Originally Posted by
TGS
Actually, it is.
I have a right to respectfully voice why this is a bad idea, present what I think is a better idea, and explain why, which I've done. You've responded by stating a statistical variance in accuracy which is as big or bigger in the capability of humans to adhere to your idea, which pretty much proves the point on its own that it's seriously flawed and, if implemented, will result in people getting jammed up on an artificial and capricious policy and/or legal standard that is highly dubious for people to execute with reliability, which is why there's a current legal precedent that accounts for human cognitive limits.
If that chafes you, sorry, but I had something to say with relevance to the conversation and I said it. I'm not going to argue back and forth with you about it from here, I'm done, but this isn't your unit and you don't get to decide who gets a say just because you don't like what is being said.