My opinion has not changed.
It has been refined...
Though I would have prefered a 0 TEM settlement of the tension between chapter B and the Terrain Chart, I am ready to adapt to a -1 or a 0 TEM final decision.
What has been refined is :
- I find that some anti-erratum have overdramatized the topic
- I find that the arguments in favour of the -1 TEM have some sense : technically, it is an allowable way to settle the rule and I cannot consider it a "change" (in the heaviest meaning)
- Though I don't like the idea that MMP must submit to what a 'majority' played, I think the "common usage" can be taken in account in a global reflection about a rule clarification.
However, the "I won't adapt, because I am used to interpret and play the rules differently and won't have it otherwise than my way" sort of argument is total :icon_bs:
The lobbying via grouped petition lists leaves me with an uneasy feeling... I would be anxious if this would degenerate into a very bad habbit, that would make any decision taking something extremely complicated and annoying...
- I think that adding some additional "counselors", as Mark proposed, is not a bad idea.