A possible problem
First of all, I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone, I am only trying to make the site better.
Having only been a member on this site for a few weeks now, I am concerned by a perceived trend in answers to D&D 5e questions. Having done some digging, I suspect that this trend may be in part due to people answering 5e questions like one would answer a 3e or Pathfinder question. The trend I am referring to is that of starting from a rigid "No" stance unless something is explicitly stipulated in the rules. The 5e rules simply do not cover as much as 3e and Pathfinder, and that is by design, in an effort to lessen the importance of rules in favor of empowering the DM to do it the way that is best for their group.
Guilty until proven innocent?
I realize that sometimes "No" is the only good answer, but it seems that many answers get written and up-voted that assume that the answer has to be "no" unless you can find where it explicitly says in the book that the answer is "yes". I do not believe that this logic can work in 5e, there are just too many things that were purposefully left out or left vague.
I worry that this tone will lead to frustrating budding new DMs and players that don't realize that the rules are their to guide, rather than stifle their creativity. I fear that by approaching answers to 5e questions as if they were dealing with the more rules-heavy 3e and Pathfinder questions could give new DMs an erroneous belief that they are supposed to run 5e just like 3e, which causes problems, since the rules for many situations simply are not elaborated on in 5e.
With 5e we are seeing growth in the tabletop community that we have not seen during any previous edition. A seasoned DM may understand that "Rule 0" is always in effect, but I worry for the new DMs and players who may get the opposite idea from the experts on this site and think that "DM fiat" is wrong.
I know that the people who submit answers are doing so because they legitimately want to help and that nobody wants to foster bad practice on purpose, but I worry that harm may be being done by accident. We need to be careful of those things that we may unintentionally imply by the tone of our answers
The core of the issue?
What I am seeing is probably only a symptom of the real issue, if there even is an issue.
Is the problem people not sticking to the system and letting 3e experience color their 5e answers?
Is it the way the questions are worded that are limiting answers to more strict interpretations of rules?
Is it an assumption that everyone already knows that a DM can overrule anything that they don't think is right for their group?
I am including this section at the request of commenters and to improve clarity, it is not personal against any of these users, who I am sure have plenty of other good answers on the site. The following are from a few of the more recent "Can I" questions about 5e.
This answer from Szega places unnecessary restrictions on bonus actions, but at least reminds the user that rulings can fix it. Compare with encryptor's better answer to the same question.
This answer from NautArch implies that there is no way to use the rules to allow a Large sized creature to use a Medium sized weapon as if it were a lighter weapon sized for them, going as far as to claim that "Size doesn't matter" when it clearly does.
This answer from Val claims that RAW says "No" but then explains that RAI says "Yes".
This answer from Erik is a great example of a 5e "No" answer done the right way. Compare with the answer from disobedient tiger to the same question. Luckily, in this case the better answer got more votes, but the other answer still got a lot of votes.
This answer from Val illustrates both striking an initial negative tone and taking an overly restricted view of the RAW. The answer by Joel Harmon to this same question is also unnecessarily restrictive, though it is better because it at least submits potential alternate avenues of approach.
This answer from chaoticgeek presents a case where the answer treats a unique spell as all other spells. The rule cited in the answer probably assumes that the overlapping spells in question are producing the same effect, which is not the case in the question being asked.
This question illustrates the type of person I am afraid might get the wrong idea from overly restrictive answers to 5e questions. Can you see how someone like this may see "RAW says no" and think that their hands are tied?
I hope that these examples help to illustrate the points I am trying to make.