I don't need evidence to prove an opinion. The belief that freeform campaigns are best is as valid as highly curated campaigns are best. This whole topic is opinion, is it not?To which I can only respond: what evidence do you have that "more content" or "new content" (in terms of races/species/monsters in the game-world) makes for a better game/experience? What evidence do you have that Side B makes for a better game/experience than Side A? To me, it all seems too subjective to be worth getting tied into argumentative knots over. There are just too many variables at play to ever draw a conclusion beyond, "I'll do what works best for me, you do what works best for you."
For my part, I can see how Side A can work and be good, and I can see how Side B can work and be good. What I can't countenance is any argument that Side B can't make good games because it's (ooOOOoooOOoo) authoritarian, and authoritarian elfgames are inherently problematic — or, for that matter, that good isn't good enough, and we "authoritarian" worldbuilders are "missing out" on "could be better." The first statement is pure tripe, and the latter is (as I've said before) trying to be a legitimate argument, when all it's really doing is grasping at fomenting FOMO that simply doesn't exist.
Do you think there is some sort of factual argument to support any part of this discussion on either side?