I'm reading your post and wondering what the Hell I meant. Was it not just the other day that I was talking bout the CTTT judging matters simply on whether or not a by-law has been broken and ECs being compelled to enforce the by-laws that they have?
And now I'm advocating 'felixibility”. I can understand your confusion and concern. At our recent AGM I had occasion to raise a point about a proposed (and necessary) by-law to formalise the restrictions in the building on whether or not you could install air conditioning. I pointed out (to much rolling of eyes and theatrical sighs) that the way it was worded meant that portable air conditioners and coolers were also about to be banned.
It was a simple fix – change one word – but this discussion has made me realise that flexibility can be dangerous while rules that are too prescriptive can also be too restrictive and in ways that were never intended.
And yet you'd like to find a happy medium where you could say that, strictly speaking, a by-law had been broken but, in fact, it didn't actually affect anyone. Hmmm. Already I can hear the thunder of hooves as the selfish and oafish lead the charge for the loophole.
I wonder if the answer is to give qualified permission. ie, we'll allow you to have your cat net provided you accept it's in breach of by-law X and no one complains. If someone complains, you'll get a notice to comply.
Is that too flexible?
Meanwhile, I'll mull over whether being a more moderate moderator is a good thing or not, and forgive Urban for Anglicising my surname.