On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:05 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Sean Hunt <scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> > > wrote: > >>> 7070 3 Walker Re-jiggery > >> > >> AGAINST as it would make proposal enactment have only power 2, which likely > >> breaks the game > > > > I change my vote on 7070 to AGAINST. > > I do the same.
Er, is there any actual reason it would break the game? Walker and I came to the conclusion that it didn't (during the proto stage) so I'd appreciate more than a knee-jerk "oh this might be broken" from schunt. -G.
