Alright, so all I've really done is jump on one statement I simply wanted to give much more context to, but I'll take a crack at the actual discussion.

I'll get my thoughs more succinctly out of the way first;
I agree that enmity mechanics can be far more engaging. HOWEVER, if you truly believe what we had before was more engaging, then you are either looking through rose tinted glasses or werent there to play through it.

Now I know it's a bit of a hot take to throw some people's feelings under the bus like that, however...

To be absolutely frank, if you left your tank stance on, threat was never even an issue. leaving tank stance on during ARR, HW, and SB is and was exactly the same as it is now. Threat become a complete non-factor.

Threat only became interesting after the higher tier of players started pushing DPS optimization that threat management from others even became more valuable. Threat was only interesting after we removed tanking stance from the formula entirely. However, all of this "interesting gameplay" came from everyone EXCEPT the tank. The tank didnt play any differently. the DPS did. And thats if the tanks were either newer to raiding, lesser geared, or flubbed the opener.

Frankly speaking, this is why NIN was so evergreen. Everyone dogpiles on TA, but Shadewalker and smokescreen were EXTREMELY valued, not only for the opener, but to nearly remove the need for other DPS to manage aggro.
NIN completely controlled who had aggro, and last I checked, NIN wasnt a tank.




all this to say:
I agree with your guys' idea. But it's frustrating to watch you barking up the wrong trees. We need to move forward, not regress. From a tanking perspective, HW/SB enmity is 100% regression. We need something... else to make things more interesting. As an aside, I feel the tanking ROLE right now is in a bit of an identity crisis.