On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:38 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 12:36 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >> I submit the following proposal titled "Secure points": >> >> Upmutate Rule 2136 to power 2. >> Upmutate Rule 2179 to power 2, and amend it by appending to the first >> paragraph the text: >> >> Changes to point holdings are secured. >> > They were at least a reasonably non-obnoxious way to scam a win at Power > 1. If I'd had to do it some other way, it might have caused a lot more > lasting damage to the gamestate.
If we wanted wins to be easily scammable at power 1, we wouldn't have winning secured at power 2. -root
