So, does it go like this?

- You have your rights, and you should totally feel obligated to them. It's your right, after all!
- Other people may not respect that, or feel you are totally obligated to them.
- There may be a clash. Your right may get denied.
- You should be outraged, because, darn it, that was your right! Do the Denied Rights move.
- You are then explicitly making it known to the table that this is an issue, and that you are planning to do something about. If another player denies my right, simply saying, "I hold it against you," doesn't do much, but it does announce my intent to totally do something about it soon. It's less throwing a tantrum and more adding a layer of player-to-player tension in a safe way, alongside a layer of foreshadowing and events-to-come.

Is that it, or am I way off?

And either way, what in the world does holding it against the MC do? I've yet to play a game where the MC wasn't on our side, a fan of our characters. I don't feel like there's a course of action I could take or an attempt to thwart them, because the MC should be engaging and helping us (within their principles and sense of accuracy to the game, that is).