Iku, Doublebond made the best point about your worded mix up. Fact is at one point you did say "Large PCs are fine at Level 1" and then a few posts later "Large PCs are broken at Level 1". You did post those. Go back and look if you want.
I did not post those. Go back and look if you want.
If anything is "broken" it's allowing Large characters from level 1. That's the problem, and nerfing every logical advantage of Large characters is not a sensible solution.
That was the first thing you said on the issue.
That's right. And guess what? It doesn't say neither "Large PCs are fine at Level 1" nor "Large PCs are broken at Level 1". I even put the word "if" in italics to emphasize that. (And yes, I did notice how you edited that away when you "quoted" me earlier.)
I talk about solutions in the next sentence, and later in the same post I suggest using a 3.x rule that reduces the power of Large characters. (In a way I consider logical, or at least "not completely illogical".) Does this suggest "it's impossible no matter what"? No.
Similarly, you are the only one insisting their's a problem with the rule. Pawsplay and other's don't care for it, but they're either used Morgenstern's (aka Scott Gearin) alternate rule, come up with their own, or something. They're not here insulting the boards and designers trying to get the system rewritten.
I'm not the only one insisting there's a problem. That's untrue. The fact that one could make up a house rule is not relevant. (Say hello to textbook
Oberoni fallacy...) Nor am I trying to "get the system rewritten". There's a difference beteen "I don't like X and here's why" or "I think X would be a better rule than Y", and "I DEMAND THAT X BE CHANGED"? But I think you know that...
Edit: Small addition.
Author