This question already has an answer here:
I think we have a bit of a problem with designer reason questions on the site.
A little history: designer-reasons questions were our attempt to save "what is this rule for" questions. Those were being answered entirely with rank opinion and causing those questions to be closed as opinion-based. The logic was that the only way to actually know what a rule is for is either direct designer commentary, or extrapolation from clear textual evidence. Otherwise it's all effectively guessing. However, as with game-recommendation questions, the set of rules we've built around these to try to maintain them is not being effectively upheld by the community.
We have 10 Meta questions about designer reasoning questions: https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/designer-reasons
And we have 66 of them on the main site: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/designer-reasons
That's an about 15% "Need to take it to Meta" ratio.
More and more, we're having to delete answers, close questions, protect questions, take it to meta, delete long comment threads, and so on for these questions. On the last 10 designer-reasons questions, there are 10 total deleted answers. Most require editing to clarify "NO SPECULATION," add the tag, correct people asking "can I speculate" in comments... For some reason, these questions are providing a extremely disproportionate amount of required moderation and intervention as compared to normal questions.
We've gone over the "right way" to answer designer intent questions a bunch on meta and we've been trying to just set good examples with questions in the hope that the community in general will start doing the right thing (both in using them right and in using their rep-powers to effectively moderate issues with them).
This isn't happening.
Last time "it didn't happen" in this way we had to get rid of game-recommendation questions. We aren't going to heavily mod-police any specific type of questions regularly; it makes users sad and burns our limited pool of effort. If a kind of question is going to be a problem on average, we'll just ax it instead.
Does anyone have any ideas (besides "keep doing what we've been doing") to make "Why is this rule the way it is" questions from pulling disproportionately subjective answers?
I'm afraid some of the problem is that some of them are legit inquiry, and others are "I don't like this rule justify it to me." I can't figure out a way to sift the two apart (though I know them when I see them) and it's the latter that are most problematic. Or the third category that inherits a bit from both, which is "this rule seems different in this new edition, but surely it's not! Tell me it's not!"
In the end, unless you're designing a game or house-ruling something and wondering about its balance, I'm not sure what actual, practical problem these questions help people solve - and that's coming out in the answers.