I think there is some concern as to the scope of this site, and it is a reasonable concern. Because the tone we set for the questions might make a difference in attracting experts.
We are very lucky to have quite a couple of either active or former personell in the industry or government agencies which regularly produce incredible answers. Its those kinds of experts I'd like to think we'd want to attract (which doesn't mean we don't want to also attract amateurs, but a healthy dose of actual experts is a big plus for the quality of the site. The question of catering to "noobs" or "experts" is probably as old as the original Stack Overflow itself, and a regular point of drama on Meta SO.).
Which begs the question if they would be attracted if our front-page was full of question like the one we are discussing now. Unfortunately, I don't think the question sends the best signal.
This site is about real-world space exploration. Not about Sci-Fi, not about Fantasy, but the real world. KSP is a game. Its popular, and it uses realistic-ish physics. At least realistic enough that from time to time, we will come in contact with KSP on this site. That ain't bad. But that doesn't make KSP per se on-topic. I know I have argued before for question regarding KSP being on-topic, and that stance is unchanged -- if the question itself is about real space-exploration.
I gave one of the more popular answers on What can the KSP game actually teach about spaceflight and orbital mechanics, and what are its limitations?. I think that question is perfectly on-topic, because it deals with KSP as it relates to the real world. Its still a question about real space exploration, because it asks which real concepts KSP can help teach.
Similarly, Are patched conics (and by induction, KSP) "useless" for simulating ion propulsion? is about the real world. At its core, you could strip KSP completely from the question, and keep it as an inquiry as to the limitations of patched conics. Questions about the limitations of patched conics and the regime in which they are applicable are clearly also on-topic here.
However, just because some questions about KSP are on topic, and because questions about orbital mechanics are (mostly) on-topic, that doesn't mean that all questions that are about KSP and orbital mechanics are on-topic. Your question is purely and solely about the game. It would be a rather good fit an Arqade.
To give you another example: The phase angle to go from Low Kerbin Orbit (LKO) to the Mun is 96.5°. That doesn't make the question "What is the correct phase angle to transfer from LKO to Mun intercept" on-topic here. It might be on-topic on Arqade, but not here. What would be on-topic here is asking "How can I calculate the phase angle in patched conics", with only giving KSP as context/background-information.
The question could of course be made on topic, if you would focus it differently. A bit of prior research would have helped. The instability of Jools moons once put under 3- or n-body is very, very well known among KSP enthusiasts (another hint that Arqade might have been better, you'll find more gaming enthusiasts interested in KSP there).
From that, one could have developed an interesting question asking about what makes systems unstable and which kinds of systems are stable under patched conics and which are unstable. KSP could just have served as an example of one such system. By focusing on the orbital mechanics and the theory, instead of just asking a gaming question, this might have been a good question here. As I can see, you already managed to bash out another on-topic question regarding Jacobian coordinates from what you have researched.
The fact that other fictitious situations are on-topic doesn't make this one on-topic. If fiction can be on-topic, then that doesn't make any fiction on-topic here. Star Wars and Star Trek aren't on-topic here, either, despite the latter being clearly about exploring space. That doesn't mean we need to discuss Picards decisions here. Or where the holodeck on the Enterprise-D is (I recognize this is hyperbole, but still).
I don't think the tone of the comments you received is fair to you.
However, you sometimes can rub people the wrong way and I would lie of I said you are always the most easy person to argue with. You have very strong feelings about being right and about what is right for this site, and don't necessarily see the points others try to make and to tell you, which might have led to some penned up frustration with other people.
Especially your meta questions usually have a very clear agenda and try to convince others of your stance, and don't always appear to seek consensus or to understand others. Our last meta interaction where you simply dismissed my opinion because I have less rep than you (or asked less question than you) certainly wasn't very enjoyable for me and felt very disrespectful and did make me stay away from Space SE and especially Meta for a while. I can see that this kind of rubbing people the wrong way might lead to them becoming more aggressive towards you over time. The way you interact on Meta can seem intimidating and not exactly welcoming of others.