The Number Game Continued

[Brent Kerman]

4-

[munlander1]

5+

[Brent Kerman]

4-

[53miner53]

5+

[Benjamin Kerman]

4+

[Sirius628]

5 hours ago, munlander1 said:

I suggest a slight change to the rules though. The medal of dishonor invalidation should only apply at |90|- |100|.

 

So, if you start at say 40, then spam posts to 100, you don't get a medal of dishonour?

3-

 

[munlander1]

35 minutes ago, Sirius628 said:

So, if you start at say 40, then spam posts to 100, you don't get a medal of dishonour?

3-

 

No, you would, and it would be a cheat. But you could spam up to 90. If you went past 90 it would go down as a cheat.

[Sirius628]

43 minutes ago, munlander1 said:

No, you would, and it would be a cheat. But you could spam up to 90. If you went past 90 it would go down as a cheat.

Well, I already pretty much have that.

[Brent Kerman]

2-

[munlander1]

1 hour ago, Sirius628 said:

Well, I already pretty much have that.

Did not see it in the rules.

[Benjamin Kerman]

-1+

[Brent Kerman]

I assume you meant 1-, it was at two POSITIVE.

0-

[53miner53]

1+

[DarkOwl57]

2+

[ccoel]

3+

[Brent Kerman]

2-

[53miner53]

4+

[Brent Kerman]

1 minute ago, 53miner53 said:

4+

WRONG! I assume it was to be 3+

2-

[ccoel]

3+

[Brent Kerman]

2-

[adsii1970]

1(-1)

[Brent Kerman]

0-

[ccoel]

1-

[Brent Kerman]

I assume that was to be 1+ based on the result.

0-

[DarkOwl57]

1+