Originally
posted by
Gerdler:
The point is that you solve don't solve a problem by lowering the minimum members to divide by, you just shift it over to some other people. Thats not a dumb defence, it's called seeing more than one side.
That is great, but it was in response to me saying that this was the least effective side of a multi-sided issue when I said:
Originally
posted by
Viceroy:
There are better reasons to not lower the requirement than this bad excuse.
There are a lot of reasons to leave it in place as is, just as there are a myriad of reasons to change it. However, the fact that there will always be a system that some enterprising players will be able to game is not, in an of itself, an acceptable defense of this or any system. It is a scare tactic that hinders the identification (and later, the acceptance) of logical, well-reasoned, and appropriate changes.
And, Monsters, do not forget to specify, when time and place shall serve, that I am an ass.