Interesting debate....
Thanks for moving out of the old one
I'm general, I'm a spirit of the law kinda guy. Reading the GMWA (Giant Mt.) UMP, under current issues, it states;
Many visitors consider large groups inappropriate and undesirable in wilderness. Aside from behavioral factors, the potential to cause impact varies with party size and the type of user. Parties larger than 8 persons in a group have been documented to cause greater impacts to certain environmental and sociological resources than smaller groups (Cole, 1987, 1989, Hendee, 1990, and USDA Forest Service, 1994). Although large party use in the Unit represents a small proportion of total users, they contribute a disproportionate amount of impact when compared to smaller parties.
Regardless of activity (overnight or day use), large groups commonly create congestion problems in trailhead facilities, on trails, rock and ice climbing sites, and mountain summits. It is very difficult to control and confine large groups in vulnerable locations, such as on alpine summits or riparian areas. The rate of unacceptable change on a particular resource can be accelerated by large group occupancy of a site over a short period of time. Higher noise levels and sound issues are associated with large groups.
So, knowing that that is one of the current issues facing us, I personally would refrain from exceeding that the size limits when planning a hike or participating in one, whether codified or not. OTOH, I do understand that there are degrees of infractions and that "the spirit" is somewhat understanding of some infractions vs. others.
For instance, Take a bus tour with 25 hikers stopping at the trailhead and disgorging 20 hikers at the Zander Scott trailhead to Giant Mt. then all proceeding together in one group all the way up the trail to the summit. Is that on the same magnitude as 3 groups of six traveling separately and arriving at the summit in an overlapping fashion to discreetly celebrate someone reaching the 46er goal. Not even close. I personally view both as separate entities and one far more "wrong" than the other, despite the fact that each are violations (or soon will be). Does that mean I condone one but not the other? No, not necessarily, but I do think that one is much worse than the other tharts for sure.
And since we are talking "spirit of the law". We all should know by now that group size and intensive use questions are serious issues facing the high peaks as a whole and if we are to consider ourselves "Spirit of the law" people, do carry over that same spirit to other places. For instance, Whiteface and Esther are not on protected lands, and group size is not restricted there. Does that mean we should abandon those principals simply because there is a ROAD on the other side of the mountain and the rules say we can. Do Whiteface trails not deserve the same consideration as Giant (or Dix, or any other) trails do? And if not, why.
Ditto for hiking on "less restrictive" lands such as Wild Forest, or Primitive lands. Are we allowed to relax our "standards" that we carry for LNT hiking in wilderness areas, simply cause we've moved into regions that are not a strictly regulated. It's all very interesting to consider and not always simple and clear cut.
For me, I try to think as in what's best for peaks and lands, regardless of the current regulations in place. I would make every attempt to "follow the rules" and do the right thing, but am certainly fallible like all humans. I do the best I can and hope that that is "enough".