2009/6/29 Alex Smith :
> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 17:00 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> As I'm trying to sort out who gained notes for awarding points - who
>> was this constanza person, and what happened? Could someone who
>> actually understood this scam please explain?
>
> constanza was presumably
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 17:00 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> As I'm trying to sort out who gained notes for awarding points - who
> was this constanza person, and what happened? Could someone who
> actually understood this scam please explain?
constanza was presumably a third-party who agreed to he
2009/6/20 Alex Smith :
> On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 12:16 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Ryan Ursenbach wrote:
>> > I agree to all of those contracts
>> >
>> > Sean Hunt wrote:
>> >
>> > Agree to these instead:
>> >
>> > {
>> > I pledge that I may be referred to in Agora as "costanza". Any first
Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> No. There were two wins. As a result, each player will lose 80% then 80%
>> again, for a total of 98% loss. Declaring a skunk just because a scam
>> would bring that to 99.8% is kind of dumb.
>
> 100 * .2 = 20 (First r
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> No. There were two wins. As a result, each player will lose 80% then 80%
> again, for a total of 98% loss. Declaring a skunk just because a scam
> would bring that to 99.8% is kind of dumb.
100 * .2 = 20 (First reset -> total loss of 80%)
20 * .2
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 15:41, Taral wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> No. When a win by points occurs it schedules an event one week in the
>>> future. When it comes time for that event the game checks if a skunk
>>> has been declared in the pas
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> True, but I don't see how that ties a specific skunk to a specific
> reset. I could honestly see this being interpreted either way, but in
> my estimation one skunk canceling all pending resets seems to make the
> most sense based on the wording
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 15:41, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> No. When a win by points occurs it schedules an event one week in the
>> future. When it comes time for that event the game checks if a skunk
>> has been declared in the past week. If not the reset
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> No. When a win by points occurs it schedules an event one week in the
> future. When it comes time for that event the game checks if a skunk
> has been declared in the past week. If not the reset occurs, otherwise
> it does not.
Except that sku
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 15:35, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> "If any player does so within the allowed week..." in the next
>> sentence would corroborate this I think. From my reading one skunk
>> would void all pending point resets.
>
> That doesn't make sen
Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> "If any player does so within the allowed week..." in the next
>> sentence would corroborate this I think. From my reading one skunk
>> would void all pending point resets.
>
> That doesn't make sense. One skunk and one reset. Y
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> "If any player does so within the allowed week..." in the next
> sentence would corroborate this I think. From my reading one skunk
> would void all pending point resets.
That doesn't make sense. One skunk and one reset. Your reading would
mean
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 15:09, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Taral wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> I object, since this would interrupt the other two score resets. Since
>>> every player is losing 98% of their points anyways, I don't think the
>>> third reset will have any impa
Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I object, since this would interrupt the other two score resets. Since
>> every player is losing 98% of their points anyways, I don't think the
>> third reset will have any impact whatsoever.
>
> Would it? I'm not convinced that t
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 14:56 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 14:51, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > I object, since this would interrupt the other two score resets. Since
> > every player is losing 98% of their points anyways, I don't think the
> > third reset will have any impact whatsoeve
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I object, since this would interrupt the other two score resets. Since
> every player is losing 98% of their points anyways, I don't think the
> third reset will have any impact whatsoever.
Would it? I'm not convinced that this will prevent the o
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 14:51, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 14:43, Taral wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM, comex wrote:
> The following is a Win Announcement: coppro and comex each have scores
> x+yi such that xy >= 2500
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 14:51, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 14:43, Taral wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM, comex wrote:
The following is a Win Announcement: coppro and comex each have scores
x+yi such that xy >= 2500.
>>> I intend, with Agora
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 14:48 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Does anyone care to CFJ this? or would one of the scammers kindly
> describe how this scam works? as far as I can see it doesn't, but I
> suspect I may be missing something.
I think I can explain, because I was planning the same scam myself (
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 14:47, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 13:43 -0700, Taral wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM, comex wrote:
>> > The following is a Win Announcement: coppro and comex each have scores
>> > x+yi such that xy >= 2500.
>>
>> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to de
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Normally, I'd agree. However, there are going to be so many score resets
> anyway due to legit wins, that why bother?
To avoid stacking resets? On principle? I'm leaning toward the latter,
since I have no points anyway.
--
Taral
"Please let m
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:25, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I agree to CO 1.
>> I agree to CO 2.
>> I agree to CO 3.
>> I agree to CO 4.
>> I agree to CO 5.
>> I agree to CO 6.
>> I agree to CO 7.
>> I agree to CO 8.
>> I agree to CO 9.
>> I agree to CO 10.
>
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 13:43 -0700, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM, comex wrote:
> > The following is a Win Announcement: coppro and comex each have scores
> > x+yi such that xy >= 2500.
>
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to declare a skunk.
>
Normally, I'd agree. However, there a
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Ryan Ursenbach wrote:
>> I agree to all of those contracts
I favor this CFJ. Too early?
24 matches
Mail list logo
