As do I. Has this idea actually been suggested and refused before? The current naming scheme, in my opinion, causes confusion at best and ambiguity at worst. The ambiguity occurs when the direction is In/Out: how exactly does that work? If the rule works literally the way it is set then half of the rule, either the In or the Out, is practically useless because you would have “An IN rule where the SOURCE is the LOCAL machine” or “An OUT rule where the DESTINATION is the LOCAL machine”. I think that the aforementioned rules are only useful for loopback and LAN firewalling making them unintuitively paired with a completely different rule concept when using the “In/Out” direction.
Just explaining the ambiguity took me an extra annoying minute to make sure I wasn’t confused and/or misspeaking. This could all be resolved with a “Local” and “Remote” naming system.