Re: [spoon-discuss] winsome

[Zarpint <athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Why do you say winning normally is impossible? r27 specifies how
to win normally.

And we have the Circuit Breaker to stop multiple successive wins.

Zarpint


On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, [iso-8859-1] Bill Adlam wrote:

> Zarpint wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Sagitta


-- 
Zarpint Jeremy Cook    "All thy toiling only breeds new dreams, new dreams;
mcfoufou@xxxxxxxxx         there is no truth saving in thine own heart."
dynamicwind.com               --W.B. Yeats, The Song of the Happy Shepherd
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss