[Disillusionist]

Despite the fact that I've been informed by the OP that I have nothing of value to contribute to the thread, and should immediately exit it:

Languages:
REALISM:
JRR Tolkien devised for his novels entire languages for elvish and dwarvish, with smatterings of others. If such a translator could be hard-coded, that would be spiffy. Every time an elf says "Pal, buddy, friend, amigo, compadre, chum", etc...this code invariably translates the word to "Mellon." This jars no one.
SIMULATIONISM:
Language barriers are emulated, often by letter-combo substitutions with some racial 'flavoring', so same said elf saying the word "Friend" in elvish ten times will produce "Fiend, Find Frouand, Freud, Fraud, Fragglerock". (Or worse, by substituting letters with unpronounceable or highly unlikely combos.) This is jarring to the suspension of disbelief to those who are able to realize that the word should come out the same each time, even if you don't understand it. It can also be jarring to those who realize languages/words aren't learned by percents, so that someone with some time spent learning them understands 84% of each word, but rather learns words a few at a time, and then assimilates context. Some games do a relatively decent job of avoiding this annoying syndrome, either by making it such that a character with X skill knows 84% of all words spoken, instead of 84% of -each- word spoken, but then we run afoul of those people who are suddenly knowing exact meanings of words they've never heard or read that cannot be assimilated by context. Ah well, we say, it's a shortcoming of the coding, and we move on, because we like it.
OTHER:
Roleplayer A emotes, and within it, in common, he imbeds, "Hi, Friend!"
Player B is suddenly (mushroom cloud) -forced- to know the language, even if it's common, and this is jarring to his suspension of disbelief.
To me, this little hiccup -isn't- a big deal. As an actor, I know that my character doesn't know Common, so, I get to do a little --->RP<---.
"Hay found?"
"Ho, Fraud?"
"Pi, Pythagoras?"
I agree with every poster that says it's a matter of preference, but this wouldn't suddenly catapult me back to dreary reality any faster or more resoundingly than, "Hgxl, Fpyrabjd!" Nor would I think that an imbedded emote, so long as Player A actually spoke Common, was in any way twinkish.

Now, I confess a bias. I've RPed in some of the games mentioned as "RPI"s. At no point will I say they are not good games. They are, in most cases. At no point would I say their RP-enhancing environment is inferior. It is not, in most cases. Personally, for some of them, I've felt like my edge for RP was dulled, because so much of the work is done FOR me, or in some cases, IN SPITE of me, that some of them left me with a taste I didn't care for. But mainly, what I did catch (but not exclusively at RPIs) was the elitism attitude that somehow a game feature set makes for better roleplaying, roleplayers etc. It is an attitude that rankles me.
The less experienced players who encounter it are almost inevitably alienated or marginalized. I'm not saying every poster who advocates AFS games is anything like that, but it's undeniable that some of the most outspoken proponents -are-. I don't see these inexperienced people as 'twinks', 'n00bs' etc. They're people, and respond much better to good attitudes, openmindedness, and a willingness to patiently teach.
Mostly, people learn by good examples set, although a small and petty case can be made that some people will improve if you just criticize them enough.

The RPI distinction is meaningless, and made even MORE so by denying that the focus is on the 'intensive' part of the acronym, but continually asserting that very thing in example after example.
This is why I posted the Simulationist/Narrativist/Gamist link.
While not definitive, it's certainly a more intuitive distinction if labels are going to be slapped around, and the author of the article makes a compelling and rational case for it.