The point (for me) is not at all judging if people had a good reason to opt-out. The point is, as an identifier, if I like or not to spent time on observations that will remain in the same state (= still calling for more IDs) after I ID them.
In other words, I think that an expert who needs full control of the Community Taxon should opt out but should (consistently) not be “calling” for more IDs, which means being registered in an exclusion list, as there is no other way to do it.
I removed your login from the project rules just because @dianastuder suggested to do so, but I didn’t understand the reason.
In the early times of iNat, as well as now when opt-ing out, IDs from other persons are just like informal comments meaning “I think this might be this… don’t you think so?”. If you are an expert wanting to protect your observations from a bad Community Taxon, then you don’t need comments like “I think this might be this… don’t you think so?”, then it’s fine if your observations get “black listed” (just by identifiers and just while identifying). Isn’t it?
IDs are not supposed to be informal, they are supposed to be bold (see the 1st point in the identification etiquette).
In short, this is just a matter of being consistent.
Maybe I ought not to remove your login from the rules of this project, for consistency and for clarifying. For me the point is clearly not discriminating some observers from others (depending on the reasons they have, or not).