On Sun, 2019-02-03 at 10:36 -0800, Edward Murphy wrote:
> I forget, what loophole did you use? Arrange for a non-player
> confederate to register and deregister?
There was a group of 3 people who first arranged for everyone else to
have a Losing Condition, then we each took it in turns to give
ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 07:59 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Example:
While a player is the only active first-class player not to
satisfy at least one Losing Condition, e satisfies the Winning
Condition of Solitude.
Cleanup procedure: The same person
On 2/1/2019 8:03 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 07:59 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Example:
While a player is the only active first-class player not to
satisfy at least one Losing Condition, e satisfies the Winning
Condition of Solitude.
On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 07:59 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Example:
>While a player is the only active first-class player not to
>satisfy at least one Losing Condition, e satisfies the Winning
>Condition of Solitude.
>
>Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot
On 1/31/2019 10:31 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I'd like to work on this. With regard to looping wins, I think we
should give some people some sort of additional prize, probably in the
form of a patent title, for proving that they *could* win an infinite
(or finite but very large) number of times.
I look forwards to a scam about earning Infinite Jester an infinite amount
of times.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 19:31, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:11 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 13:57 -0800, Kerim
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:11 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 13:57 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > So, in the past we've played with rules text to add something like "if a
> > rules violation is found to be instrumental in a win, the win fails, rules
> > to the contrary
On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 13:57 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So, in the past we've played with rules text to add something like "if a
> rules violation is found to be instrumental in a win, the win fails, rules
> to the contrary notwithstanding". But somehow we never added it - and I
> sort of
8 matches
Mail list logo
