Comment on “Acting”

"I wouldn’t fault somebody for making the assumption. The original quote you made in your piece is word for word from the video. In that line I do not paint a picture of a situation with no mechanics; I paint one where they are no longer controlling the RP or have been suspended. “[they] don't moderate anything, they're not the medium, they just get the hell out of the way.” In the example this quote comes immediately after, the DM has chosen not to make a character roll for diplomacy because of the quality of his acting. For me, the less intrusive the mechanics are on the RP, the better. I would not advocate ditching all the mechanics of any game. I do however believe they are
flexible and often expendable."

"In that line I do not paint a picture of a situation with no mechanics; I paint one where they are no longer controlling the RP or have been suspended."

If they "have been suspended," they are null and void, correct? If so, that is a situation with no mechanics. Until they are no longer suspended, they are not able to function. (It also sounds something like a video-game cutscene to me.)

"In the example this quote comes immediately after, the DM has chosen not to make a character roll for diplomacy because of the quality of his acting."

Here is my opinion.

1. All the rules are followed all the time, no matter the acting. When a die must be rolled, a die is rolled. When the rule is absolute, it is absolute. This keeps the game coherent, where "coherent" means "not changing here and there depending on e.g. participant mood, ambient conditions, etc."

2. Regarding what you said above ("the DM has $CHOSEN$ not to make a character roll for diplomacy" emphasis mine)

This is what must be avoided. That choice. There should be no choice in using the rule. If there is desire to use choice over a given rule, it is not a rule to use. Improve that rule, and test it; otherwise, remove that rule, and use a simple choice
in the future.

My problem is that you have decided to remove rules on the fly. At this point you have nothing stopping you from throwing away other rules in the future, just based on your situational whim; likewise, any time you follow that rule in the future is now an inconsistency. If you do choose an outcome in spite of a rule, just throw away that rule in the future.

So: if the rules are calling for these checks that you think you can just choose the outcome of anyway, why are you using those rules? To be more specific, why would you use such a Diplomacy rule if you are just going to circumvent it anyway?