The hope with pointing out that you do it, would be that you'd remember why you do it...

I try not to.

it's friggin effective

For achievement of what purpose? There certainly is a place for communication of one's position, but not where the position is already known, and is being used as an argument.

I've found that intuitive explanations for relatively complex things are generally easier than a long, exact explanation.

Certainly easier, but don't give comparable depth of understanding or justify comparable certainty in statements about the subject matter. Also, the dichotomy is false, since detailed explanations are ideally accompanied by intuitive explanations to improve understanding.

What we were talking about instead is when you have only a fast informal explanation, without the detail.

If you listen to the way that researchers talk, it's basically analogies and toy problems, with occasional black-board sessions if they're mathy.

It's because they already have the rigor down. See this post by Terence Tao.

It has also diminished the perceived integrity of LessWrong, as we can no longer be sure posts are not being quietly removed as well as loudly; this also diminished the reputation of SIAI.

More importantly it removed lesswrong as a place where FAI and decision theory can be discussed in any depth beyond superficial advocacy.

But when you are considering a person who agrees with that theory, and makes a decision based on it, agreement with the theory fully explains that decision, this is a much better explanation than most of the stuff people are circulating here.

You appear to be arguing that a bad decision is somehow a less bad decision if the reasoning used to get to it was consistent ("carefully, correctly wrong").

Here, I'm talking about factual explanation, not normative estimation. The actions are explained by holding a certain belief, better than by alternative hypotheses. Whether they were correct is a separate question.

At that point, disagreement about the decision must be resolved by arguing about the theory, but that's not easy.

No, because the decision is tested against reality.

You'd need to explain this step in more detail. I was discussing a communication protocol, where does "testing against reality" enter that topic?

If you're interested, we can also move forward as I did over here

It's not "moving forward", it's moving to a separate question. That question might be worth considering, but isn't generally related to the original one.

simply assuming EY is right,

Why would the assumption that EY was right be necessary to consider that question?

and then seeing if banning the post was net positive

I agree that it was net negative, specifically because the idea is still circulating, probably with more attention drawn to it than would happen otherwise. Which is why I started commenting on my hypothesis about the reasons for EY's actions, in an attempt to alleviate the damage, after I myself figured it out. But that it was in fact net negative doesn't directly argue that given the information at hand when the decision was made, it had net negative expectation, and so that the decision was incorrect (which is why it's a separate question, not a step forward on the original one).