I mentioned somewhere in the earlier fudging thread that I thought the real divide was between a "wind it up and let it go" approach, in which the DM is prohibited from deviating from the RAW once play starts and the rules clearly and independently define what the results are, and a "do what needs to happen" approach, in which the DM has the discretion to deviate from the RAW in order to advance the first-order goals of the campaign as the group defines it. I don't think that either approach is necessarily wrong, but I'll submit based on our discussion so far that that distinction, which essentially is "rules vs. fun," is valid.