You weren't harsh on my example. It was ad hominem. If you were harsh on my example; I wouldn't have had to tell you to sit in a corner for a few days to reflect.
You claim this as a matter of style, but I'm saying your "style" is functionally weaker: You are not being as informative, or as persuasive, as you could be.
We'll get back to this later.
You talk about wanting to be concise -- but the flip side of "concise" is "terse" -- and the most concise way to say something is usually with jargon or other specialized vocabulary. But there's a series of prices there: First, the more compressed your statement is, the more it asks of the reader. And then, compression all too easily slides into coding, where you're giving a reference that you expect the reader to fill in. And that's exactly what you've got up there. "Inhibiting player agency" isn't a "because" explanation unless you already know what the point of "player agency" is and why inhibiting it is bad. "Game caused griefing" is our local jargon (code), but even there, you're not actually explaining why their idea is going to make all this trouble.
Much of my methodology in most posts is to explain myself thoroughly. I don't include such things in what I hope to be a quick post here because I want to avoid a discussion of the example itself and hope that a simplified example will be enough to explain the point without going into the individual points one a thread dedicated to a much wider net (guidelines).
Instead, your focus is on how my methodology is weaker because it's not passive aggressive like your stance. So, a few notes: I understand that my writing style isn't as direct as yours; but also doesn't have the biting and stinging sarcasm of "too bad about that base you spent weeks on, your neighbor got the Bomb first".
And then there's your justification.... "Honesty" is simply a false flag here, because giving an example or a clear explanation is not less honest. The sense of "brutality" from a terse explanation like yours, comes from you expecting the reader to do the work of interpreting your statements. That's how a boss might talk to their subordinates, or a teacher to their students. Except you don't actually control your readers' paycheck or grade, so people will resent you talking as if you do.
This is going into personal standards and principles. I'm not actually that terribly smart of a person. I consider myself reasonably average; I also consider myself reasonably patient and ... reasonable. I expect others to be on my level; to have the same level of intellect as me. Loosening my vocabulary to reach those that might not understand makes me feel like I'm not only insulting myself but them. It literally makes me feel like I have to belittle children for them to understand which is quite uncomfortable for me (it actually makes me feel like I'm being patronizing by not using my normal vocabulary). Not only that, but it goes against my nature and is very difficult for me to maintain for any period of time; extended or otherwise.
And one bit from your last letter:
On the contrary! Objectivity is carved out with effort, from the subjectivity of ordinary thought, and truly "objective" truths are scarce, especially in everyday experience. One truth can certainly be more or less subjective than another. In particular, any judgment of skill or expertise will have at least some subjectivity in it, even if it's also backed by standards and norms. (And nearly all our criticisms of suggestions are going to have at least some subjectivity.)
You're going to have to give some examples on this bit; if at least to form a rebuttal against the three flavors of ice cream I provided.
But, more to the point, one truth can also be more relevant than another, and that's part of honesty, as distinguished from "truth". When someone proposes a "nuke", I really doubt the PvP potential or Mad Mining Speed is the first thing that goes through your mind -- rather, it's the mass-destruction issue, of landscapes, resources and especially bases. So addressing that head-on is more honest than talking about game balance. No sugar-coating required!
Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. So... you're completely correct... and horribly wrong... ALL at the same time! Yes, wholesale destruction is the first thing to go through your mind; but game balance and fun factor is first and foremost in mine. We're going at the same problem from different angles, which is... fine.