Bill Adlam on Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:50:27 -0500 (CDT)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[spoon-discuss] winsome

Zarpint wrote: 

>>> Actually, r27 is botched - it says ineligible players "may not
> win",
>>> not "may not be awarded wins"; it was determined by some CFI or
> other
>>> that "to win" and "to be awarded a win" are not the same thing.
> That's not botched. That's how it was intended, I would suppose. It
> makes
> sense that ineligible players couldn't win normally, but could be
> awarded
> a win - why would we want to stop that?

We would want to stop that so that when someone manages to scam emself
a win, the other players don't immediately do the same thing (and, even
more importantly, the same player doesn't repeat the exploit over and
over).  But there is no reason we would want to stop players 'winning
normally' when that is undefined and therefore impossible.


Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" 
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
spoon-discuss mailing list