I believe you are misunderstanding. I'm saying that these should be the standard bans (the current most popular is, I believe, "CA Banned, JoaT may not take NAS"), but any game can of course modify them.
(...)
As I said, the entire list is optional. The point of having a standard list is that you only need to list changes from it instead of listing every single rule.
(...)
The point of the list is to attempt to codify "community consensus", so you don't have to write out "repair after gating permitted" in every game description.

You misunderstand the bug. The gates used by the ISB player are irrelevant. It's the IT player's own 150/600 gates and any/800 gates that cannot gatescan opposing ISB gates (of any sort).

It is often tactically necessary for a minelayer to duck into its own exploding minefield to kill pursuers. If the entire area is covered in an opposing SD's minefield, the bug is unavoidable without unfairly compromising the options of the lower-number SD. I agree that the exploit is unfair, but allowing the higher-number SD to push the lower-number one around with the threat of the exploit is also unfair.

You can't see all enemy minefields. Going due North/South in a warzone, even if you can't see the minefields that are potentially there, is still clearly an issue. Probably should add an exception for targetting fleets, though - as fleets move, the exploit can't be used deliberately when pursuing fleets.

I guess? IDK, I'd like to hear a little more discussi