But the fact remains that the rule is terrible. It's not about whether they tolerate transgressions (they'd better). Its that the rule SHOULD BE broken, regular

But the fact remains that the rule is terrible. It's not about whether they tolerate transgressions (they'd better). Its that the rule SHOULD BE broken, regularly. If a rule should be regularly broken, it's not a good rule. I wrote a brief alternative that serves vastly better and doesn't need paragraphs of nuanced explanation, and I didn't even put much thought into it. That they haven't done so in 15+ years suggests that they think the rule is well-written.