From my initial read of the generic Stack Exchange FAQ, I was under the impression that answers from personal experience are not just encouraged, they are preferred. Right? If so, does it not then follow that one should cite specific
expertise experience(s) that might help lend credibility to an answer, on a topic for which little public information is available and no mathematical proof is possible?
The specific example is the question I asked about age suggestions:
Aramis's answer seemed reasonable, especially after some clarification in the comments. But when he told me that it was based on some experience as a game designer and extensive experience as game tester, the answer improved even more for me as I wasn't sure if it was just a best guess or based on experience. In my mind, this convinced me that I should "accept" this answer (though I haven't quite yet in case a better answer comes along to this fresh question). So I suggested to Aramis in comments that he add the following sentence to his answer:
"Based on a few games I've designed and extensive play-testing where suitability for children was a common designer question, here's what I've learned . . ."
Aramis did not think this was a good line to add to the answer. He stated that, "In fact, that's one of the things that, in my undergrad, we were taught to treat as a fallacy - anyone whose sources must include their bonafides in order to be credible is probably including them solely to be credible at all."
I'm not getting this. While some types of questions have a strictly objective answer based on mathematical proof or have publicly available information to cite, other types of answers may depend on having actual specific experience. This seems like one such instance.
So for this example, and for other questions of this nature, is it a good or bad idea to cite your own question-relevant