Because most of the time the rules are in effect, except for the exceptions.

Rules exist for the purpose they serve, functions they allow to be easier and cheaper. Rules are not made so that rules have been made.

While I agree with Mozilla's decision, the reason that there are rules is so that it isn't arbitrary. Who is to say who is trustworthy? What if Mozilla wants to charge a fee or else they will remove someone?

Those circumstances would easily fall under the purpose they serve.

Rules reduce expense, leaving resources to deal with exceptional cases. Applying rules to exceptional cases makes a mockery of both the rules and the organization applying them.

Who's to say what an exceptional case is?

The facts of the case say, all by themselves.

It requires attention by the people applying the rules to recognize the facts, but paying attention is the reason to have people in the loop. Any machine can be corrupted.