L4 is the point cap -- it was devised as a cap on points, not on difficulty, and four features happens to be the number you need to get those points (and to prove this point, for some, it's not actually really four anymore -- for flying sit, a traditional flying sit is an automatic feature, a layback gets an automatic feature, etc.)
Yes, L4 is the point cap. It is an arbitrary point cap that was put in place.
L5
could have been the point cap and many skaters are capable of doing what would be the equivalent of L5 elements.
These are small limitations on what is considered difficult, ex. no longer giving credit for COE spirals that take forever to change. You're proposing a major revision that prevents skaters from preforming to the best of their ability (difficulty level).
Skaters are already "prevented" from performing as much difficulty as they could. You have to recognize this point or else there won't be much point in discussing.
My revision doesn't prevent them from performing to the best of their ability. The opposite, in fact, since there would be more freedom to perform whatever fits the music best. They can execute absolutely any spin or spiral or footwork that they want to. I have simply changed the cap on the number of points in
base value you can get from non-jump elements and
greatly increased the cap on the GOE scores they can receive.
The end result is that these moves would be more worthwhile and also more interesting.
A skater COULD do a difficult variation in every single position and change-of-edge in every single position. But, under the rules, it wouldn't be worth any extra points. (which is fine...who needs to see that kind of spin?)
Again, though, this wouldn't be difficult, which is one of the reasons for the restrictions
No, it would certainly be difficult. You are mistaken if you think otherwise.
The cap is there because there is only so much you should be putting into a single element.
no skater has ever gotten Level 4 on every single element in their program
Again, not a valid comparison. Most skaters don't get a L4 on step sequences (in fact, it's a big deal when a skater gets a L4 step sequence -- it happens only a handful of times a season). Most even novice (US) national level skaters can get L4 on all their spins (though not consistent for the lower levels), with the exception the years that flying camel and camel are required for junior mens and ladies short program, as well as some women and layback spins (and none of these skaters will put those spins in their longs, then). Many skaters can get L4 on these, as well. Take step sequence out of the mix, and look at skaters over time (since skaters screw up and things don't get called sometimes -- if you want them to do simpler elements you need to look at what their elements get called at their best to see if they consistent don't get all L4). You'll find that most international, and even the vast majority of national competitors get L4 on their spins.
The comparison is very valid. I'm not going to "take step sequences out of the mix"; they are part of the non-jump elements skaters perform. What sense would that make?
You are saying I want to limit skaters from doing as much difficulty as they are able to when nobody has achieved all Level 4 in a program in the first place.
However, let us look at a VERY important thing you just said -
"Even novice (US) national level skaters can get L4 on all their spins"
Exactly. Getting Level 4 in a spin is not that difficult. Executing a spin brilliantly IS difficult, though.
The system I propose would be about who can execute their spins and spirals the best (while still maintaining a good amount of difficulty), instead of who can incorporate as many positions as possible in these moves.
If you don't think this is beneficial to skating as a whole, and for the competitors themselves, I'm not sure what to say. Again, like you yourself just said - EVERYONE can do Level 4 spins and spirals.
The quality with which they are done and how well they are placed in the program to interpret the music are what is most important.
The current CoP rules do not define rotation in jumps.
First, yes it does. Downgraded if more than 1/4 rotation under-rotated.
That is not a definition of rotation. 1/4 turn under-rotated from what?
The rules do not specify where a jump
starts.
Try being a technical specialist reviewing jumps. Now, instead of only looking for that 1/4 rotation, you need to look for 3/4. In addition, since skaters have a 3/4 margin of error, more skaters are going to try under-rotated jumps, so there's going to be a lot more to review.
More skaters are not going to try underrotated jumps. That aside, there seems to be some confusion about rotation. 3/4 margin of error is not given. This is why the rules need to specify what rotation actually is.
Every jump pre-rotates up to half a turn on the ice before actually leaving the ice. 1/4 turn leeway is allowed on the landing, meaning that a Triple jump is really 2.25 rotations in the air at minimum.
I've reviewed way too many jumps rinkside and in video. It becomes tedious. That is the mechanics of how jumps work, however.
If a Triple pre-rotates more than 1/2 turn on the takeoff, it should have to land that much further past the 1/4 turn landing mark to be considered a complete Triple.
Likewise, if a jump pre-rotates less, that should be taken into consideration as well.
This is needed to provide absolute fairness to all competitors. You should appreciate that!
Well, I'm posting under a female screen name, so given the tiny number of women who've attempted quads, I'd say this is a pretty safe bet. I never said it wouldn't be difficult -- it would -- but it wouldn't be more difficult than a balanced program, endurance aside. Since the quad is still a "new" jump, let's use a less extreme example, which will make my point better. Take a national junior man or JGP man who doesn't yet have a solid triple axel but whose other triples are great and incredibly consistent.
A program with every single jumping pass (8) being a Quad would be more difficult for
anyone than a program with one Quad and 7 Triples.
You can't use the example of someone doing every jumping pass as a Lutz because that is a completely different (extremely easier) scenario.
All of your opinions here seem to be informed by Junior level skating....
This. Edge changes can be done quickly (though honestly, I don't see why it's such a big deal if a spin slows down a little to do one -- I think some edge changes done well are interesting features), and Lambiel can absolutely do them quickly. He takes them out in exhibitions because most people don't realize that they're difficult
Edge changes in spins most frequently look the best in Camel spins because it actually creates an appealing looking body movement on the ice.
He takes them out in exhibition because they are useless. Slowing a spin down to incorporate the change-of-edge in the sit spin takes away from the quality of the spin. He only does them in competition because they gain points. In the current system, going for a higher level and not being able to execute the element as well gets you more points. This is a problem.
It should be noted that doing a change-of-edge doesn't really make the spin more difficult if the skater is slowing down to do it. Maintaining speed and centering is where the difficulty in spinning comes. Anyone can add positions by significantly decreasing speed and/or losing centering to accomplish it.
The brilliance in Lambiel's spins is that the difficult positions he CAN do well don't cause the spin to lose speed or (usually) centering when he does them.
I don't know how many times I need to say that this isn't about what benefits performance. That's what PCS and GOE are for. I suspect we'll never agree on this, since you seem to be coming at this from the point of view of a spectator (I honestly don't know any skaters currently skating under COP/IJS who would favor such major limits on what they could do).
If a skater doesn't think that what they are doing on the ice should benefit their performance, they will never be a memorable Figure Skater.
Many top-level skaters have denounced the current judging system. Do not flippantly state no competitor would be in favor of the changes I am proposing when, in fact, skaters DO want to see these changes.
Yes, PCS are there to reflect the performance and the program. The point you're not seeing is that the current rules limit the possibility of creating amazing programs.
I would suggest looking at performances of Lu Chen and Michelle Kwan from the past and comparing them to CoP performances. There is a clear difference in how well those ladies interpreted music compared to the skaters of today.
Many of their programs would simply not work today. Incidentally, most Ladies' programs under CoP don't work either (certainly not as well as they
could).
The ability to create a CoP program that can fully interpret the music is much narrower. Skaters should not be so limited in their artistry.
It might, however, be hard for judges to remember the performances of the early skaters when comparing them to performances fifteen or twenty skaters later. 
But seriously, the casual viewer has absolutely no idea what the numbers mean anymore--even the devoted fan has to have a calculator nearby--and when the numbers don't mean anything, the sport loses meaning. All that matters in skating is who is First, Second and Third. To determine that, all you need are ordinals.
