The second is that Class::Std and some of the others do some things that I don't trust to work reliably and not interfere with some other tool.
Interesting. If Class::Std or "some of the others" interfere with some other tool, why do you blame Class::Std and some of the others, and not the other tool?
And finally, I don't use them because, despite the name, they are the exact opposite of standard. All the Perl literature teaches programmers how simple hash-based objects work, and any OO Perl programmer can be expected to know it and read that code.
First of all, "inside-out objects" as a name doesn't suggest anything about being standard or not. And if your argument makes sense, we'd still be using the indirect object notation, because that's how we used to teach programmers in the literature. Views change over time, and documentation isn't static.
Encapsulation? I'm giving them the source!
The point of encapsulation is that you don't need to read the source.
I guess you don't bother to use strict, or lexical variables, either, do you? Why would you, you have the source!