There is an aspect here which has been alluded to; this is Alex's house, so his rules apply.
If all decisions become referenda, and are opened for debate between a site's members then you have the rough equivalent of the Iranian Parliament, i.e. a riot in a shed. It's an unsatisfactory way to conduct policy on an open forum; likely to raise more dissent than this clearly explained decision has. The moderators on all sites are unpaid, occasionally unloved, but generally appreciated. Their task is akin to walking a very fine wire every time they write on a topic. Opinions expressed by them without a moderators hat on may be interpreted as 'the opinion of the management'. Consequently they are usually damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Decisions made in the best interests of a site and the majority of the membership are occasionally controversial and may light a fire under somebody's feet. That's part of life's rich pageant. Mature deliberation usually, I repeat usually, finds the aggrieved member/s reconciling themselves to the situation, as it is invariably beneficial to everybody.
When I have encountered similar situations before I have suggested that the offended member utilise his/her mouse, take a wander through the internettyweb; have a look at the myriad of other sites on offer and then make a decision.
I do not intend the previous sentence to offend, simply to explain that there are places which welcome controversial debate and argument.