I know I was the one who brought this up, but this doesn't mean I really have a preference.
I'm just wondering about what would be the most logical step.
I think the actual inconsistency was introduced when we agreed that Gliders should open their parachute at the top of the Jumper's arc. This is another behaviour that used to be restricted exclusively to Fallers. But of course, it is very useful for Gliders, so I'm happy we agreed on this, and I wouldn't use the splat-pad argument to call for changing Jumper-Glider behaviour again.
However, if we wanted to be completely consistent, this would now mean that fall height would have to be calculated from the top of the Jumper's arc as well. Indeed, in my test levels, I was often surprised to see that a Jumper survived a certain drop, simply because it looked much higher than the height he was actually covering in the "Faller" state, which is the only one relevant to the question whether he splats or not.
Then again, having Jumpers survive these slightly higher drops (meaning up to regular splat height + their own additional altitude gained by the jump) is definitely nice for creating Lemmings 2: The Tribes style levels (since L2 allows for both ridiculous fall heights to begin with plus the "stunned" behaviour on top of that). And keep in mind the Jumper enables this without actually requiring a genuine physics change (like Cheapo Mode back in the day, or so I've been told).
Thus, I think fall height should continue to be calculated as it is now, not factoring in the height of the lemming during the jump, and only "starting the countdown" after the transition back to the Faller state.The question is also how many backroutes the Jumper might actually lead to.
Splat pads that can kill regular Jumpers landing on top of them can do a great deal to make a certain path Jumper-proof. Then again, if we're talking about the standard application of several small blocks here (each of which would have to be covered entirely by its respective splat pad in order for this method to be effective), then those blocks would also become Builder-proof - because each lemming would land on top of that block falling from a Builder, and therefore splat. Which kind of ruins the purpose.
Basically, a path of blocks covered in splat pads would scream "use Platformers here". This is already the case right now, because it disincentivises the use of Builders. If the Jumper's behaviour were changed in this way, it would merely extend this to Jumpers. But it would not result in a situation telling the player "use Builders instead of Jumpers here", because neither would work.
Thus, after having thought this through in the way explained above... I might actually say no as well. Jumpers should only be affected by splat pads when transitioning back into a Faller. This situation is still easy enough to create, after all, by simply placing the blocks one pixel lower than the piece of terrain the Jumper starts from, so at the end of his arc, he still has one more pixel to go as a Faller.
But I may have overlooked other applications where Jumpers splatting on splat pads right after their jump might be both useful and make more sense logically?