On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 14:53 -0700, Owen Jacobson wrote: > It seems clear to me that the right outcome here is for you to keep > your shinies and not get a stamp, and given that the action of > spending shinies was clearly conditioned on creating a stamp, I think > that’s what actually happened, too. Anyone feel strongly enough to > call a CFJ?
I think, the way my message was worded, it was an attempt to perform an impossible action (and thus entirely failed). So I don't think a CFJ is needed here either. If anyone does, they can call it if they really want to, but it's probably best to just proceed with what we think the gamestate is; if we're wrong it'll self-ratify in a week anyway. -- ais523
