Ideas, not Ego
An idea should have to survive on its own.
Attach a person to one and you give people something else to judge. They can like the person (or dislike them!), agree with what they said about something unrelated last month, decide they simply don't trust someone who talks like that.
None of it has anything to do with whether the idea works, but all of it changes how the idea lands.
Take the person away and there's nothing left to react to except the idea itself
This way of doing things has helped me as much as it's helped anyone reading.
When someone shows a rule doesn't hold, I can follow the argument instead of getting blocked by the ego and fix it.
That sounds easy. It isn't.
Once an ego has attached to something…
That's when you start defending the indefensible.
The commandments are the obvious example. They're not exactly what they were when I first wrote them, because you lot stress-tested them over time.
You found the wording that was ambiguous, the case where a rule fell over, suggested improvements to the criteria.
What came out the other side survived all of that.
The version you'll read isn't the first thing I thought of, it's what's still standing.
Same goes for everything else here. Almost none of it is a first draft. It's been through an audience that cared enough to argue, and it got better every time.
So, there's no personal brand here. Just the ideas.