Yes, that's what I read today in comments on an answer to this question. Again:
Players who see it differently are simply wrong
Someone downvoted me, based on the fact that his playstyle must be the only correct playstyle (tm).
The fact that different players in different campaigns might put a different weight on risk vs. reward (or malus vs bonus in that case) does not exist in his world.
Way to go RPG.SE, because that quote is from a nearly 100K rep user.
This user calculated that trading +2 to hit for +2 armor class is not worth it. Never. Anyone doing this is wrong.
The thought that in a different campaign, this may be well worth it does not even cross his mathematically inclined mind of average and default calculations. No. If you don't fit in the standard, default, average, vanilla textbook campaign:
You. Are. Wrong. Period.
You cannot play a siege campaign where not getting hit is better than hitting yourself. That simply cannot be. How dare you play a fantasy campaign that is not kicking in the dungeon door and rolling to hit for the first orc.
You cannot play a dwarven tank with the best protective shield he can get. Because that would not be optimized the way the min/max thread tells you to. And not being optimized would be wrong.
Could we please clarify (again) that there is no one true roleplaying style and that something that ends in "... depending on your playstyle" cannot be wrong as long as it's not against the rules?