You're right. My ending of that particular post is/was needlessly hostile, so I've removed it.
I suppose part of the issue is how we look at PowerPlay. When talking about it, I tend to look at it from a practical rules and balance view, which is where Hudson and Aisling are essentially being asked to undermine their own superpower.
I agree, but before doing that, it would be nice to know what it is that is envisioned for PowerPlay. Sandro said he sees it as a conflict, which is a start, but both Chess and Battlefield 1 is about conflict, and they go about representing it in wildly differing ways. For example, one way to wholly transform PowerPlay is to make PowerPlay far more abstract and using it merely as a sort of scoring system and moving all the mechanics onto the BGS (i.e. score each power by the number of systems their particular superpower and favoured factions control) and rewarding each power's pledges in those systems (my own personal favourite so far), but if that doesn't fit with FDev's ideas (and I don't think it does), then it's a waste of time to talk about how that could work.
Similarly it would be nice to know what it is that the characters are supposed to represent. For example, what is the "point" of Antal, when he's never represented in any of the stories that are published on Galnet? And what is it that the pledges are supposed to represent? We're not the leaders of any of the powers, nor are we the spokes people for them, but clearly some of the powers are organized enough that those groups are effectively the leaders - and the game either needs a way to recognize that OR make it such that the player influence is far lower than it is now.