No particular reason, just a lot going on at the same time so there was some excessive bureaucracy. I'm personally much happier about the revision as I wasn't wholely on-board with it before either. That said, the intent of the rule was closer to the revision as it now stands, we just failed to communicate it pretty badly.
As mentioned - sincere thanks to the community at-large for all the feedback in the meantime.
![[Image: 4a0e7968-2678-4a66-9449-352a2bb8d72f.png...fit=bounds]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/69a64505-f1f9-46c1-9928-5484039c8e82/4a0e7968-2678-4a66-9449-352a2bb8d72f.png?width=400&height=150&fit=bounds)