Today, it now serves the dual purpose of serving as a buffer to compensate for the large amount of Durdens, RIA's and MIA's that are readily available; things that were not nearly as bountiful back when tapering was introduced, and serving a similar role to distance in slowing the progression of a user or particular group's end-game.

Readily available by paying for it, you cannot work hard for Durdens , or MIA's you simply press a button and they are there to be shot. Someone building in tapering is paying to be nerfed,  you are bringing end game discussion into it but it starts at +650 when has a gun that size ever resulted in a major impact against those with capped guards. 

"Too much peace" and hand holding is a symptom of the powers that be working with each other for extended periods of time, typically well beyond what would be required to build an adequate hitsquad, and you would be hard pressed to find a situation where tapering directly resulted in a period that would extend beyond the length of your average regime churn.  After a certain point, that's a people problem - not a game problem. But if you are taking issue with the fairness of a feature, it logically follows that removing the artificial upper limits on wack should also go hand in hand with removing the artificial limits on bodyguard purchasing. 

I will agree on the first part is without a doubt in the hands of the people working together and tapering has little to do with it besides the eligibility for some to strike because of tapering. I dont agree that the bodyguard modification should be put into place if tapering where removed, removing tapering does not make it easier to kill people , all it does is change the length in which it takes, which in this game time is everything . That is not a people problem , forcing more time to be put into building is not a people problem. The avg length of a regime last about right until all those guns in the tapering are capped ,around the 100 day mark. Yes some last longer yes some are shorter but in most cases when the people in tapering are out of it they get antsy. There is no logic in increasing the bodyguard limits, there are features set in place to work around getting killed on the first shot or getting shot at all together in some cases, Perm auth being one of them taking a pro another., demotion , removing of gun etc etc. There is no feature to guarantee me a kill besides the hard work i put in, increasing guards is another way to increase the longevity in which people can hide behind them. I dont see how or why this is good for the game at all. War brings in new blood and in most time you will see old blood return,  it fires people up all tapering is doing is allowing those who should be on edge and concerned some breathing room. 

Regarding distance, you mischaracterized my statement; distance is far more likely to affect the vast majority of players in a wartime scenario than tapering, which affects only a handful of accounts. 

Yes seems so my apologies for that i was under the impression you were talking about the two in comparison of pros and cons. You are right , distance does affect more people than tapering however one is filtered by city and the other is filtered by my work ethic.  I cant imagine going to work and getting penalized for working too hard . 

In any case, having seen the game from a pre-tapering and post-tapering landscape and having watched wars from small hiccups to the catastrophic, as a passenger, driver and road casualty, I have simply come to a different view of the feature, having first opposed it, and do not see a pressing need to change it at the moment.

 There is never a pressing need to change a feature i just opt to bring light to a feature that only applies to a certain percentile of the community no pun intended it is normally the same people going through tapering. I respect your opinions and respectfully disagree we have had BG changes for as little as nothing from my understanding and i still to this day dont understand why or how tapering is still a feature all i hear is negative things about it and the people who always have a reason behind keeping it established are almost always pro peace. Do our bloodlines matter here of course they do that is how we are able to express our stories and knowledge.  Bloodlines always matter in these type of things how dare i speak on something i have never endured/witnessed for myself.