You have to remember that the more fine control you have over the settings, the more complicated a system will be, the more can go wrong with the system, and consequently maintenance and development effort increase dramatically.
I think there is a concerted effort to keep the volume of account settings down. There are some that I would like to see implemented, some that you would like implemented, some the developers would like implemented, some that scientists would like, and so on, and then if we add all those up it soon becomes massively complicated. I think they are taking the right approach by striving to keep it down to a minimum.
That said, if support was overwhelming for a setting to be implemented, and there was a well worded and presented argument for it, then it follows that they would be sensible to implement it!
I personally am in favour of keeping the system as simple as possible. It’s largely that formula that has been behind iNats success to date, and it would be detrimental to depart from that at this point. At least to my thinking it would be.
However, a really simple way to minimise the negative impacts of these sort of changes would be better communication. We are a community after all, and it feels a bit draconian to have change inflicted upon us without any sort of warning. If I was planning a trip and invited 3 other people, and then we got in the car to leave and found that the manufacturer had decided to make our car a 2 seater model and came and ripped out two of the seats without telling us… you can argue all day long over whether the car should be 2 or 4 seats, whether it should be left the way it was or improved and made more fun, and so on, but what I think everyone could agree on is that it should not have happened without some sort of notice… it’s embarassing to have to send those extra two guests away because we don’t have seats for them!