I believe it was my idea, from when we were cleaning up some minigame
re-enactment (I think it was PAoAM), so that we could converge the rules
without worrying about whether or not the original proposal actually worked or
not. AFIAK it hasn’t been used since, although I think it needs to stay in
Huh - I've never seen that used and forgot or didn't know it existed. I
meant it in the wholly informal sense of "now the coin balances are the same
regardless of how I got there".
On 1/30/2019 2:50 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
It’s not clear if you meant for it to be one, but this isn’t a conver
It’s not clear if you meant for it to be one, but this isn’t a convergence in
the rules sense—you need to designate it as one with 3 Consent.
Gaelan
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 1:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Coin Convergence:
> I earn 5 coins for judging CFJ 3698.
>
> On 1/30/2019 1:16 PM, Ker
On 1/30/2019 1:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
3697 called 20 January 2019 by D. Margaux, currently unassigned: "D.
Margaux won the game by politics in this message."
Since this is the first win attempt with these rules, I'll need to step
through an
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I wouldn't feel that you had to wait
> more than say 48 hours before resorting to an arbitrary/random assignment
> (And if you want, as a policy, to encourage more frequent favoring, that's
> totally cool but you'll probably have to remind
On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I assign these CFJs to G., as the first and only player to have expressed
> any interest in judging them.
Just to note, lately (since you've joined) people have favored more than
usual I think - common practice is to favor if you're *really* in
6 matches
Mail list logo
