Dude you need to get checked pee aint green. Problem with siege is too few suggest things for siege to attract players while at the same time rejecting ideas or suggestions from players who has been or could be a part of siege at one time or another typically ideas that would bring players like myself back. The devs listen to the 150 peeps that play siege while ignoring the 1000's of ex or potential siege players. just simple as that.
Well, the devs listening to non-UO players on how to fix UO might be a good thing. Current UO players contribute to the downfall of UO with their bad ideas. If the devs recognized the potential of thousands and thousands of old vets returning, they might change things for the better, but they don't.
As far as Siege goes though, you're wrong again. 1) The devs often don't listen to Siege players at all. 2) Sometimes the devs listen to Siege players too much, which is why we have some of the current problems we do, such as the Siege bless item. What the devs really need to do is consider the arguments and make decisions striving to do the best thing regardless of what the majority of the population thinks.
As far as listening to non-Siege player suggestions, how about ROT? So many non-Siege players would come to Siege with a major ROT change. And I and many other Siege players are asking for just that...a major ROT change. But the majority of non-Siege suggestions the devs shouldn't listen too. You might suggest for instance we allow multiple characters on Siege. You might suggest it would increase our population. You would be right. You might suggest we should allow a second house on Siege. You might think that would increase Siege's population. It would indeed. You might suggest we add insurance to Siege and that it would increase our population, or that trammel would be good for Siege too. And more. But you're forgetting something very important. The changes we make to improve Siege must not be in violation of the spirit of Siege. Destroying Siege to improve it is no solution at all. A variety of changes might increase Siege's population but only a select few of them won't harm Siege in the process. More characters is bad for Siege, as is a second house, insurance, trammel, and so many other things people suggest. If it ever comes down to that and we have to destroy Siege to improve it, we should just end Siege. Make the wrong changes and then it ceases to be Siege, in which case what would be the point of the change at all?
