t is perfectly reasonable to like 3.5 or any other system, and people can do so without being jerks. The problem is that as the rules try to account for every possible scenario in order to make games more homogeneous from one table to another, they begin to select for players who approach the rules as immutable law. This type of selection favors min/maxing, rules lawyering, and a heavy meta game focus on right vs wrong ways to do things. Even this is not really a problem if that is how everyone in the group enjoys their experience, but it can create players who are ill prepared for games that do not function to such specifications. It encourages a competitive approach instead of a cooperative approach from some players.
Yes, exactly!
I started playing and GMing D&D way back in the Holmes boxed set era. There have been a lot of changes to D&D over time that go beyond simple differences between the rules in various editions.
Back when I started, the basic rules were very minimal (and sometimes contradictory), so pretty much everyone interpreted, altered, and/or added to them for their own group(s). It was highly encouraged by TSR (primarily through their Dragon magazine), though not everyone read that. It was pretty common for GMs and players to not know anything about the company, the writers, the designers, and their game philosophy. AD&D expanded the rule set quite a bit (and the number of contradictory rules and loopholes, even), but the general DIY ethic was still the predominant one.
Once you got to 3 and 3e, though, there was a shift in tone, both from the company itself and within the player base. The rules became more complex, and (in my experience) rules lawyering became a bigger issue in general. "Optimized builds" became a bigger thing, mainly because more complex systems make that more of a possibility. I can't speak for everyone, but in my experience rules lawyering became a bigger issue in most places. I started seeing more conflict between DMs and players when it came to attitudes towards RAW and RAI, too. I got the sense that Wizards of the Coast were starting to put a little more emphasis on the idea of D&D being played in a similar fashion from table to table, too. It was the introduction of league play that really cemented that idea, though.
Game design theories, meta arguments, RAW vs. RAI, character optimization, and a lot of other things changed radically when the general public moved onto the Internet en masse, in the late 90s. A lot of the rancor, heated arguments, absolutism, and other unfortunate things that are issues today were not that common in the pre-Internet era, when people had to either talk to each other or write books, columns, letters, etc. It is far more than a doubling effect - more like a 100 times (or more) plus.
This situation makes things very difficult for Wizards of the Coast. Since D&D is the most well-known and most played rpg, people tend to view it as a system that has something for everyone. It isn't a generic system, though, and a lot of people who play it remember a time when fewer people thought that the rules were cast in iron. There is often a big difference in expectations and general philosophy between people who played in the pre-3e days, those who got their start with 3e/3.5e/Pathfinder, and those who are coming into the hobby after a lifetime of playing videogames.
The designers of D&D should probably just pick a direction and go with it, since designing the most popular rpg in the world to try to suit all of those groups is very problematic. WotC is motivated the keep presenting the game in that way, though, to maximize their profits. The reluctance of many players these days to learn more than one rpg ruleset probably influences that, as well.
