What if it IS what my character would do?

[Composer99]

From he beginning, I to th best of my ability made it clear that I was describing a scenario where the player's actions up to this point had been accepted, valid, and not been considered disruptive but the GM made a choice that resulted in the game being disrupted: Changing the rules of engagement so that the player's actions were no longer acceptable without telling the player or giving any in-game reason for them to suspect tat things would not work out this time.

This is, objectively, the GM's fault and works s an example of my point "this is what my character would do" is an acceptable reason to disrupt the game if it is not only actually what your character would do, but had not at all been disruptive util that exact moment.

To which, no matter how many time I explained it, I was told that no, it doesn't work becuase the player chose to be disruptive. No matter how many times I explained that it was the GM's choices, not the player's, that led to the disruption, even when I explain that in this case there was never a choice presented to th ePC.

If someone continues to insist the exact opposite of what I have explained is true, that tells me that there is a breakdown in communication.

You have not, in fact, stated anything that is objectively true. You have constructed a hypothetical situation for the sake of argument and are insisting that it is a statement of fact.

There is no breakdown in communication. Democratus has read what you wrote and disagreed with it.

And now I am going to take my own advice.