Yet you never take the time and look at an idea and see potential problems. You are in the group I want I want. Without thinking a problem though.
This is demonstrably untrue, as even when I make suggestions I try to anticipate potential issues, and propose solutions and mitigations. Moreover, when I'm alerted to valid issues with the suggestion itself, I tend to make adjustments to the proposal where possible.
Moreover, I don't believe we see eye to eye on what actually constitutes a problem, as seemingly for you, any significant change to the game is considered a problem. You even appear to be almost unfailingly opposed to anything which adds additional options, with your ever ready variant on the "that's not how Elite works" response.
So your saying people should keep their mouth shut so the Developers can make an idea without understanding about Bots. What a stupid way of thinking about bots. I rather have Frontier See the issue. though people who work to disarm bot or Ran bots So they can make Informed decision and make a better game.
Lol, no, that's clearly not what I'm saying, unless you're interested in forcing words into my mouth. The developers are quite aware of the existence of bots, and how certain processes in the game are susceptible to manipulation by bot scripts. They don't need us to inform them about bots, or what aspects of proposed features may potentially be manipulated. They may not address all such vulnerabilities in the game, or it may not be possible to prevent it entirely, but that doesn't mean they're not aware of how their features can be used by bots.
The crux of my issue with your method of evaluation, is that you tend to look at these proposals from the point of view of the developer, rather than the point of view of the player who wants more interesting and fun features. It's not our job or responsibility to deal with development or feasibility issues in making these suggestions. If Frontier developers see a suggestion, they will decide on its desirability, feasibility, and priority, so your persistent insertions of "Frontier won't do it", "other features should have more priority", "that's not what the game is about", and "add technical obstacle here", add little to no value, and serve as a poor and unwanted substitute for productive criticism of the specifics of the suggestion itself. If anything, it helps to breed a sort of toxic negativity about what can be proposed for the game, which ultimately acts as a discouragement for people with ideas. Perhaps that's your aim?