Discussion of DECIDE still goes on at http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?p=455454 .

Here or in SJG forum threads, most comments are very favorable, but the article receives some "objections" as well. I place the word in quotes for a reason. Some "objections" are mostly agreement ("Yeah, it makes lots of sense in this situation, and generally for these characters in this situation, and maybe here as well..."). Some are flat-out wrong (see any comments about extra rolls, extra bookkeeping, extra complexity, "wargaming", etc.). And some... well, there are persistent "objections" whose target I can't figure out.

From more recent comments, I think I see what a few readers may be misunderstanding.

Recap

DECIDE looks at two situations:

A: A fighter (generally a skilled one) sees that an incoming blow poses a possible threat, but does not yet commit irrevocably to a full defense. A split second later, he accurately judges whether or not it actually is a threat, and commits to an appropriate defense only if necessary.

B: A fighter (generally an unskilled one) sees that an incoming blow poses a possible threat, and commits at that instant to a full defense. He does not spend the extra split-second evaluating whether or not it actually is on target to hit, or whether it might just miss.

Difference from RAW

A is RAW: no defense commitment until you know TH. As far as I know, nobody has any complaint with that. We can all agree that A can be a perfectly realistic situation.

The RAW oddity is this: RAW allows only A – for all fighters (from Conan to my grandmother), in all situations, versus all threats – even invisible bullets. RAW has no provision for B.

DECIDE suggests allowing B as well. And when bullets fly, almost everyone who's commented agrees that B makes more sense. It's only the case of melee that generates debate, which leads us to:

The (possible) misinterpretation

As best as I can guess, objections along the line of "a skilled fighter shouldn't waste defense on an attack that will miss" or "a skilled batter can see where a pitch is going" are misinterpreting DECIDE as tossing out A.

If that's what anyone is reading, let me correct it. DECIDE keeps A. DECIDE likes A. It only suggests that we disallow A where it'd be unreasonable – namely, in the case of bullets.

DECIDE even likes A in melee! A should certainly exist in melee – but so should B. Otherwise, we're claiming that low-skill fighters and librarians will always, unfailingly, identify every blow that'll miss by an inch, with 100% knowledge that there's no need to commit to defense. And that's not realistic.

(See article text for consequences of allowing B in melee – and add the point that without it, you can't even game real situations like a hapless batter swinging at an outside pitch.)

Summary

RAW allows only A.

DECIDE allows both A and B, whichever is appropriate for the situation.

A possible source of misunderstanding is thinking that DECIDE tosses out A and allows only B, which isn't so.

If that clears up any misunderstanding, good!

Final note

As with any area of rules, there are two levels to the thing: the idea and the implementation.

The idea to allow B in combat is a good one, and an argument of "B is never realistic" cannot win.

That said, how I chose to implement the idea – the mechanical difference between A vs B; when A and B each are and aren't possible; which fighters perform A and which perform B; etc. – is just one possible implementation, and of course can be argued, tweaked, and even improved upon.

The point being: If any reader still sees some problem, I welcome your words – but please make clear whether it's an objection to the idea of allowing A and B as above, or to the suggested implementation. (I gotta add: There's plenty of room to dislike the implementation, but arguing against the idea is one tough sell!)

And with that, there's nothing to add except for the standard disclaimers: It's all optional for the interested only; it's really trivial stuff in terms of effect on game play; blah blah (you know the drill).