Funny. I feel precisely the reverse way about your own posts--but I try to keep that feeling to myself and not express it at every single turn.
Perhaps, instead of pretending either of us knows detect thoughts, it would be more useful to work with the things people say, and not the things we think are behind what people say.
You repeatedly used hyper-ridiculous examples. I found that disrespectful of the kinds of preferences I have. I found it to indicate that you don't take seriously the idea that anyone would ever
Depends. Declaring that everyone must play one narrowly-specific archetype probably would leave me quite cold, because I often like to: (a) play against type in at least some way, though generally more in a "invert a sad/dark/negative thing into a happier/brighter/positive thing" kind of way, (b) look at the edges or the un-alike, as that is often a natural source of character growth and interesting exploration, and (c) use or invoke dragonlike or dragon-related character elements because I just really, really like dragons and feel happy when I get to integrate dragon-y things into characters I play.
Conversely, rather than declaring, but instead discussing with players about personal limitations or known sore spots? Great, fantastic. I myself have told my players I won't run the game for evil characters. This is not because I have some secret hatred for evil characters and am finally getting to ban them from the game I play. It's because I really, really just...feel gross putting my head in the space of someone evil. Like it genuinely makes me feel like a bad person. I can--barely--get by running evil NPCs because they're comparatively incidental. I would not be able to produce an enjoyable game where the PCs are evil. Almost anything short of unrepentant evil, I'll work with: an atoning, formerly-evil person; an evil being bound by a geas to do good and grumbling about it; a being that has been evil and is trying to learn to be good; a being that is a very very dark shade of neutral but drawing the line at actual evil--any of those can and will work, and I'm happy to work with my players for as long as it takes to get an end result that we can both be happy with. If they're engaging in good faith--presuming I, too, am engaging in good faith--then I am 100% certain we can develop something that will work.
And other than that? I genuinely can't think of anything that would be so unacceptable that I couldn't make it work somehow. The only time I've ever said a firm "no" to a player was because that player wanted to do something blatantly and horrifically evil (namely, trying to reactivate a spider-bot that requires a human soul in order to operate.) The only time I've ever had to give a deeply-disappointed, "I wish I could make this work but I just can't see how" no, the player in question assured me he felt no qualms about that, it was just a wild idea he'd had and wanted to pass by me (specifically, playing a "familiar" rather than a character proper, which...I didn't feel confident I could run an interesting game for such a character, similar to the evil example above, but for a completely different reason.)
And I find it concerning when a person feels the need to emphasize at every turn how their power of veto is RIGHT THERE, don't forget it, better remember I have veto power, did you remember that I have veto power, have you forgotten about my veto? Okay just wanted to be sure you remembered I'll veto anything and everything you consider that I don't like for any reason. Or maybe for no reason, because I don't have to justify my veto to you, or anybody.
That "I'll take my toys and leave" attitude is not one I find conducive to any degree of collaboration, cooperation, mutual understanding, or consensus-building. I find instead that it actively places something else--such as "GM vision" or "consistency of the world" or what-have-you--above the investment and involvement of the players.
But of course you would have example after example that proves you right, and never even a single example where something might possibly prove you wrong or even minimally undercut the "have you remembered my absolute veto today?" message.
It sure as hell doesn't sound like it from the literal actual things you've just said.
As in, you've literally given multiple examples where you refused to do so, and none where you did it. Hard to find the working-with, the collaboration, the give-and-take, when the only examples you give are you putting your foot down hard with no discussion whatsoever.
