So my question with respect to spell requirements got locked and one of our moderators decided to throw this gem of a line in there:
" not asking honestly about the practical situation it’s about. "
First: The question has been open for one day and generated some confusion, largely in part because it was spawned off of a debate over the interpretation of Wish. This is entirely irrelevant to the question I asked, and I don't appreciate being called dishonest either directly or indirectly when I'm simply looking to clarify what are general rules clearly described in the book (as cited in my answer to my own question.)
Second: That I would have potentially or even likely used the answer to support a different argument is entirely irrelevant. The question was asked and the answer provided did apply to all spells equally and generally across the board.
So Third: Why did you intervene in something simply because there was a minor disagreement over the clarity of the question? I specified using an example of something simple, and was willing to go further to demonstrate how it would apply to any and all spells, not just Wish specifically. And rather than letting the community respond to the clarifications it asked for, you locked the question completely.
Locking this question that's less than 24 hours old simply because there's disagreement on it is absurd. Is that not the point of questions? To generate answers that sometimes conflict due to interpretations? Are comments not meant to help clarify the answers provided when there may be conflicts?
You may have noticed I didn't readily accept my own answer, leaving it open for other answers that may demonstrate a different interpretation that, and I can't stress this enough, were required to cite the rules as part of the question I asked. That none of the other answers did this is the only reason I summarily rejected the interpretations provided. It was a stipulation of the question that answers be sourced.
For the record, I will argue adamantly when I have a supported answer and cite the rules to support the interpretation. If your counter is, "You're wrong," with nothing else to back it, I will summarily dismiss your counter. That which is asserted without evidence is dismissed without evidence.