DracoSuave, if by "not ignoring what the rules say" you mean paying attention to the actual words used, then I agree.
If, though, you are suggesting that there is such a thing as "what the rules say" which can be identified indpedently of the context provided by other rules, by the purpose for which the rules are to be used, by the intentions that the authors possessed and that are clearly evident in what they have written, etc, then I disagree.
I believe it is a mistake to regard the rules of a game like D&D to be as robust under interpretation as the law, given the tremendous disparity in resources and effort devoted to the drafting, interpretation and adjudication of each. Given this, and given that the notion of a context-and-intention idependent RAW does no work in the law (other than to draw our attention to the actual words used in the legal text in question), I think the same is true of the rules in D&D.
If this means that "the rules" are unstable - that different players have their own best conception of what it is that the rules require - well, that's life. In the absence of an authoritative tribunal, that's what will happen!
In such circumstances, it is quite legitimate - desirable, even - for one person to point out if another person appears to have overlooked a relevant piece of text. It is also quite legitimate, although sometimes perhaps less desirable, for one person to debate interpretations with another, and to explain what reasons s/he takes to favour his or her reading.
But for person A to describe person B's departure from A's favoured reading as a departure from RAW, in circumstances where B just as much as A has made a diligent attempt to interpret the text in light of relevant constraints upon interpretation, is in my view going a bit far. That's a legitimate tactic in litigation - there's a lot at stake, after all, and rhetorical tricks are one way of trying to win. And there's also an authoritative arbiter - the court - to whom one is trying to present the cogency of one's own reasons ahead of the reasons being offered by the other side.
But on a D&D messageboard there's not a lot at stake, and there's no independent arbiter whom we're trying to persuade.
Better, then, in my view, for people to explain in an intelligent but pleasant fashion what reasons they see as supporting their interpretation - which may well include not just elements of the text, but the play experience that it delivers - and for others to respond to such explanations in a similarly intelligent and pleasant fashion!
