On the topic at hand. GW has a nasty habit of using terminology like "at full strength" without having a standardized meaning for what "at full strength" means. You can argue for almost any interpretation of what "at full strength" means, as long as you can logic it out, since it is not defined. So what we're picking at here, has no definitive answer other than our argued interpretations. Hence what ITC was trying to do. Come up with a definition that a majority of those that voted agreed upon. Which was done. As stated earlier, I'm sure if you present the ITC guys with a really well-written, well-worded, intelligent example of why the ruling come to would be harmful to the game, they'll listen. Something about ITC that you have to remember, is that they are not only interpreting rules, but CHANGING them in order to attempt to fix what is an inherently broken system that we all have come to love. It is a monumental task, and a thankless one. They will NOT please everyone, and they WILL make people angry. They changed ranged D. They nerfed invisibility. They changed how malestrom works. These were not rules interpretations, but rules addendums, or in some cases, outright changes. Just my two cents on how to look at the ITC changes without getting too caught up in the syntax and verbiage.
Oh, and AP? Saying it in Latin doesn't make how you said that less douchy, just more pretentious. Give the guy a break.