First of all, it does not qualify as a 'rule change'. At least, certainly not by using the same denition that is used in those arguments.
Secondly, even if it was, it is a rule change to make rule changes less painful.
If that ever was to happen, then they could simply make quests harder.
Thankfully,
the pro-respec arguments do care about what is good for the game.
a) Respec could include a money cost, as a money-sink.
a) Many respec suggestions involve an XP cost, if that was to become an issue.
b) Other than rerolls, there also new characters that can be created.
How is that a problem?
Maybe, but at least they won't be upset next time they will feel they have to reroll a character.
It's a necessary evil for a greater good. I doubt anyone would leave for that reason.
a) One could actually argue that veteran players running the content lightning fast is not the kind of experience new players desire.
a) There are several means to address this issue (a bit in the way of the
examplar mechanics in CoH), separately, and it should be done with or without respec. It would greatly improve the gameplay experience of everyone in a grouping system.
a) Many respec suggestions involve an XP cost, if that was to become an issue.
b) If new players needs to be shown how to play, we have a more important problem than the quantity of low level characters at hand.
b) That's an hyperbolic argument. There will still be old timers at lower levels, rolling new alts.
b) Many respec suggestions involve an XP cost, if that was to become an issue.
True, and it is up to Turbine to decide if the trade is worthwhile.
Though, I think it is worth mentioning that those in charge of quests are not the same who would work respec. Two totally different tasks.