On Dec 24, 2007 11:45 AM, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, it seems to me that, since the difference is so thin, and the
> rules do not cover it, it would be valid to count spending as a loss.
I don't think that it matters. Accepting for the moment that spending
a VC is consider
On Dec 24, 2007 2:42 PM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2007 2:21 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > pikhq wrote:
> >
> > > Common sense dictates that, when you spend something, you have also lost
> > > it.
> > > The rules do not say otherwise, so common sense prevai
On Dec 24, 2007 2:21 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
>
> > Common sense dictates that, when you spend something, you have also lost it.
> > The rules do not say otherwise, so common sense prevails.
> > This whole case is centered around whether or not "to spend" is sufficien
pikhq wrote:
Common sense dictates that, when you spend something, you have also lost it.
The rules do not say otherwise, so common sense prevails.
This whole case is centered around whether or not "to spend" is sufficiently
similar to "to lose" to allow the VC loss to be waived.
I invite the
OscarMeyr wrote:
We do need a patch in 2126, along the lines of replacing:
VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the
color is specified):
With:
VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the
color(s) is/are accurately specified an
Also, it seems to me that, since the difference is so thin, and the
rules do not cover it, it would be valid to count spending as a loss.
avpx
On Dec 24, 2007 11:40 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 24 December 2007 11:36:04 Nick Vanderweit wrote:
> > I retract my previo
On Monday 24 December 2007 11:36:04 Nick Vanderweit wrote:
> I retract my previous (probably invalid) CFJ.
>
> I CFJ on the following statement: "It is possible to spend VCs that
> one does not own."
>
> avpx
>
> On Dec 24, 2007 12:51 AM, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I CFJ on t
On Dec 24, 2007, at 12:56 AM, Nick Vanderweit wrote:
I cause WALRUS to spend 2 VCs of each color to cause me to gain 1 VC
of each color.
Because WALRUS does not have any VCs, the loss is waived, per rule
2126.
I spend 1 VC of each color to win the game.
avpx
We do need a patch in 2126,
Nick Vanderweit wrote:
>I CFJ on this.
To CFJ (of the inquiry variety) you need to provide a distinct statement
whose truth is to be determined. You also need to do it in the public
forum. I suggest CFJing on a statement such as "it is possible to spend
a VC that one does not possess".
-zefram
I CFJ on this. Spending anything, IMO, though not synonymous, is very
similar to losing it, and, though the difference seems to pop out
after thinking about it a bit, it's really not covered under the rules
at all.
avpx
On Dec 24, 2007 12:05 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Vanderweit
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>I dunno that loss != spending. The rules are silent on the issue. . .
Spending is a deliberate action, unlike loss which is imposed.
The details are left to common sense and game custom, and both of those
hold that one can't spend what one doesn't have.
>I'd say CFJ time,
On Monday 24 December 2007 00:05:26 Zefram wrote:
> Nick Vanderweit wrote:
> >Because WALRUS does not have any VCs, the loss is waived, per rule 2126.
>
> Loss != spending. I reckon you can't spend what you don't have.
I dunno that loss != spending. The rules are silent on the issue. . .
I'd say
12 matches
Mail list logo
