Key detail. Insufficient detail. It's the same thing. Lacking a key detail is insufficient.
Right, but the argument wasn't skipping key details, it was, in fact, about non-key details not being those that can be elided or glossed. You presented scenarios where key details were left out as if it was countering this claim, when it was part of the claim that the focus should be on those details necessary for the character to engage the challenge. You argued against an argument not made.
It listed examples of unnecessary specifics, but it made the claim that players imaging different things is often not an issue. Then it gave limited examples where it wasn't an issue. I was countering by saying that it often is an issue. And then I gave limited examples where it was an issue. My post was a counter to his. A few examples is not exhaustive of the possibilities and I am not limited to what he gave examples of when presenting a counter argument.
Yes, you countered a post about how players imagining unnecessary specifics in different ways isn't an issue with presenting how you imagined key, necessary details differently from your GM and how he was a jerk about it. Totally not the same thing. The argument that it's okay to imagine necessary, key, sufficient details differently was not made, but you've argued that one down very well.
Maybe I'm more forgiving than you are, but I don't automatically assume it was the DM's fault. The detail might have been sufficient, but I still misunderstood. When misunderstandings happen, things should be corrected if it turns out that it was DM error, but not when the misunderstanding is player error.
I'm very forgiving for miscommunications, but not correcting it before leveling consequences on your character for the miscommunication is totally the GM's fault. The GM's job is to adequately present the scene so the players can make informed decisions. Failing that, the job is to correct the first error. If the GM instead chooses to punish the character for the misunderstanding, that's poor GMing.
We can split this one off into a different thread, if you like, but I'm not going to move on this one. The job description of the GM is to present the scene to the players such that the game can happen. This is fundamental, and no amount of "but I might of misunderstood the great GM so it might be my fault" abused-player syndrome reactions will alter that the GM failed you, then failed you again, then punished you for their compounded failures.
I disagree with the bolded part. If the PCs are in the kings castle and they find a secret door leading to a room, and when they open the door I describe the dust billowing into the air from the opening of the door, that's not a necessary detail. I've added it to evoke a sense of how long it has been since anyone has been there. It's a detail that will, for a great many people, add to the depth and feel of the game. All that was necessary is to tell them that the door opens.
Does it matter if your players all imagine the dust billowing in different way? I mean, if we're going to stay on topic.