Ha, I feel a little bit called out in this post. Behavior I’ve been displaying matches the profile, perhaps I should look a bit inward.
To add to the discussion: The most reliable solution to this problem from my point of view in dealing with others is to establish the exact subject and expected engagement points the annoyingly principled person is attempting to use. Understand that they may not actually know what those are, and direct a meta conversation that leads to defining these things. Finally, engage with them in the manner they attempted to initiate, and end with your fully formed stance. More often than not, this will resolve the source of annoyance. Though you might end up turning yourself into an annoyingly principled person in the process.
To use the closest example already in comments, the initiator of the discussion on Catan[1] was most likely attempting to engage in a conversation about ensuring fun was not lost in the game, while discussing what victory conditions they held and validating their frustration at being targeted. However, they initiated the conversation in a way that was interpreted as “explain the strategy you were employing when you targeted me”. To which, the other player responded in the manner I’d expect. If instead, they’d responded by starting a meta conversation about what they were talking about (i.e., “Are you looking at game strategy, or is it concerning you because of something else?”), then perhaps the two in the example could have walked away with a better understanding of both sides of the issue.
The problems with “Claude Schemed …” or “ChatGPT Thought …” style wording in Academic and Media writing and conversation. I am actually stopping myself from going on “the rant” here, just from your question. Pretty good indicator that it’s a fixation causing Alice/Alex behavior.