Fwd: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

TTttDF Forwarded Message Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:16:50 -0800 From: Edward Murphy <emurph...@zoho.com> To: Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> G. wrote: On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: It’s

Fwd: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

(Hmm, Control-R is doing 'Reply to sender', ignoring the Reply-To: header. Must look into a way to override that.) Forwarded Message Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:16:50 -0800 From: Edward Murphy <emurph...@zoho.com> To:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Having told this story and mused on it a bit, I'm wondering if my memory is faulty. I know we *talked* a lot about mass deregistration, but I'm also remembering we talked about some less drastic solutions, something like everybody announcing "I hereby resign all my offices" and a few other mass

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> > On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:29 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > We'd have to wind back all transactions with agora to the point where > > agora's balance would have been positive... does that make CFJs and > > proposals pended with money invalidly pended and called? On Fri, 8 Sep

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

No, because CFJs are non-binding and we can ratify without objection facts, in contradiction to CFJs. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:29 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > We'd have to wind back all transactions with

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Kyle Anderson wrote: > Your message implies that the Agora player base as a whole has not always > been so reasonable. I think that's too bad, though I guess there are those > who play to win, not to play. One thing is that, as long as I've known the game, players are pretty

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Kyle Anderson wrote: > Just as an aside, this shit is crazy. Pardon my French. It makes me wonder > how many > players know of issues in the rules similar to this and are just waiting for > the > right time to exploit them. On one hand I've sat on things for months

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > It’s also to deal with situations where the platonic gamestate and the > apprehended gamestate have diverged too radically to be resolved. > G., were you around when Agora had exactly 1 player, for long enough > to pass some proposals to fix game

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > <<<2017-08-24 ! K deregistered > > Don't think you can invalidate this. Although it may have had the > effect of making the amount of shinies somewhere illegal, it's always > possible to deregister and making K a player

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:50 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> This appears to be more valid, though I’ll still need to sanity-check it. >> Notably, several rewards which I had previously thought would be invalidated >> are instead

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

The flipping of the floating value, as a note, is also probably invalid. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:52 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > this is going to be a long week for poor o. :(. > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

this is going to be a long week for poor o. :(. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> This appears to be more valid, though I’ll still need to sanity-check it. >> Notably, several rewards which I had previously

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: This appears to be more valid, though I’ll still need to sanity-check it. Notably, several rewards which I had previously thought would be invalidated are instead permitted. I’ve still avoided breaking any proposals or CFJs, but given the duration, I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

<<<2017-08-24 ! K deregistered Don't think you can invalidate this. Although it may have had the effect of making the amount of shinies somewhere illegal, it's always possible to deregister and making K a player against eir will would be a bad thing (tm) On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Owen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:37 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:28 AM, VJ Rada wrote: >>> >>> If stamp creation is found by the CFJ to be invalid, what

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

i don kno wat ur tahkin abot (I know but its funny that one could include it lol) On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > CuddleBeam, please, spellcheck. Mistyping your message has nothing to > do with how well that method works, BTW. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

CuddleBeam, please, spellcheck. Mistyping your message has nothing to do with how well that method works, BTW. -Aris On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Theres a hilarious way to actually rejoin before your 30 days is up and that > is to registur in a wei

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:31 PM Kyle Anderson wrote: > I agree, Cuddle. Great Nomic. Even watching is enthralling, though I am > excited for my 30 days to be up so I can get in on the action. > > That is fascinating, o. I'll have to see if I can find that in the >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Theres a hilarious way to actually rejoin before your 30 days is up and that is to registur in a wei wich is soffisently amgibous butt undurstendabul On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Kyle Anderson wrote: > I agree, Cuddle. Great Nomic. Even watching is enthralling, though

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

<2017-08-28 ! o claimed a welcome package for CuddleBeam Does this lead to CB's later transactions being also invalidated? On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 8, 2017,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:28 AM, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> If stamp creation is found by the CFJ to be invalid, what happens? > > I start invalidating transactions that either affect stamps or decrease

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:28 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > If stamp creation is found by the CFJ to be invalid, what happens? I start invalidating transactions that either affect stamps or decrease Agora’s balance, until I find a solution that leaves Agora with a positive balance

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Neither worked, b ut we're pretending the creations worked through self-ratifying reports. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > As I understand it, either both the creations and the scam worked, or > neither did. Either way we have a problem.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

I agree, Cuddle. Great Nomic. Even watching is enthralling, though I am excited for my 30 days to be up so I can get in on the action. That is fascinating, o. I'll have to see if I can find that in the archives, it seems worthy of some research. Your message implies that the Agora player base as

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

We'd have to wind back all transactions with agora to the point where agora's balance would have been positive... does that make CFJs and proposals pended with money invalidly pended and called? On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:28 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > If stamp creation is found by

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

If stamp creation is found by the CFJ to be invalid, what happens? On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > >> So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work? > > > Even if the MAYs were to be ignored, your attempts still

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

"So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work?" No because that's also a MAY, but we're pretending it didn't happen this time (because legally, it didn't) On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work? > > On Fri, Sep 8,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work? Even if the MAYs were to be ignored, your attempts still would fail for the other reasons, although Gaelan Steele's attempt might have worked. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Thank you. K On Sep 7, 2017 10:04 PM, "VJ Rada" wrote: > The creation of stamps is done by this text: "Once per month, a player > MAY, by announcement, transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies, > to create a Stamp.". MAY means something is legal and not punishable, >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work? On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:04 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > The creation of stamps is done by this text: "Once per month, a player > MAY, by announcement, transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies, > to create a Stamp.". MAY means

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:21 AM, Kyle Anderson wrote: > > Just as an aside, this shit is crazy. Pardon my French. It makes me wonder > how many players know of issues in the rules similar to this and are just > waiting for the right time to exploit them. > > K At one

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Imo Kyle that's just good nomic lol. Also, creation + stamps working is just like creation working except with the addition of a step where stamps disappear. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Kyle Anderson wrote: > Just as an aside, this shit is crazy. Pardon my French.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Just as an aside, this shit is crazy. Pardon my French. It makes me wonder how many players know of issues in the rules similar to this and are just waiting for the right time to exploit them. K On Sep 7, 2017 10:15 PM, "Owen Jacobson" wrote: > On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:58 PM,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

< wrote: > >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Kyle Anderson wrote: >> >> I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened >> with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they no >> longer exist. I thought that the scam did not

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:15 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Kyle Anderson wrote: >> >> I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened >> with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Kyle Anderson wrote: > > I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened with > stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they no longer > exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

As I understand it, either both the creations and the scam worked, or neither did. Either way we have a problem. -Aris On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work? > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:04 AM, VJ Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

The creation of stamps is done by this text: "Once per month, a player MAY, by announcement, transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies, to create a Stamp.". MAY means something is legal and not punishable, but it doesn't imply CAN, which creates a mechanism to do it. Therefore, all previous

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they no longer exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though I'm not entirely sure why. Did the scam work? Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

FTR, for obvious reasons ratification is secured at power 3, so it takes an AI 3 proposal to ratify something, -Aris On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent > ratification without objection,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Notably you would have to CoE, not object, to those reports. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent > ratification without objection, and to prevent self-ratification, if you > have the will to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent ratification without objection, and to prevent self-ratification, if you have the will to do so. Ratification by proposal is harder to stop single-handedly, but you can always outline your objections in plain language and hope

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

You wouldn't be carded. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well. > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: >> >> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would > disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess. > > -Aris > > On Thu, Sep

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess. -Aris On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Proto-actions: > > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Proto-actions: I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly Secretary’s report on grounds that their author has included information which is inaccurate. I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the objection above. Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

This is what ratification without objection and ratification by proposal (which isn't mentioned in the rules, but strongly implied) are for. They allow you to "fix" the past, either because of a dispute or because there's something we want to collectively ignore. -Aris On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong. If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure it out some way. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

It’s also to deal with situations where the platonic gamestate and the apprehended gamestate have diverged too radically to be resolved. G., were you around when Agora had exactly 1 player, for long enough to pass some proposals to fix game state? -o > On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:12 PM, Cuddle Beam

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of dispute or ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt one. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > i mean, that's why ratification exists. > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

i mean, that's why ratification exists. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to me. > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to me. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > > > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having them. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having them. Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly Secretary’s report will do that, thankfully. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having them. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> >> I was about to mention that lol. Basically: Stamps are gone, or stamps

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > I was about to mention that lol. Basically: Stamps are gone, or stamps are > gone. > > I think it's possible to just recalculate each person's true balance based on > Secretary info. The creation of Stamps were just

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Another approach would be wait till your fix is adopted then ratify a document saying "this proposal was adopted [months ago]". In the mean time, continue to act like it works. A bit sketchy and very pragmatic but fully legal after the ratification happens. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Owen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 9:07 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Ratify the floating value, pretending it's always worked? Ratify all values the Floating Value switch has taken, just to be sure. I actually have records. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

I think we can retroactively ratify the floating value to make things work. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Sep 7, 2017, at 9:06 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:58 PM, Kerim Aydin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Ratify the floating value, pretending it's always worked? On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> I believe the guiding CFJ is CFJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> I believe the guiding CFJ is CFJ 2412 >> : >> >> >> I should read my own citations. This CFJ cites CFJ 2120

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

Silly me of course I knew that. I was conflating it with my other idea of making it One Big File for loading/searching. Don't mind it being public, I'll twiddle it when I'm off mobile (might be tomorrow). On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > GitHub also generates tar

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > I believe for a good of Agora reason, we shouldn’t allow it to be tied > together and must require to explicit CANs. I tend to agree. If a player fails to complete a SHALL,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > I believe the guiding CFJ is CFJ 2412 > : > > > I should read my own citations. This CFJ cites CFJ 2120 > , > which in turn cites CFJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

GitHub also generates tar balls for private repositories. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:54 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Players MAY, by announcement,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >>> Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to transfer > >>> the Stamp Value, in shinies, to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:49 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Kerim Aydin > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

I believe for a good of Agora reason, we shouldn’t allow it to be tied together and must require to explicit CANs. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:49 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:41 PM,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to transfer >>> the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em. > > I wondered about this but I didn't like to say

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to transfer >>> the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em. > > I wondered about this but I didn't like to say

DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to transfer > >the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em. I wondered about this but I didn't like to say anything. I never got an answer to my question about whether SHALL implies CAN is good

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

I was about to mention that lol. Basically: Stamps are gone, or stamps are gone. I think it's possible to just recalculate each person's true balance based on Secretary info. The creation of Stamps were just bogus (would your insight be accurate) but the transactions weren't. On Fri, Sep 8, 2017

DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Sep 7, 2017, at 3:14 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > >> OK, I’m just gonna do the scam properly so I can stop keeping secrets and >> whatnot. >> >> For each player by reverse order of first