible player can declare victory during the Effective
Certainly an interesting idea. Unfortunately, I joined too late to
participate in the voting. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On 10/9/2018 6:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
The proposals were constructed such that each player was on exactly two
slates. So, ATM would have won if only A or C won; if both A and C won; or
if
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 16:08 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > > Since you are Slate A and Slate C, you either can't win the game by
> > > >
On 10/9/2018 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 16:08 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
Since you are Slate A and Slate C, you either can't win the game by
announcement because Slate B players can as the former, or you can't win
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 16:08 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > Since you are Slate A and Slate C, you either can't win the game by
> > announcement because Slate B players can as the former, or you can't win
> > the game by announcement
The proposals were constructed such that each player was on exactly two
slates. So, ATM would have won if only A or C won; if both A and C won; or
if C and B won, but not A. Other permutations would obtain for other
players. The hope was that it would lead to some fun strategic voting
behavior.
On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 16:08 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Since you are Slate A and Slate C, you either can't win the game by
> announcement because Slate B players can as the former, or you can't win
> the game by announcement because there is no mechanism for the latter to
> do so.
Doesn't
Relevant ruletext:
Rule 2580/2 (Power=1)
Round Robin
The "Effective Date" is the Agoran day that is 8 days after the
Agoran day on which this Rule was enacted. This Rule is
automatically repealed at 00:01 UTC on the Agoran day after the
Effective Date.
The Slate
Oh come on. I just wanted to see if anything interesting would happen.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 8:48 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I object.
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > I intend to Declare Apathy,
Hm, I see what you're saying.
I think the problem is that recently I have been thinking a lot about
real-life board games, which generally require some amount of complexity
to be interesting. (Of course, there are those games every now and then
that manage to pull off something genius with a
If this is how we're going to do it...
I win the game.
I also object to Cuddle's intent to declare apathy.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 04:48 Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I win the game too.
> I intend to declare victory by apathy, with its set of players being just
>
> myself
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at
CB: if you want to win by apathy, then you’d better decide CFJ 3652 before I
get around to blotting you for the late decision. :-P
> On Oct 9, 2018, at 6:47 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I win the game too.
> I intend to declare victory by apathy, with its set of players being just
>
> myself
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
