Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fibonacci achievement"
From Geohashing
PeterRoder (talk | contribs) m (Forgot to sign) |
(Adding thoughts to proposed achievements) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Oppose'''. We already have [[Two to the N achievement|Two to the N]], and I don't see the point of having two different ways of counting the same thing. If it was counting something different, I might support. --[[User:PeterRoder|PeterRoder]] ([[User talk:PeterRoder|talk]]) 22:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC) | '''Oppose'''. We already have [[Two to the N achievement|Two to the N]], and I don't see the point of having two different ways of counting the same thing. If it was counting something different, I might support. --[[User:PeterRoder|PeterRoder]] ([[User talk:PeterRoder|talk]]) 22:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Oppose'''. Would not oppose it if it was combined with the Two to the N achievement to make a general counting achievement, but this may be controversial amongst people who enjoy that achievement as it is. This suggestion alone does not have enough uniqueness for an achievement. --[[User:KerrMcF|KerrMcF]] ([[User talk:KerrMcF|talk]]) 02:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:11, 27 February 2024
Oppose. We already have Two to the N, and I don't see the point of having two different ways of counting the same thing. If it was counting something different, I might support. --PeterRoder (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Would not oppose it if it was combined with the Two to the N achievement to make a general counting achievement, but this may be controversial amongst people who enjoy that achievement as it is. This suggestion alone does not have enough uniqueness for an achievement. --KerrMcF (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
