You’re right, it’s not black and white.
But there is a line.
I’m not asking you to pick from a binary selection. I’m giving you the freedom to point to anywhere on the open spectrum here lol.
Sounds to me like you don’t want to give an answer because if you do, you officially become #nochanges on that particular feature, and thus are a hypocrite and fall victim to your own (black and white) argument, oops.
And I gave you my answer in the case of dual spec, it has no real impact on people who don’t want to use it and offers a lot of improvement for those who do. Hence it’s very much on the side of add it.
Or for example same faction BG’s, I’m not a fan of them but I understand the pragmatic reason they were added. That’s closer to the not acceptable but the pure pragmatism wins.
In short you want some kind of criteria that applies to all changes and that’s not how it works as not all changes are the same or even have the same motivations behind them.
But if you want a very basic line, would the game be better with the change?
Im 100% a #nochanges guy. I aint afraid. I just understand that may not be an entirely rational stance depending on the issue and deal with it as it comes. I also understand that many people who play would destroy the entire thing if given the rope to do so and sometimes you gotta do things lest they burn it to the ground. Blizz being a greedy corporation is not news to me.
Nothing Ive had to say on the matter is a display of my personal bias or opinions. You can be no changes and still defend no dual specs…especially against people who are all opinion and personal bias.
That’s a very naive, one dimenional, one sided, black/white and biased opinion.
Nope, I’m asking you to basically pick any genre/category/feature of your choosing tbh, and tell me where the line is.
You, for some reason, can’t even manage that…
Let’s go with class abilities. Where’s your line on a change that changes how much damage a skill does?
If that’s too black and white, what about a change that changes the function of an ability? Like instead of a stun, it makes it an incapacitate?
What about instead of the ability doing nature damage, it does frost damage?
I don’t know, literally pick anything.
Tell me a an existing line, in the vein of any features that this game has, where it would be a step too far for you.
And I’ve answered that real clearly in the case of dual spec, which as it’s the topic of this thread is highly relevant 
I’m asking you in the case of something other than dual spec, its relevant to the topic.
So sure, let’s say switching to the retail talent system, since this is a theead about specs. That would have major impact on every player which would mostly be negative and which would be completely unavoidable. That would be a bad change.
*facepalm
I wanna shaaaake you.
What is a feature that you don’t think can be changed, and if it were, it would be not true to TBC?
But thank god you don’t want retail talent trees in TBC, I mean, what progress you’ve made. That’s almost as groundbreaking as saying we can’t have monks but I’ll take the step forward.
Well talent trees are a feature I don’t want changed, hence why I brought up why switching to retail specs would be bad.
So you are #nochanges?
Or you would support #somechanges to talent trees?
For example, what if they changed a talent in the mage arcane tree that didn’t effect DPS overall but changed the playstyle. Why would you be against talent tree changes for classes that aren’t the ones you play?
Would that bother you?
I mean it doesn’t affect your gameplay right?
Sure if there was a truly neutral change as far as over all gameplay, so dps, things that impact pvp etc… but somehow mages liked it more I wouldn’t really care.
Ah, so if, say, 75% of mages liked the changes, the other 25% don’t (those #nochanges buttheads) you’re okay with a completely non-tbc design to mage talents. that doesn’t hurt TBCC as a faithful recreation, you think?
I think you’d be hard pressed to find one that meets the criteria i listed 
And given that I doubt you’d find that many mages who would care.
So you were for or against the feral energy change?
It was a massive change to gameplay.
Btw, what this basically means, if you refuse to draw a line anywhere, is that you are essentially #allchanges and you do not have a line.
This objectively means you are a poor candidate for discussion on what is or isn’t too far. Nothing is too far for you.
The game could be an entirely different game, and you’d be OK with it.
You’re #allchangesarefine.
LoL I love how even though I gave you a very clear example of something I would consider a line you still are trying to pretend I don’t have one.
You didn’t draw line, you named a specific feature set, which means your “line” is still completely unknown.
You did the equivelant of say:
“They can’t add monks, that would be too far”.
Okay…but where’s your line because that’s already obvious that monks would be too far. Like duh, everyone would agree on that without question. You said nothing risky or brave here.
LoL asks for an example of something that would cross my line. Gets one. Gets upset that it disproves her weird notion I don’t have some line.
You demonstrably do not.
For example, even if I take this example where you wouldn’t be okay with Blizzard completely surgically fisting TBCC with retail talent trees (which makes no sense to begin with, like, this would never even happen in any reality), it just means you’re #nochanges on talent trees.
But if pushed you’d say “well It’s fine as long as the people affected by it are fine”.
That means it’s not a line for you. You’re fine with it if the players are.
So you literally don’t have a line. Your line is decided by peoples’ feelings. You are #allchanges.
Sorry but just because I don’t happen to agree with your specific things that would cross a line doesn’t mean I don’t have one.
Naw, we’ve had people pointing out that you are #allchanges for pages and pages now, the goalposts have definitely not changed.