When a post is so very obviously expressing an opinion, as my post was, and SE's post was, "must have", "needs", "should" and other such imperative requirements are always at the discretion of the reader. It's an opinion, of course it's going to include deontological language; when someone believes something, they don't say, "I believe this is how things should be", they say, "This is how things should be". When you believe something, that is how the world appears to be. Disliking that someone expresses their opinions in such a manner seems rather pointless.
There are a number of ways to approach a submission, and discussion about such. How one wishes to do so is entirely dependent on the speaker and the audience. Individuals like SE and I who are primarily writers will tend to prefer to discuss and organize them with narrative considerations and presentation in mind. Others, such as Muro and Ancient Gamer, have a very heavy focus on being a GM and their subs tend to reflect that focus on usability.
Of course, we do state in the newbie breakdown that "The purpose of Strolen's Citadel is to be a site for the inspiration and discussion among GMs, as well as players", which in my mind makes us a GM resource site. This means that I don't just write my submissions as if they were just a piece of literature, I want to make it useful to someone. That doesn't mean that I'm going to sacrifice my vision of something just because it might not be immediately usable or that it'll take some work to be used, but it does mean that I'll do my best to add hooks (where appropriate) where a GM can connect it to their existing worlds. That is simply how I write my subs; I don't expect everyone else to do so. Each author is their own person, and must needs write their submissions the way that they feel is appropriate.
When providing commentary on a submission, it is up to the commenter to decide what they think is relevant to the submission. If that means noting pragmatic considerations about usability, narrative considerations about formatting and literary structure, or intellectual considerations about how the sub could be expanded, so be it. I've done all three, and had them be well-appreciated by the author in question. There isn't a hard and fast rule about what comments are appropriate for what submissions, and any guidelines you're given are just that: guidelines.
So this point is moot?
I honestly don't know what is being asked here.
The author care enough to write about the color of the armor. Do we have the right as critics to dismiss it as moot or significant?
Yes, because that's the point of critically analyzing things. You have to make note of both the good and the bad if you're going to provide commentary that an author can use to improve a work. But, and this is a very important point that should not be ignored, the author is not obligated to agree with your opinion or care. We want to provide constructive criticism, but in the end it is purely our opinion, and the author can disagree. If the author feels that the color of the armor is important, then it's their right and obligation to make note of the armors color. If they don't think that something needs to be said, then they aren't obligated to think up or include such details. The author is the final arbiter of what does or does not go into their submissions.
Likewise, we are the final arbiters of our votes. What considerations go into those votes are entirely up to us as voters.