Greetings.
I ask myself what “protracted criticism” really means, and why would it be censored. Having done considerable public speaking to large groups (audiences exceeding 100) in the past, I have found that command of the English language is not always my forte. Therefore, looking it up seemed the appropriate thing to do to fully understand what the term implied. Also, to determine why it would be "antithetical" to the group.
Protracted was found to mean “lasting or drawn out for a long period of time”. Fully knowing what criticism means, putting the two together means repetitious lamenting over and over of someone or something that the writer believes to be wrong.
Noticing that this has been done in several of these forums makes one understand why that would be unwelcome throughout the forums. We are not five-year-olds, but rather adults who after a couple of repeats, understand the issue. Continued repetition of the same criticisms gets old, rarely solves the problem, and to some gives a negative impression of the writer(s). Surely it dulls the reception of the person(s) it is directed to and makes them less likely to respond or act.
I must believe that when the rule was made, it was for the above reason. No doubt that what the rule-makers have in mind is rather than the continued repetition of the issue, they would welcome constructive criticism, and if possible, the inclusion of possible alternatives or solutions to try or test out. To do otherwise can lead others to the conclusion of a “Monday morning quarterback”.
Rulemaking processes are often fluid. Perhaps initial rules no longer fit and had to be rethought. Often rulemaking is not a democratic process whether we like it or not. Constructive criticism (rather than protracted) would still be within the playbook of the group's formation.
Just one person's opinion that I thought I would express, thoughts by others may be different and that’s ok too.
73,
Dale K8TS