@semantics argument:
Alex, you come off as someone who is arguing not towards a goal or understanding, but arguing for the sake of itself. Not that that's against the law or anything, but neither is shouting at no-one in particular in the middle of a road. Similarly, though to a lesser extreme, it is odd and probably unfruitful.
Your arguments show obvious bias like an overswing to defend your point such as "amped up hue splurg that lacks consistency" or "since this game doesn't use any crazy "hueshifting"" or other cases in which you propose an exaggerated idea of what you understand as hueshifting to reinforce the idea that you wish to project it as a bad thing. It feels like you simplified the argument down into a FOR OR AGAINST HUESHIFTING and are attempting to bully the opposing argument out of the ring, rather than letting your points stand on their own for what they are (purportedly as truth). I don't hope to fully discredit any of your arguments in this! You're obviously bringing up a lot of good thoughts (Though again I'd debate the fruitfulness of them in the first place, in certain instances) and are definitely contributing to a good discussion... I suppose this is just a personal aside to maybe allow you insight into why some people are turned away by your attitude, provided I'm in a position to provide insight in the first place.
More on-topic, couldn't we all use a stronger theoretical knowhow on a whole lot of common pixel art terms? What suddenly makes "hueshifting" a hot point?
Take "Shading". Fairly ambiguous general term that, while it blankets a phenomenal wealth of information, typically to beginners means "Things should have light and dark spots". It serves as the first step to learning! When I first shaded something (and I'm tempted to speak for most people here) I wasn't thinking particularly hard about the value of the light that was hitting the object nor did I have a fundamental understanding of what I was doing, how light interacted with different surfaces or any of the actual science involved in what I was attempting to replicate. It didn't matter. I was wrong and dumb and completely incompetent, but someone saying "You should shade that better" was a simple use of an almost meaningless term that enabled me to forward my own learning and broaden the simple word's definition. The term used was simply reference to an idea that I would benefit from exploring further. It didn't mean I couldn't do anything until it was understood, but meant that I needed to include it in my progressive understandings.
In that light, I don't understand why there is an argument against a tool (Hueshifting) being bad because the tool is being used without knowledge or improperly. Even if it is used without knowledge or improperly, the crime isn't that in itself, but that the artist fails to recognize his own failure and doesn't take steps to correct his act. Though things don't HAVE to be hard, I would find it hard to stomach a serious argument that hueshifting teaches a bad habit that stunts an artist's growth.
