# The Number War: Count to 100 or -100

## Recommended Posts

Just keep going...

-96 +

-97 (-)

##### Share on other sites

I think that means the last valid number is -60, unless I got the rules wrong

##### Share on other sites

@Dman979 So what number are we on?

##### Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Deddly said:

I wonder if I should point out that this post was edited one minute before the next one?

So I'm not very experienced with this game, but I think that's significant in some way ;).

As a matter of fact, you should point that out, because it's very significant.

Like I mentioned before, posts that violate the rules may be reverted to at any time before +/- 100.

The last valid number is @0111narwhalz's -61.

You may continue from there.

@Deddly, the post was nulled. Since it was invalid, everything after it was invalid, too, leaving the post before it as LVP.

Edited by Dman979
##### Share on other sites

Oh come on!

Fine.. -62 (-)

Is anyone else enraged by this??

##### Share on other sites

-62 (-)

@Mycroft @SpaceplaneAddict @Xorth Tanovar @Atlas2342 LETS RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMBLE!!!!!!!!!!!

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheEpicSquared said:

Is anyone else enraged by this??

The simplest way to avoid this is to not let them slip away in the first place.

##### Share on other sites

Yeah sorry about that, everyone, but what's life without a little positivity?

-61(+)

##### Share on other sites

@Deddly I was too lazy to try and figure that out, so thanks! @TheEpicSquared nope. -61-1 is not -63

-60 +

##### Share on other sites

-61 -

@Kosmonaut I accidentally typed -63 instead of -62

##### Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Deddly said:

I think that means the last valid number is -60, unless I got the rules wrong

14 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

As a matter of fact, you should point that out, because it's very significant.

Like I mentioned before, posts that violate the rules may be reverted to at any time before +/- 100.

The last valid number is @0111narwhalz's -61.

You may continue from there.

@Deddly, the post was nulled. Since it was invalid, everything after it was invalid, too, leaving the post before it as LVP.

THIS IS ABSOLUTE- I'm not going to say it because I would get a mod mad at me, but I personally call this stupid beyond belief. Like seriously, are you people just going to keep rewinding the whole thing until we get to 100? cause if so I'm just done with this whole thing.

##### Share on other sites

this is the last valid

5 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said:
##### Share on other sites

Just now, DarkOwl57 said:

THIS IS ABSOLUTE- I'm not going to say it because I would get a mod mad at me, but I personally call this stupid beyond belief. Like seriously, are you people just going to keep rewinding the whole thing until we get to 100? cause if so I'm just done with this whole thing.

The rules are here to be followed. As I mentioned above, the easiest way to prevent this from happening is not to ignore it.

I'm sorry that you're upset, but we have to be fair to both teams here. Not allowing reverts in a specific case when they've been allowed in the past would be surrendering our impartiality.

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DarkOwl57 said:

THIS IS ABSOLUTE- I'm not going to say it because I would get a mod mad at me, but I personally call this stupid beyond belief. Like seriously, are you people just going to keep rewinding the whole thing until we get to 100? cause if so I'm just done with this whole thing.

Hmm... Victory by attrition is still victory ;).

Free hugs for everyone!

@JoseEduardo, are you sure about that? The post before it was -61

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dman979 said:

The rules are here to be followed. As I mentioned above, the easiest way to prevent this from happening is not to ignore it.

I'm sorry that you're upset, but we have to be fair to both teams here. Not allowing reverts in a specific case when they've been allowed in the past would be surrendering our impartiality.

But why did you wait until we were 3 away to look at it?!?!?!?

##### Share on other sites

Just now, Deddly said:

Hmm... Victory by attrition is still victory ;).

Free hugs for everyone!

@JoseEduardo, are you sure about that? The post before it was -61

I'll call @Deutherius, but it seemed like a skirmish to me, considering they are 1 minute apart and these have been considered skirmish in the past

3 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

The rules are here to be followed. As I mentioned above, the easiest way to prevent this from happening is not to ignore it.

I'm sorry that you're upset, but we have to be fair to both teams here. Not allowing reverts in a specific case when they've been allowed in the past would be surrendering our impartiality.

yeah, I still remember when we got to -100 and had to revert to like -60, almost exactly like now

##### Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DarkOwl57 said:

But why did you wait until we were 3 away to look at it?!?!?!?

To sunder your morale. It seems to have worked fairly well.

It's also a lot more dramatic. Kinda brings me back... *sheds a single tear*

8 minutes ago, Deddly said:

Hmm... Victory by attrition is still victory ;).

Free hugs for everyone!

@JoseEduardo, are you sure about that? The post before it was -61

Yes. Skirmish by rule #7. Last valid really is -63 by @TheEpicSquared.

EDIT: Wait, do you mean why @Dman979 looked at it when you were at -97? Because if yes... We are not computers. It takes us some time to confirm a revert. You guys should have waited with further posting.

Edited by Deutherius
##### Share on other sites

Just now, DarkOwl57 said:

But why did you wait until we were 3 away to look at it?!?!?!?

Because no one brought it up. Our job isn't to go back and make sure that everyone is following the rules at all times, we adjudicate disputes over the rules. The rules always get priority.

##### Share on other sites

-62 (+)

How else are we supposed to insert drama into an abstract competition over counting forwards or backwards?

##### Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

The rules are here to be followed. As I mentioned above, the easiest way to prevent this from happening is not to ignore it.

I'm sorry that you're upset, but we have to be fair to both teams here. Not allowing reverts in a specific case when they've been allowed in the past would be surrendering our impartiality.

But that could be abused by the other team, like it is now. Say that an issue arises at like -30. Well then the team gets to -99 and the group is like 'nah, it's -30, beat it lol' and then the team that made so much progress has to restart.

-63 -

##### Share on other sites

A fighting chance!

-62+