Here's the GDC we know and love

[Peter Matteson]

I'm normally not one to defend the GDC but, I read that response and actually agreed with the answer because the question really was irrelevant.

The asker could have stated something like this if I have the intent of the question correct:
"The field drawings indicate that there is only one gate in the middle of the field. For safety and speed on field reset will there actually be two gates, or will FIRST consider adding another middle gate to the field."

It was not a snarky answer to a real question created by ambiguity from the rules, and it wasn't nearly as bad as some of the awful responses we've gotten in the past where the question was misunderstood or butchered to mean something other than it intended (remembering a particular instance that upset many of us a few years ago, taking a deep breath). If you read the Q&A the GDC does have to deal with a lot of poorly asked questions by people who haven't read all the rules, so a funny answer every now and then to a poorly thought out or worded question is understandable.