This entire argument is based on one's arbitrary definition of safety. If I see something as safe, then none of this applies to me. Likewise if I see something as unsafe, it all applies. The people arguing for stricter safety rules see every potential danger as unsafe, and that's their definition of the word, that's perfectly alright. The people who say such a change isn't needed see the same small potential dangers as acceptable, yet unlikely risks, and therefore view the whole thing as safe - that's their definition of the word, and likewise, that is perfectly alright.

There are clear safety hazards (such as launching frisbees into the air in the pits) that everyone can agree on as being unsafe. Anything we all agree on also happens to already be a rule (funny how that happens). The gray areas of ambiguity vary from team to team, and as such, I would suggest actions taken on these issues should be based on each individual team. As the age old saying goes, "You run your team, and I'll run mine, and we'll all be okay as long as nobody is hurting the other".