You may well be right about their origin, but then as I understand it part of the Magistrates experiment was about lending more transparency to the process of adjudicating the rules. Part of that process in turn properly ought to be trying to reduce the amount of arbitrariness in how they are applied, as our open record of cases will quickly expose any arbitrariness in our decisions. That may necessitate interpreting things somewhat differently than they have been in the past; we may have already done this with respect to realm mergers. This is no different than what real judges do: They interpret the law, a process which can effectively change it by changing how it is applied.
My arguments may be annoying to some people, but they're part of an honest effort to explore the scope and intent of the rule so that players' understanding of the rule and how it is applied will be increased. You can't have an open and transparent system of rules when 90% of the precedents and past interpretations of the rule are basically apocryphal. I mean we're practically ruling by anecdote here; someone will think they can recall something Tom said five years ago or a Titan case from four years ago and suddenly that becomes part of the basis of a ruling. If the Magistrates are going to do any good, then we need some leeway to tighten up the rules and precedents so that they're clearer and easier to understand for the 95% of the player base that doesn't have a decade-long store of memories of past cases, precedents and statements from Tom.
