That is, unfortunately, a gross misread of the situation. What I called Orwellian is the temerity/expectation of having a rule that is "inconvenient" to you from a "Now I have to confront the social implications of my groups' wrath when I do not use it, if I do not expunge it (or have it expunged for me) from the record. Therefore, for the sake of my gaming agenda/dogma, it should be expunged. I can ignore it and just advise my players accordingly and I readily acknowledge that it is central to the way many DMs plan their mechanical framework of challenges...but I would rather just not deal with it. Expunge it from the record so I am not inconvenienced."
In DnD terms, if ever there was an Orwellian position to take, that would be it. I don't know what else to call it.
I do not like the Generalist Wizard nor unconstrained Divinations and exploratory circumvention spells. They are much more than "inconvenient" from a "confront my players and reach social accords" perspective. I find they severely negatively affect my games and narrow the scope of my plot possibilities and, quite honestly, they make the game not fun for me prep and to DM. However, not for a second do I think this is universal amongst DnD players. Not for a second do I think their deleterious effect on my game warrants them being expunged from the record (as for others they are seminal to their gaming experience and they apparently quite enjoy them). All I would like is an optional rules framework to constrain/bound them or hard-code them so they are not so open ended.