c. wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:13 AM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 23:13 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: >>> NUM II AI SUBMITTER CHAMBER TITLE >> I vote and take other actions as follows: >>> 6615 1 2.0 G.* Green The only winning move >> AGAINST x my voting limit. If I have a card that allows me to veto this >> proposal, I veto it (by playing a card if necessary). > > Ugh. Does anyone know whether ais523 had such a card?
As of this writing, it's failing either way (12/15 vs 3/3). As I noted, I'd support a version that retained at least one of (Junta, Clout, Proposal), as those are (a) reasonably generic (like Paradox) and (b) liable to be one-off-reinvented less cleanly whenever someone does spot a relevant loophole.
