[cerberus23]

The sudden change to child ageing still has a major flaw though, allowing people to age their babies to 15 years of age now, means anyone who has a baby in the near future will suddenly be able to have a child that was born /after/ the current children, but which is /older/ than the them (Up to a certain point). That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in any form of realistic continuity.

[Zarkaylia]

It's not a change, Cerb. It's been like this for 2½ years. It's so old it's a rule Ryce agreed with.

[cerberus23]

Seeing as how I missed it, and the fact that when I asked you about child ageing, you mentioned nothing of the sort, I still see it as a change. But that aside, its still something that I have a problem with, since it completely messes up continuity for no good reason.

[Zarkaylia]

It's on the rules page and I usualy do mention it briefly when child aging is brought up, but I can't remember everything either. I also only mention it breifly cause I'm not recommending it. There's far better ways.

[cerberus23]

It still makes /no/ sense. Its not needed and all it will do is cause problems. For child ageing there should be a single, unified way of ageing them, otherwise the whole system falls down and then everything is mixed up.