I thought we had that patched in the definition of "spend", but looks like "spend" is no longer a defined thing?
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > True. We should probably add that to a general disambiguation rule. > Seems to pop up a lot. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: > > > >> As for the split message, I sent the first one accidentally and the " > >> ...for the purpose of paying for the land I won." part was just meant as a > >> clarification to players. I believe that the payment works even without > >> explicitly stating the purpose, as the relevant rule does not require that. > > > > > > Interesting. That makes it possible to cheat by managing to have a payment > > count for more than one auction (or possibly some other purpose that doesn't > > state payments have to be exclusively for it, if there are any.) > > > > Greetings, > > Ørjan. >
