"Maximizing global utility", whatever that's supposed to mean, is grossly unlikely to involve maximizing everyone's individual utility.

You're complaining that (in these hypothetical scenarios) your personal utility isn't being maximized and then demanding that things be changed so that you, personally, are as happy as possible.

You state you want general maximization, then you demand that you want personal maximization at the expense of the general. Your words and your actions don't agree.

Part of the problem here is that you're not saying what constitutes an "abuse" of the rules / system, and your actual meaning is one that would be rejected by others if you stated it explicitly.

No, but vowing to so strongly oppose other people's attempts to maximize global utility, presumably in favor of demanding some other goal, means at minimum lost opportunity cost for effort that could be directed toward global utility, and at worst things that actively harm global utility in order to promote some orthogonal, unrelated goal. Ergo, making things worse, if only by default.

If you view "working together for a solution that maximizes the utility of everyone" as a central, overriding goal, then from a cooperative standpoint thomblake's goals may as well be paperclip maximizing--there is no common ground.