A brief history of the [rules-as-written] tag (though all the discussion is ~2 years old):
- What, exactly, is the RAW tag for? (A good summary of what the tag's for and other meta Q's related to it)
- The [rules-as-written] tag is a good tag, but we've made it sick. Let's cure it (newer, but I don't understand what it's saying)
- The [rules] tag has just been burninated (again), let's blacklist it (a "rules" tag is not useful and is blacklisted)
- Are our implicit-information tagging practices becoming a problem? (somewhat related, though that Q's about several things)
I have noticed the [rules-as-written] tag is becoming extremely common on the site. We are up to 570 uses of it, are getting more than 1 new one a day on average, and it appears to me most of them are using it as a pure synonym of [rules] as in "I'm asking a question about some rules" - which is not useful per the third link above. Of course you're asking about the rules; most questions not about gm-techniques or problem-somethings are. Of course questions about the rules should be answered with rules citations or at worst table-tested rulings that meet Good Subjective, Bad Subjective criteria. Answers that just say "well this is what I might do" should be downvoted and potentially deleted as bad answers, whether there's a rules-as-written tag on the question or not.
The tag is adding nothing to the vast majority of these questions. It's really only useful for fringe questions that intend to say "look I know that this is a pedantic loophole but come on and work the logic puzzle with me won't you"? (e.g. commoner cannons). I'm not sure that's tag-worthy; having any tag starting with "rules" becomes a default thing someone thinks they should add to a question because it's a rules question.
Here's the recent ones.
Clarification of Blink Mechanics, or "Should Someone have Punched in my Sandwich?" - "How does this spell work, there was disagreement at my table?" Slam dunk rules quote answer. No real "RAW" lawyering required.
Can one enter Leomund's Tiny Hut from below? - "How does this spell work, there was disagreement at my table?" As the spell doesn't say, all the answers are supposition and arguing from other perspectives anyway.
Can monsters be summoned to appear in mid-air to drop onto enemies? - "My PCs are trying an exploit is there a rule that says they can't?" Slam dunk rules quote answer. No real "RAW" lawyering required.
Hostage Situation: Do you miss, hit the hostage, or chance of either one? - "We aren't sure if there's a rule." Sadly the answers tend to jibber jabber about related things but a clear answer to the stated question is hard to find in there. Several of the answers are definitely not pure RAW.
Can I use Relentless Endurance after failing the Relentless Rage Constitution saving throw? - Slam dunk rules quote answer. No real "RAW" lawyering required.
Can you take a Squire at 3rd level? - two rules conflict, which way to rule? Almost not RAW by definition, as the RAW is trivially in conflict.
And so on. I don't see what value [rules-as-written] is adding to these questions - zero from a searchability and SEO point of view clearly (it doesn't appear in the search keywords analytics mods have access to, though those are limited), and I don't see any in terms of scoping the question or answers as it's being used. 50% of the RAW-tagged questions above have non-RAW answers and the OP seems fine with it.
If you look at a similar roundup of "just plain rules questions" they seem to be being answered identically. Simple (or even not so simple) rules questions get rules quotes, where there's no clear RAW they get designer tweets, (hopefully tested) table interpretations, etc. I contend if you took the questions tagged RAW off our front page, plus all the rules questions not tagged raw, took off the tags and mixed them up you would not be able to discern any difference.
If we're just tacking it on and the community's not e.g. enforcing no answers that aren't pure RAW on those questions (and there's no indication on any of them the OP objects to the non-pure-RAW answers), I contend the tag has effectively become [rules] and is superfluous and should be burninated and blacklisted.
Your thoughts are welcome.