One important aspect of practical game theory that the Core diva faction seems to not understand is that something that can happen but doesn't necessarily can have prophylactic effects even if it doesn't happen.
Anyone who has studied chess at a high class-player or greater level intuitively understands this already.
This is a good very entry-level example, in the Spanish game, white plays the bishop to b5 threatening to exchange for the black knight, undermining the defense of the black e-pawn. (This isn't actually a threat to gain material because if white swaps bishop for knight, then takes the black e-pawn, black wins the material back by taking the knight back with the d-pawn and forks the white knight and e-pawn along the half-open d-file).
The point being that all of black's moves now have to take the white bishop into account no matter whether the bishop actually executes the obviously-intended plan or not, and in the majority of real games this bishop just retreats when kicked with pawns.
The reason this relates to blocksize and the current "fee event" fiasco is because the ability to create bigger blocks changes game theory strategies without even having to make any >1MB blocks. The current low capacity creates incentive to try to spam the network simply because it's easy and cheap to pull off, and minimal effort creates maximum disruption because the network has very low (or arguably no) available overhead.
This becomes even more critical if LN moves forward, because a well-used LN would create the greatest DoS incentive Bitcoin has ever seen.
The only solution that isn't crazy is big blocks, because it lets miners put the bishop on the knight, threatening "if you try anything cute, I'll trade for the knight by mining away tx's".
This I-know-that-you-know-that-I-know-that-you-know stuff is critical I think to understanding any adversarial situation, and the tired tropes "blocks will just get filled to capacity since demand is infinite" stuff doesn't cut it.
