Damn, I would have definitely joined the contract lmao
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 8:47 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 7/14/2020 3:03 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 7/14/2020 5:58 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> On Tue,
On 7/14/2020 3:03 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 7/14/2020 5:58 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Tue, 2020-07-14 at 23:54 +0200, Cuddle Beam via agora-business
>> wrote:
>>> Seeing how many active players were against this and this needs a
>>> high amount of people to
On 7/14/2020 5:58 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Tue, 2020-07-14 at 23:54 +0200, Cuddle Beam via agora-business
wrote:
Seeing how many active players were against this and this needs a
high amount of people to work...
For what it's worth, I think it's likely best to fix this rather
for context, it wasn't just Jason (I wouldn't have minded if just one
player was against it) but others on the Discord server as well
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:58 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-07-14 at 23:54 +0200, Cuddle Beam via
On Tue, 2020-07-14 at 23:54 +0200, Cuddle Beam via agora-business
wrote:
> Seeing how many active players were against this and this needs a
> high amount of people to work...
For what it's worth, I think it's likely best to fix this rather than
leave the "loophole" open, and the best fix is
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:
I editted it to point out the specific rule but is it really necessary? I
thought it would be unambiguous where the edit was supposed to be. Just
curious about if there's a formal reason for it.
Hm, I think you're technically correct, although it's still
I editted it to point out the specific rule but is it really necessary? I
thought it would be unambiguous where the edit was supposed to be. Just
curious about if there's a formal reason for it.
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 5:26 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is
This is incorrectly punctuated (see the large hole in the middle?) and
doesn't mention a specific rule.
The Promotor
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 12:38 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> Closing up a loophole for winning a bajillion times via Space Battles,
> because once you win via Fame, your Fame isn't
On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 08:37 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> You could pull off a scam with ratification without objection (have a
> legitimate excuse to ratify your coin holdings; get it ratified; go
> on a spending spree; ratify again)
Ratification doesn't set your current holdings to the ratified
You could pull off a scam with ratification without objection (have a
legitimate excuse to ratify your coin holdings; get it ratified; go on a
spending spree; ratify again)
Gaelan
> On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> You're good on the validity for the contest!
>
> More
You're good on the validity for the contest!
More broadly, during the win-by-Apathy glut in the fall, it came up that
dependent actions in general have this issue (A single announcement of
intent lets you perform the action as many times as you want, as long as the
intent dependencies (and
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:
When a player Becomes One With The Cosmos, if their Fame is either 10 or
-10, their Fame is set to 0 and they win the game."
Please use proper Agoran pronouns.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
12 matches
Mail list logo
