Maud wrote:
> This is too much.
Fair enough. But the point was, when Zefram and I were looking at if
we could block Murphy et al.'s proposal, we noticed that a CotC could
legally mint an unbounded number of VCs, by an as-long-as-you-want
list of linked, trivial CFJs. Instant, overpowering voting, worse
than the Oligarch proposal itself. In this case, we used it to:
1. counteract Murphy et al's voting power and no more, in fact, it may
not be enough to stop that proposal!
2. point out the issue (I have a draft bug fix, capping linked CFJ VCs
the same way linked CFJ card draws were capped);
3. Actually call non-trivial CFJs that were an issue for both of
us (mine, while needing an edit, were getting at the link between
prohibited and illegal that I've often pondered,
Zefram's were a set of concerns e had
as rulekeepor. We actually challenged ourselves to judge some
non-trivial CFJs in an intelligent way in a short amount of time
(I feel like we did).
I am sorry I offended. I thought pointing out a bug by acting on
it in a restrained way was standard practice.
-Goethe
