The request is a bit odd since it’s kind of like asking a bartender to never spill any drinks. Put a little too directly it’s kind of like telling a person to be careful when they haven’t showed any sign of carelessness.
Mistakes will be made and sometimes that might warrant the slightest, least intrusive nerfs to prevent the player base from converging on some build that lets them just cheese through the entire game in invincible god mode.
To somewhat echo your suggestion under different wording though, I think a reasonable request is one to strive to look for every single reason not to nerf, to just let things stand when possible, and if all else fails and a nerf still seems necessary, make sure it’s merely a nerf that diminishes effectiveness somewhat and not like a change to the design of a skill or item so as to render builds using them slightly less effective, not to completely change the whole appeal of the skill or item. To me a nerf is a total failure if a lot of the people using the skill or item abandon it after the nerf in favor of something else, even if other people now desire the item (the latter case would suggest that the item or skill’s design changed too much to be rendered completely undesirable to its previous owners and wasn’t merely a nerf). It’s a success if the same people still continue to find the item/skill acceptable even if it’s slightly less powerful.
Buffs are similar but they’re never quite as intrusive. Yet if someone created a build and every single skill or item around them got buffed but not theirs, and suddenly their relatively-powerful build is one of the weakest builds out there as a result of all the surrounding buffs, that too ruins the build in a sense. So even buffs are something I think are best applied sparingly, though not to the extent of nerfs.
The way I see it is that this game doesn’t bother with security of a sort that prevents cheating, item duping, etc. It doesn’t focus that much around player economies and doesn’t need to worry about putting every single build out there on reasonably even footing. That would bore a lot of people if that were the case, since this game really appeals a lot to hardcore build designers and optimizers. Their whole intent is to find builds that are superior, and an extreme game that has no builds that are inferior to others or superior to others would take away that entire incentive.
The biggest reason to seek balancing here IMO is fun and diversity, to maximize the range of build ideas that aren’t goofing around that really work well. If one build screams out as absolutely superior to all others in every single way imaginable, then the main reason that’s really bad in this game’s scenario to me is that a lot of players might converge on that idea (either discovering it themselves or copying) and then cheese through the game, making them get rapidly bored with its content as opposed to continuing to exhaust other ideas (which a lot wouldn’t if they were clearly inferior to this one godly build).
Such an extreme OP case would, for many, ruin the appeal of all alternative options. A game which seems to have infinite possibilities but quickly makes it apparent that only one or two are extremely effective doesn’t really have so many. As I see it, the only reason to buff or nerf anything is to continue to give players the sense that there are viable alternatives which aren’t clearly superior or clearly inferior so that the most effective ways to play the game don’t end up quickly getting exhausted, so that even players intent on making the most powerful builds don’t give up as a result of the game making it too obvious that they’re going to fail if they don’t use some OP build/gear that someone else already discovered.