Quite true, however that is going to be true irregardless of the level of transparency Staff presents as a model between players and Staff. There are always going to be people offended by the most genteel treatment, simply due to a difference in perspective and perception. Most people are going to have a problem with authority, because they have a problem with authority in their day to day life. When presented with an 'authority figure', it's typically a loose association with 'all authority figures', which is a problem Staff runs into (but can ameliorate by not feeding into it and presenting themselves as a peer with a different job/responsibility).
Being very clear about what is possible for players to accomplish in the game world setting is very important, and I think often too wishy washy. Things like 'building new buildings' and 'starting new clans' and 'complex intuitive craft system' and these very modern sort of 'sandbox' concepts need to be discussed, even if they aren't a part of your game, because people expect them to be a part of every game.
By being upfront with what your game is not, you will have an easy billboard to point to and say 'look, we said we aren't going to have a complex crafting system, but we can look into it if you have ideas you want to submit'. You can also work towards adding those features down the road, but make it clear it isn't in place yet -- false advertising or just wishy washy advertising creates seeds of discontent with players, IMHO.
For instance, in ArmageddonMUD, there was a period of time where Players' PCs could build new buildings in the game. It took a while, but it was possible, especially for Nobles say in Tuluk after the 'Deluge' that wiped out half the city. Then, Staff took the stance of 'no new building', especially around the time of their Armageddon 2.0 release (which is concurrent with the time of heavy building in Tuluk). Presenting this double-sided image is confusing to the playerbase -- If one player can do it, even though you said you aren't pursuing new building projects with players, it's incongruous. Staff later changed their tack, saying building projects were 'possible' but shouldn't be the focus of your PC/Player. This made more sense, but still wasn't exactly true -- Some Staff encouraged building projects with their PCs, while others discouraged it, some made it really easy to accomplish, others impossible. It was (and still is) all over the place, with no actual Staff-facing policy in place about how to handle a building project.
This not only appears disorganized, it sends a mixed message to a player about what they should expect when interacting with Staff (in general). Sometimes, they get someone sweet as pie and willing to hear their requests. Other times, they get a cantankerous git who has no interest in helping them, and in fact wants to take the time to make them feel bad. Again, the 'expectation' when dealing with Staff should be getting in line to the DMV, except maybe your DMV clerk is passionate about what you are doing (trying to make their game better/more engaging) and that bleeds through their interaction.