I feel like our communication has broken down somewhere, and I apologize for any misunderstanding here.
One of the ways that we prevent this by happening is asking questions intended to clarify. It's also how we evaluate opinions to determine whether they are well-formulated and worth further examination. That you stopped answering questions intended to clarify how you got from point A to point B to me indicates that this is not such a case. And that's fine. You're not required to answer. But I do think this becomes especially problematic in a situation like this.
You seem to be aware that not all opinions are created equally, as you attempt to distinguish the two dissenters in your piece.
Rest assured, my opinion piece here is strictly a matter of my opinion. It is not meant to be an evidence-based investigative article. It is simply an expression of my thoughts on the matter.
Opinion pieces are opinion. I understand that. But you made claims. When initially asked for evidence, you were happy to share. I am now addressing you on the merit of such evidence. At that point, it's no longer about your opinion piece. However, since the tweets in question do not seem to meet with your opinion piece, it is a valid question to ask how the claims you've made mesh, since you conflated the two in your posts here. Again, this goes to the basis and validity of your opinion. This is something I learned from working with journalists.
I appreciate that you do not share my views. That's okay. I don't expect everybody to agree with everything I think or say. In fact, that's more or less my point. We've all got different views and opinions, and we should strive to keep it that way.
The opinion piece seems to be exactly for the opposite reason, since it calls out the opinions of others solely on the basis that they don't share your values. You didn't welcome criticism, you chastised it and made it out to be a bigger deal than it appears to be. Further, I was sent tweets where you say two such dissenters is too many (though said Tweets also appeared on The Escapist's "water cooler," so it was unnecessary). That sounds like the opposite of what you're saying.
Especially when you attempt to conflate this with "moral panic" and the actual "should not exists" of the original Doom.
Your words seem to be at odds with what you say they mean, and seem to be at odds with the very basis for your claim. I attempted to seek clarification, and was denied. In the absence of such answers, I can only conclude that there isn't a strong foundational basis.
I also find this new notion of criticism to be particularly odd, in that it places a higher standard on video games than any other form of art/entertainment. It seems almost nationalistic in nature, decrying outsiders who don't understand how things really work.
Unfortunately, nobody seems to be willing to answer me as to why games require a special standard under which to operate. One which is simultaneously much more strict to outsiders and much more forgiving to the group itself. That actually sounds more like pro wrestling than actual criticism.