I understand where all of you are coming from. Can we agree that people voicing problems often don't give complete context? And when they do (which they do sometimes), they still windup leaving stuff out... because in their head it isn't relevant. Does that seem true to you? They may leave out the fact that the problem player happens to be a little jealous of some relationship at the table. Petty? Sure. But it might just be overlooked by the poster. It's context, or in this case, sub-context, that isn't relayed.This only follows if you don't think people can convey enough of the context to be useful, or won't. That's not self-evidently true. In fact, in the case of such discussions coming up I've rarely seen the go one without one or more people asking questions before they'd respond.
As much as what it drives you all crazy that I am not acquiescing, it drives me just as crazy that you won't concede a simple fact: hearing one side of a story, and one often incomplete, does not accrue better advice than someone trying to solve it themselves. To me it makes me think you believe that people are either incapable or not emotionally cognizant enough to handle a table problem. (I don't think you think this, but that is what it implies.) I think players are able to solve table problems. And even more so, I think they are better off not hearing the opinions of people who only hear one side of the story. To me, that often leads to someone using a poster's message as condoning an action or some type of evidence that what they thought was right, is just that, right.
But I get it. You believe people offer good advice (and I do believe it comes from a good and genuine place). And it may be advice someone with a problem hasn't heard or didn't think of. That's fair. I get it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.