Originally Posted by
attorney28
So a lot of this is really second-guessing "what would Randy do"
No, it is not. It is about asking him rather than second-guessing him. IMO, that way we are more likely to know what he thinks rather than trying to second guess him
.
But to simply turn your question "why are the rules such a danger" around - if the difference (as I read from your post) is so small, then "why are you so hell-bent on changing the status quo and introducing these rules"?
Thiis is a non-argument, as it can be turned round to make the opposite case in exactly the same way
You (and some others) are the ones who want to change the status quo - I would think that the burden of persuasion should be on the ones who want to change the status quo.
uhh, why? No, I can't see why I should agree with that. I can't see why there should be a presumption that what is now has necessarily presumed to be better than anything else. I have already answered this in relation to
koko's "if it ain't broke" argument in the other thread.
Establishing a procedure in which Randy
has to decide whether a persistent ToS violator is still suitable for TB rather than letting the matter go by default or waiting for a 2/3 vote of TB which will never happen in a month on Sundays short of perhaps a TBer killing another one at a Freddie's award ceremony is not a bad idea.