Well, that's one approach, yes. And you and others are certainly entitled to vote for it. But there is always another way, and I don't see that anything is gained from stifling a discussion on the topic that I have so far found very interesting, especially if such stifling is on the grounds that there is no indication that either side will ever convince the other -- after all, Wulf Corbett and David Dunham have irreconcilable differences over weapon ranks, but that doesn't mean we should ask them not to talk about it. I find both points of view enlightening.
Also, while I am delighted that Messrs. Robertson, Stafford and Laws find the time and energy to help us understand what the rules are supposed to say ("founder's intent" always being the thorniest argument in any case where they're not present), and clarification of what the rules officially are is crucial to beginning to discuss them, I don't think anyone should be surprised or upset that any rules discussion list invariably becomes a rule *variants* discussion list. I have enjoyed and found very useful the multitude of alternate enhancement rules posted on this list, but all of those start with "Change the rules to be like this," yet we do not fear them. YGWV.
So I say, let the discussion continue.
Ryan Caveney
Powered by hypermail