Or maybe it's because that's the part they object to. (and it's the specific subject of this thread....)
Naaa you don't believe that yourself don't you. It's just a part of a crusade, and Powerplay is just victim of the crossfire. Again: check all the technicalities in that thread: not sure you will catch half of them and it's good: I would be totally aimless in a Thargoid balancement thread. Difference is I am well aware I am, you, on the other hand...
More or less punitive than proposing to actively exclude players in Solo and Private Groups from existing pan-modal game features that all players currently share?
A lot more! You are basically making people go away of "your" systems because they just want a different kind of competition. When it would be possible with a different layer that doesn't affect people playing differently (and again: you sure you want no more 15% discount from LYR?

Because I could dig that, not sure about the rest of the community...

)
Proposals which contain an Open only requirement don't seek co-existence, they seek to exclude players from engaging in game features from their preferred game mode (if that preferred game mode is not Open) or force them to play in Open if they wish to continue to engage in the game features in question.
Why not? We couldn't we just fly in the same systems with a different layer, different goals,different objectives? It's some kind of coexistence, understand that we have such different playstyles that would make private and solo dominant over open (because of how easier is to grind in such play modes). And that's an element that you can cannot deny: in open you should have different loadouts to survive the casual pvp encounter. Or just accept the consequences of a wrong loadout to survive a pvp encounter. Efficiency in this case is very different, to be completely honest all modes have never been equal, in that aspect.
Imagine buying a game where:
"Experience the connected galaxy alone in Solo mode or with players across the world in Open Play" and
"every player’s story influences the unique connected gaming experience and handcrafted evolving narrative. Governments fall, battles are lost and won, and humanity’s frontier is reshaped, all by players’ actions"
are actual selling points and then complaining when players can choose how they interact with the connected galaxy.
I purchased Elite Dangerous to have the choice in how I interacted with the galaxy and player base. I understand that ship combat is the preferred counteraction for some wrt PP/BGS, but it is not the only way. Your preference does not outweigh what I paid for. I will back PP/BGS changes that do not exclude or penalize SOLO/PG players because they paid for mode choice. It's a selling feature from day 1.
Many other things are not the same as day one: we want from "unknown probes" to thargoid vessels shooting stations, exploration is far different than what it used to be, BGS too etc. The game wouldn't change for the regular player, maybe only for the "solo powerplayer" that exploits the free invisibility to keep its Power safe and sound (exploiting the current mechanics that favours defence over offense that much). The game is pretty big actually, and all the leaderships have, at some time, rooted for at least a different weight for open and solo actions for Powerplay itself. That must mean something. So... are you a proud solo powerplayer that will not tell for what Power he plays because solo fortifiers are quite shameful in the Powerplay community or are you just hypothetically telling, as a non-powerplayer, that you would like to have the possibility to play powerplay in solo?
The pan-modal implementation undermines that contention somewhat.
Actually that kind of implementation is being discussed in the past, by Sammarco for example (I bet you are quite happy he disappeared

) and Garrido very recently. You knows, maybe tables will turn in the next few months.
The fun of it is supposed to be the power vs power metagame of system control though. Which is an asynchronous competition that does not require any two players to ever meet.
Nobody here is asking for that kind of approach to disappear "in toto" from the game: BGS could remain the same, what people is asking here is an alternative. And you are denying this to them because of a personal crusade you all are running, honestly with no reason at all. Only thing I could think about is that in some way you could be afraid that this could be so successful that FDev could change the whole game at some point. And even if true, this would be quite immature.
Then answer is you can play the game they way it is fun for you.
If you think it's fun to load your ship with merits then play hare-vs-fox in the destination system, you can enjoy your idea of fun.
Others might have a different idea of fun and you cannot force your kind of fun over them
In a game where the modes are designed to filter out other players and not the game features.
I'm ok with being fun, and I think people could have plenty of fun with BGS, with their spreadsheet wars. Not my thing but hey: who am I here to judge.
And now I ask you: who are YOU to judge. Why not let people have something for them too?
It's like tyou'd go in a thargoid thread complaining about thargoids being too difficult, to people that actually find them easy to kill.
In that particular case I bet that you don't even try because they are hard to kill, maybe you are not a combat oriented CMDR and so you don't go against them. And it's GOOD. You folks keep talking about "accessibility". Key word here is AVAILABILITY. Give people different ways to have fun, conceptually speaking.
Grindy/non-pvp CMRs? The should totally have their thing. PvE/PvP mixed CMDRs? Damn, they should have their thing too!

Nobody wants for you to have to deal with open play. At the same time I keep asking myself why so many people are so invested in making ME having to deal with solo. Let's separate the two things, we could be more than happy both!
It would by really hilarious if the so called 5c are (more often than not) independent commanders that do their own stuff disregarding orders spewed by some internet stranger
Totally agree: problem in there is about game mechanics mostly. Part of my proposal would nullify 5C as even a concept. But hey: apparently people just read "open only" and just lose their minds.
At least be honest: this proposal is based on Open Only, which disqualifies it from the start. But if I am wrong (which I doubt), I wonder why the two are not better discussed separately.
Another proof you don't care about the proposal itself but only part of it: it's just a crusade, and as such it's irrational and illogic. Which actually kind of works at favour of the other guys asking for "something different".
Ooops, can't write anymore, GF just told me it's late and I've got to work. No Odyssey for me today, fracking night shift.