*Deleted by user*
In my group I was given the joking title of "Rules Lawyer of Justice". This is because while I have rules lawyered on my behalf and others, just as often it was on the DM's behalf (including times that it went seriously against my own interests).
However, I recognize that in the end the DM's word is law. Admittedly, in my younger days somewhat less so.
My point is that, in my opinion, healthy rules lawyering is about fairness. It's about playing a game where we can have realistic expectations of what the rules are. And in fairness, there are some DMs who sometimes forget that their goal isn't to "win the game", and the RL exists in these cases as a buffer between them and the other players, helping to nudge the DM back in the direction of arbitor rather than adversary. (If the DM wants to win, then their victory is a foregone conclusion.)
Like anything, it can certainly be taken too far or misused. However, when used with tact, intelligence, and maturity, I don't think there's anything wrong with a bit of rules lawyering.
The same reason "Rules Paladin" would be a negative term...Why Rules Lawyering Is a Negative Term
That is an interesting approach. So, from my perspective, I would rather tear off all of my toenails and fingernails with an ice pick than run the 3e or PF ruleset ...
And with that in mind, I run my games with the general idea that, "Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered." Sort of a meta-rule. See, the trouble with having everything specified (or, as you put it, clear and unambiguous) is that I want players to be delighted with their own sense of adventure, and I don't want them to feel that everything must be put there for them to do it.
I tried that, but my players still didn't like Weapon v Armor Type adjustments.
There is no rule I miss more than Weapon vs. AC adjustments, and it is one of two rules I'm forever tempted to port forward from 1e - the other one being casting times in segments.
Sadly, there is only so much granularity you can stuff into a single system before the costs start outweighing the benefits.
and extremely punitive to monks
I had a guy (in 4E) that said they had a power that "ate" enemy action surges. He never had his books on him and hand-wrote his version of the rules that he would show the DM. When he was finally caught he just looked sheepish and said "well nobody ever questioned it" which was completely untrue.
That's a pretty big claim!
I'm not doubting your antipathy, mind you.
I think you may underestimate my hatred.
Do we ever go wrong when we group people together, slap a label on them, and then sling hatred at them? It makes it so much easier to be rude when you can depersonalize it!