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