I'll just outright say it, because it seems to be what everyone who has had an issue with Rag's suggestion seemed to have been trying to do in the first place due to the timing: We just had a semi-heated discussion that put strain on whatever you'd like to call it, "forum relations" that is pushing this "Mafia vs Everyone" sort of narrative, and when that settles down, pushes another issue that is likely to get a stir without any explanation. It was already an issue in the past for some when mafia was allowed to have alts when that was against the rules as a whole, so it's just pushing the boundary for what others would see as special treatment.
Rag has trolled before, I found when she had first joined with Jimmu's avatar as a profile picture funny myself, but it's not out of character for Rag to try and get a rise out of people. If it was sincere request, it definitely needed some more explanation other than a blanket statement. Why not put the reasoning within the initial post? It's why I personally doubted its genuineness.
----
Yes, anyone can break the rules and tiptoe around it, but when you openly invite it, you are here to create more problems. Rules are there, and people are still going to break them, but you give them a shield when they "technically" aren't doing anything wrong. Say I harass a user on this account to the point that they don't want to talk to me, well, I rejoin as another user and do nothing wrong to them at all, act like an entirely different person. I can feign remorse and get away with potentially more harassment. There's been plenty of users that have harassed users and made them feel uncomfortable without "technically" breaking the rules, so you can keep giving them more and more until it's hard to push a ban. We already had people make big commotions over people like triforceking for being banned because they didn't see him break a rule or do anything wrong, but I mean, the dude was making people uncomfortable with his outwardly sexual messages. If he had wanted to make an alt to find ways to get closer to others, sure, he could have, but as it stands now, it'd be pretty obvious as to why he was and that could be a reason towards his ban (thank god he was), but otherwise, it'd just be another check on the "that's kinda odd, but not against the rules!!!" side of things.
If it's hard enough to get a ban for users who actually need to be gone with our current lax rules, then no, I don't see the point in changing them. I also don't appreciate the feeling I get that this was done with the sole purpose of driving a bigger divide between people in the community. If it isn't, then fine, I guess I misread, but the timing just seems to be way too convenient.
(I've chosen to remove this portion of my post. I extend my apologies again to Rag for the assumption.)