@Umbran With all due respect, the questions you are addressing to me are pretty much exactly the questions I am addressing to the other poster.
The discomfort you apparently feel with the assertions I'm making parallels rather strongly the discomfort I'm feeling with
@shawnhcorey assertions. He said for example that he doesn't play games with alignment because "Labeling someone for any reason is wrong." That's not a claim of subjective experience, but a normative claim. It would appear to apply to games other than the ones he participates him. Likewise, you seem to be worried that I'm positioning myself as "the arbiter of rationality". Leaving aside that everyone is an arbiter of rationality so if was positioning myself to do that it wouldn't be unusual, I'm not actually the person who introduced the issue into this discussion. The other poster defended his assertion by suggesting the contrary required "unscientific thinking".
Just as you seem to want clarification of my position, I would like clarification from the original poster.
As for your question, it should be well known to you that I don't insist that two rational persons will always come to the same conclusion. That is not actually the point of contention. The question is, given a body of evidence, is every conclusion rational. I left open right from the start that there would be rational reasons to decide that you didn't want to play a game with alignment. I don't have a particular problem with assertions like, "Alignment isn't right for me. In games I've played, it hasn't worked out, and these are the reasons why."
But again, that isn't what the poster asserted. For each of the for bullet points he made, I suggested that there was a logical problem with the assertion. Neither you nor him have offered to disagree with my points.