First, the tweets we often reference to, Crawford, Mike Mearls, etc. are used to support our answer. Usually it goes in a way like this:
A designer has clarified how this certain situation should be handled
A designer has clarified how a thing should work, and my answer is built upon the consequence of the clarification
A designer has clarified how ...
It’s a “fork” of D&D 5e: based on similar fundamentals, but having split from the main branch of 5e development and thereafter developed independently of 5e. In a sense, it is not all that different from Pathfinder’s relationship to 3.5e (though, of course, the history in Pathfinder’s case is a little more involved).
A fork is its own thing, whatever ...
Well, of course upvotes are at anyone's discretion, they can upvote because they like your clever use of headers.
However, you are making a false dichotomy between "format" and "content." If someone posts a question or answer that is not readable, then it's not good content, regardless of the research the poster put into it.
Let's look at your Qs and As.
It's fine for answers to use them as support, but generally they shouldn't rely on Crawford tweets alone
Jeremy Crawford explains the change here on Twitter:
It looks like the Invoke Tweet of Jeremy Crawford feature has been nerfed. Official rulings are now found in the Compendium only, with this account merely providing a "preview" of possible future ...
Sure, add the tags. Tags are free and useful.
If we have three questions about Ultramodern, that’s two more than are needed to justify that tag.
We have plenty of tags that started out their existence on just one question, and never gained more than a handful. There’s no harm in creating esper-genesis, and it might or might not grow, like any new tag.
First, see mxyzplk's answer, which addresses the feedback to the questions and answers you've posted so far on the site.
Second, RPG.SE can be confusing to newer users, so it may help to address some potential questions going forward. I've compiled these based on the content of your question here:
1. What kind of site is Roleplaying Games StackExchange (...
We should do nothing.
Unclear rules often have multiple valid interpretations. These interpretation are not "house rules" (modifications to the rules) per say, but valid rules in their own rights.
Assuming that one of these rule interpretations is correct, then asking the logical conclusions of this assumption, makes for a perfectly valid question that is ...
This is a Q&A site, we don't have a blog or other places to post work or statements. May I suggest one of the forum sites, see I've been told my question is better suited to a forum, but where should I go?, or a blog.
For feat evaluation, go one feat at a time: tier list not On Topic
Your question sets up a "tier" system as being too broad. Hard to scope.
Which feats are good? Which feats are bad?
Well, good or bad for what?
Without identifying what a feat choice is for, or what its purpose is, scope suffers.
You also ask:
Should one just ask about specific feats ...
Make a new general question and answer it - then mark those other questions as a duplicate of that instead
As Kamil Drakari said in their answer, most of the questions marked as a duplicate of the wizard spellbook question are not exactly a duplicate of the wizard one, but they are very related to one another. I agree with Kamil that the aspect of the ...
Sometimes a good comment is a bad answer
First of all, to answer your stated question: both content and formatting are things which can add (or subtract) from the quality of a post. They are both things that will help an answer be correct, clear, and convincing: if an answer is all three, it is more likely to be well received (in the form of upvotes). It ...
Nothing should be done
Answers can use whatever sources or means of support they think is best for their answer. Voters then decide how good the answer is based off of everything in the answer.
Crawford's tweets being demoted from "official" really has no bearing on the ability for someone to cite them. They were never binding rules to begin with and now ...
As I have stated - I am looking for published source material for the Forgotten Realms in 5e that would support the unofficial assertion of a designer that FR paladins (as opposed to run of the mill 5e paladins) do in fact have to have a deity.
The question is not a duplicate as it is looking for information about the Forgotten Realms setting in 5e, not the ...
Your first question is probably fine
Bounded List questions are on-topic and this question would by definition be bounded. It's probably not a great question and I don't know how popular it would be with vote (I expect at least a few downvotes) but it shouldn't get closed.
The version of the question that asks for a website is definitely a shopping ...
This would be very vulnerable to being opinion-based.
There are certainly feats that some of us consider S-tier (or whatever ranking you'd like to make the highest), like Lucky.
However, even with Lucky, and especially with the feats in the middle tiers, the question becomes "what is the criteria that you judge these feats on", because otherwise, my game ...
A minor note: you can access D&D Beyond content without owning it if you're in a campaign on D&D Beyond with someone that owns that content, has a Master Tier subscription, and has content sharing enabled for that campaign.
That said, I assume that's not what you're asking.
For individual items, monsters, and spells, just find them in the ...
This sort of question should be marked duplicate, but they should point at a different question
The question currently being used as a duplicate target for those questions is strictly not about the same thing; it is explicitly asking about "copying spells into a spellbook" and not the natural spell progression, while several of the duplicates don't mention ...
Create a new tag specifically for this content
I think this topic has generated enough content to deserve its own tag. Honestly, I'm not certain why a tag for WGtE wasn't created in the first place. If there was a good reason for it I might revise my opinion, but for now they should get a new tag, possibly more than one.
Tags that we should consider:
All information Relevant to the Question Should be on Stack Exchange.
Information necessary for the question, such as the actual details of the class, should be in the post and not a linked document, for a couple reasons:
You may delete the linked document at some point in the future, this would make the question be unable to be understood by future ...
It depends on the question
Questions directly related to the ruling
Questions that reference a ruling, whether it be by a DM or by someone from WoTC,and have a question directly associated can very likely be answered. We are given a constraint, the ruling, and we can answer if the question is directly related.
Questions asking to apply that ruling to ...
You provide the questioner with a genuine answer. You may choose to inform them that those are not official rules, merely rulings made by an expert. You use your best judgement to determine the tags used.
As Jeremy Crawford is by this decision treated as any other normal person, Their guidance, reasoning, and advice should be as rigorously treated as any ...