Gerald, let's get the context clear: - Simon has presented a draft above; - I've replied with a sketch of a more precise formulation, trying to dig out certain assumptions and coming up with a concrete procedure, for the unique purpose of capturing what Simon had in mind; - Simon has commented on the sketch with "What you wrote reflects what I had in mind, however the reason I prefer my version is I intentionally wanted to keep the differences as small as possible to make the functional changes as clear as possible otherwise I would have also cleaned up the other sentences a bit better." So the result is pretty clear: the assumptions and procedure were worth making explicit, but that does not mean the job is done, of course (and here I acknowledge I misunderstood the +20% Yays condition. It's all my bad) So it's really dragging my sketch veeery far from its purpose to consider it as *my official proposal*. It's. Not. Even. My. Idea. However if you really want to help me fix the Rules, not just this one but all of them, there is in your mailbox an email from me, with a complete reformulation of the entire Rules along with 8 issues to discuss, patiently waiting to see light. So let's work on the real deal and quit playing mouse-and-cat around a fragment that's outliving its purposes. Cheers, and looking forward to getting your feedback on the real deal, Adrien PS: Also if discussing the details of the Rules (I repeat for anyone to whom what wouldn't be clear: the goal is to reformulate them in a way that makes them easily applicable, which often means coupling each rule with an adequate implementation procedure, with minimal "functional changes" in comparison to the Rules as currently expressed) via email is not a rewarding experience, I'd be glad to find other ways. Can have meetings, can have a special Rules Task Force, whichever you guys prefer.