On Sunday 13 July 2008 06:29:26 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: > That being said, even > taking on a more conservative role, the fact that something like > this particular rule is pretty darn important to the tone of play > but at power-1 means a veto is particularly apt. If something of > this importance can't pass at a higher power, it shouldn't.
To that end, the upcoming proposal should perhaps include a clause to power-up 2149.
