Frankly, I think the opinions have been pretty balanced, and if they fold on this before they even let it roll out, I will lose a lot of the faith in the company that I've been suggesting others hold on to.
GW theoretically discusses these things at length before hand, taking into account the forums before making the decisions. Then they release the information, and the people that are the most pissed off get the most vocal for a while. So if GW simply backs down without putting the system in operation, at least for a while, then that means that they have no faith in their OWN decisions, or that they're not confident enough in those decisions to make a game that's best for EVERYONE and not just the angry mob.
I'm not a huge fan of PvP. I do think that it needs to be part of this game, on some level, though. People, including you Bluddwolf, I believe, have been asking for "meaningful PvP". Well, this is GW's effort at delivering what you asked for. So either their effort fails, or their players fail. If it's the players I can deal. If it's the company making the game, then this, as so many others, will fall down the path of not having faith in decisions and giving the players TOO MUCH voice.
Or at least giving certain voices too much credence.
I want to be incredibly clear: If this change persists to live absolutely nothing will change in the SW corner of the map. The same number of people will control the same number of towers, work out of the same settlements, and continue to pursue the same activities we are already doing in the same unified manner. The only difference will be some technicalities concerning where our membership resides on paper. We have done the math, to truly break the current game state would require some changes that would have even worse ramifications across the board. I am telling you without a shadow of a doubt these proposed changes will do nothing useful: at best nothing really changes and at worst you force more people out or give them a sour taste, which will only translate into bad publicity. Nothing we asked for will be delivered by this because the very thing they are changing is something we didn't ask for (and is a temporary stopgap at that) and quite possibly inherently flawed.
That aside, the very implication that faith and some sort of inherent infallibility instead of facts should drive development is scary to me. Do you honestly believe there is absolutely no chance that a piece of information that 20 people agreed on is flawed? That exposing information to hundreds has zero chance of producing an example that negates that information or puts it in a new light? The very fact that 'crowdforging' is a thing they are doing seems to indicate they believe otherwise.