At 13:36 -0700 8/21/97, Ken Scott wrote:
>If there are 200+ players in Game 2, then why don't we just have a vote on
>any changes to the game. It should be very hard to get a rule change to
>pass, 3/4 of the players, but if we continually enchance Game 2, we may
>never need a Game 3.
No no, if there are big changes needed Rich can very well make them on his
own accord, as he has done in the past. This tax idea is minor, at best, &
certainly not needed to address any imbalances. Tinkering is fine, but
save it for G3, it that ever comes to pass. If G2 works let's not fix it.
-best,
M