On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 00:22 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> This series of actions below is "Cuddlebeam's 100 Stamps Sequence". If the >> result of performing this sequence would result in me having at least 100 >> Stamps, I perform "Cuddlebeam's 100 Stamps Sequence". > > I highly suspect this fails regardless of what the actions are, given > how long they are. That said, this depends on the relevant precedents about > conditionals, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them contradicted each > other.
I belive CFJs 1774-1775 control. I suspect that this chain of actions would be considered abusive under 1774, and would thus fail. -Ais
