You guys are completely wrong about “that’s what my character would do.” The reason it’s only spoken in the circumstance when it is, is not because it’s become a cudgel to excuse anything. It’s an attempt to defend OOCly against OOC attacks about IC behavior. It’s a reminder of the separation between OOC and IC personality and intentions. It’s pointing at the fourth wall and trying to snap others into remembering that the fourth wall exists and to stop ignoring it and getting offended on behalf of the dolls in their diorama.

The correct critique of “that’s what my character would do” is therefore not “you’re just using that as a shield to justify bad behavior.” Because as Chad said, the character’s nature is not “a shield” because there’s no shield needed. The entire hobby itself and everyone’s participation in it is the justification for a character’s behavior!

The proper response to someone blurting out “that’s what my character would do” is to say “Absolutely he would. And now we’re going to need you to make a character who’s a better team player once this one gets killed for betraying everyone.” IC actions have IC consequences, and “that’s his nature” is not a valid defense in the court of IC consequences.

And if they still won’t come back with a character capable of cooperating, after having been told OOC that they need to, then you can safely conclude that they’re a disruptive co-creative and kick them out. Simple as.