Thread:SavageOpress1138/@comment-104549-20160305012836/@comment-104549-20160309212334

At the risk of sounding like the kid weighing in on the Bureaucrats' discussion...
 * 1) I think Savage's first point speaks for itself and is obviously true.
 * 2) I would add to the second point that, if there's a decision a practice might be bad for SWF (for any reason), it's better to have the policy in place from the get-go than add it later. In addition to adding it later coming across as reactionary and punitive to a single user, it also seems very unfair to me (kind of like an, unless we allow users who predate the policy to grandfather in, and then that doesn't solve the original problem of them doing something we think is bad for SWF).
 * 3) I'm not sure what the community consensus would be about the policy now, but if I understand your (Brandon's) post to mean that the original policy did ban all multiple accounts, and you unilaterally changed the policy (not just simplifying the wording of the policy), then I feel that's wrong. I think, if Bureaucrats can change the substance of community-enacted policy at will, it threatens the idea of community consensus.  I think either a change needs to be endorsed by the community (good), or the idea of community consensus needs to be rejected entirely for the approach of Bureaucrats ruling by fiat (bad, but at least consistent).