So what are you saying, Zoran? Do you advocate that the MT should take unilateral action on complaints about the parameters of an Association without consulting the AM? What should the basis of such action be, then? Listen to the loudest complainer? Base our actions on the data in wiki - which is notoriously unreliable? Have a quiet word with your tourist board or the equivalent?
If you want something from us, spell it out, don’t play guessing games with us, but bear this in mind: This year we brought nineteen new Associations into being, that is a lot of effort from volunteers, and it does not leave a lot of spare time to micromanage the other 137 Associations, which is what you appear to be advocating. We also set aside a certain amount of capacity each year to go through the summit lists of selected old Associations, to see if they need changing in the light of the more modern tools and data available to us now. In view of this continuing work load, you should not be surprised to learn that many of those working on the expansion of SOTA just don’t have the time to read the Reflector - far from being “people-silencing” my intervention was in recognition that these points on the Reflector were unlikely to be read by those who could act on them and were wasted where they were.
That seems foolish to me. Take me as an example, I am in my late 70’s and nowadays only do a few activations in a year, but does that negate my knowledge of British hills gained over sixty years of climbing and walking? Your AM took the effort to bring your Association into being, how much of that work did you do?
I also got the reference in your “more equal” comment. Since you think that “Animal Farm” is relevant, have you ever read 22.214.171.124 on page 19 of the General Rules?