oh man I missed the October auction uuuugggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh kill me lol
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > It helps converge game states in simple ways. Let's say you try to do X. > Someone CFJs that you said it wrong for a dumb technical reason. So > you want to make sure X gets done in the mean time. If you just say > "I do X" with whatever technical thing corrected, then depending on the > CFJ outcome, it would be uncertain whether you have done X once or > twice (which might have knock on consequences if the thing is a Shiny > transfer or something). By being able to say, "if my first attempt failed, > I do x" is used all the time to converge game state to x having been done > once. So it's handy. > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 21:50 Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandlight17@ > gmail.com> wrote: > > I oppose (not that it does anything). I rather like my judgement. > BTW, as I understand it, SHALL but CANNOT has > > generally held to be impossible, except where the situation is > somehow the fault of the player under the SHALL. > > > > -Aris > > > > > > On a not-really-related note, do we actually need conditional actions > for anything? Most of our conditionals amount to "If I > > can do X, I do so." Could we just ban them outright? > > > > >
