Guest Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Kerballing (Got Dunked On) said: ^ 63 (+) BUT @Aperture Science just found a good loophole @Dman979 still has to prove, so for all practical reasons Aperture may have just reset it to 95 It's not really a loophole. The rule only prevents the move to be edited as not to create situations where someone goes way back, edits his post and claims the following moves are invalid, but doesn't prevent you from editing anything else that doesn't directly interfere with the game not to create situations like Dman's revert claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerballingSmasher Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 hmm... yeah I probably should have reworded that a little better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dman979 Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Aperture Science said: Rule 2.4 states that the move (+1, -1) is not to be edited after another move has been made. In order for this revert to be valid, I'm going to have to ask for proof that the move was changed. Sure. We can see that @The_Cat_In_Space told @Barzon Kerman to edit his number two posts after it was originally posted. I don't think it's rocket science (although we have plenty of rocket scientists on the forums ) to see that the post was then edited in the same minute. And even if we assume that the edit and the post were in the same minute but that the edit happened first, @Kerballing (Got Dunked On)'s post was in the minute before the edit. 3 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said: Barzon your post is invalid. Make it 63! 65 (+) This follows exactly the sequence of posts laid out as the second example, where even though person B's move doesn't change (e.g. it's still a -1), the number does, and that invalidates the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chel Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 Soooooo, where are we starting from now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerballingSmasher Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 (edited) 62, i think Edited March 19, 2019 by Kerballing (Got Dunked On) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dman979 Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 We're waiting for @Aperture Science's judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerballingSmasher Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Dman979 said: We're waiting for @Aperture Science's judgement. ah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Dman979 said: Sure. We can see that @The_Cat_In_Space told @Barzon Kerman to edit his number two posts after it was originally posted. I don't think it's rocket science (although we have plenty of rocket scientists on the forums ) to see that the post was then edited in the same minute. And even if we assume that the edit and the post were in the same minute but that the edit happened first, @Kerballing (Got Dunked On)'s post was in the minute before the edit. This follows exactly the sequence of posts laid out as the second example, where even though person B's move doesn't change (e.g. it's still a -1), the number does, and that invalidates the post. Quote 5. The player is not to change his move after another player has moved after him, unless for discarding or correcting (when acknowledged) the move. As per rule 2.5, @Barzon Kerman has corrected his post after @The_Cat_In_Space had acknowledged the mistake made. Judging from the moves made, it seems Barzon was ninja'd by TCIS when both were adding +1 to the then current number. As long as Barzon has not changed his move from -1 to +1, which is unlikely due to his history playing in the positive side, the post is still valid as the edit was made for correcting purposes after TCIP acknowledged the mistake. (Note: the definition of move is either adding +1 or -1 to the current number. I'll be going over the rules to make them clearer, with definitions and all.) Current number is 95 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chel Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 I guess I was wrong, there was no danger at all 96 (+) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB-70A Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 Well, let's go back to work. 95 (-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chel Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 96 (+) Only 4 separates us from victory @Kerballing (Got Dunked On) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB-70A Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 95 (-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chel Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 96 (+) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB-70A Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 95 (-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 96 + Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB-70A Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 95 (-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 96 + Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB-70A Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 95 (-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 96 + Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargamel Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 95(-) Is that the sound of a revert I hear coming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB-70A Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 94 (-) Mmmh, who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chel Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 NO 95 (+) @Kerballing (Got Dunked On) @GRS @Barzon Kerman @TeslaPenguin1 @Lo Var Lachland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dman979 Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 On 3/17/2019 at 10:09 PM, Dman979 said: 19 (-1) This post is valid. On 3/17/2019 at 10:10 PM, adsii1970 said: 20 (-1) This post is not valid. It either messed up the number or messed up the action. Either way, it's very invalid. 23 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said: It's treason then 21 (+) This post is invalid, too, since it continues from an invalid post. The last valid post was my 19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, Gargamel said: 95(-) Is that the sound of a revert I hear coming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chel Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 Just now, Dman979 said: This post is valid. This post is not valid. It either messed up the number or messed up the action. Either way, it's very invalid. This post is invalid, too, since it continues from an invalid post. The last valid post was my 19. Aperture said it was 95.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts