So when some question the rules the reply is "those are the rules now, shut up and accept it" but when others find oddities it is a case of "this is how it works in the real world" and "this is how it works in previous editions"...
Either accept the rules as written or accept older versions are still usable and MgT is flawed. Or just house rule.
To be honest I often find myself flip flopping.
I prefer to use rules RAW as that requires the least effort and negotiation with players. Once you start house ruling then players also expect to renegotiate rules as you go along, this can be good in moderation but it can also lead to rules discussions instead of playing sessions.
Sometimes the RAW is inconsistent with other rules or commonly accepted canon. Then I have to eyeball it and make a decision. Hopefully my players won't even question it (nine times out of ten it is a background issue and they don't have access to the spreadsheet for that particular robot or ship so won't notice it is Cr500 more than it should be). Not everything should be fully investigable by players or their characters. Sometimes a garage overcharges you or does unnecessary work and you don't find out as life isn't 100% deterministic. Such is life.
Sometimes I will even find myself arguing against a point I made in another argument. This is not me just being contrary (though I have a hat in that size too), it is likely I have just noticed an inconsistency I didn't before or have had a consequence pointed out that I hadn't previously considered. The discussion is more important than the consensus (though sometimes it's nice to have your interpretation validated by others). Changing your mind in light of new evidence is an appropriate response in a science fiction game. It is fiction, but scientific method should be at the heart of it including rule validation.
Where it all comes unstuck is where people have opinions that are setting specific. It is important to their setting that the rule is accepted, but if you are not using that setting then it is just a discussion point. Many components are in the game for example that break the TI setting, or disagree with previous canon. That can create challenges if a player bases some important decision on their understanding of the setting and the referee has a different take on it.
Sometimes I regret underpinning my game with MGT2 vs other versions of Traveller. But then I did that with every other version of Traveller I tried as well. CT is too simplistic, MegaTraveller too complex, Traveller 5 isn't even a game etc. They are games and people are paid to create content (and are not necessarily omniscient wrt canon). If it is all just the same as last time you might as well just buy the old stuff.
