"Rulings not Rules" is just another way to say Rules as Guidelines, and boy do I wish that phrasing had been around in 2014! You take what the rules say about a thing (as much or as little as is provided) and decide if what is written works (and makes sense) for your current scenario, or if you can extrapolate it so that the rules abiding adjacent to the scenario still work in the greater context.

Then (and ideally, only then) if you're still confused and your table hasn't been helpful in resolving it, should you come to a forum like this and ask for others guidance on the issue.

I find it fascinating that people say you can't win an argument on the internet; or that trying to change someone's mind is a fools errand. I hadn't put too much stock into 'RAW only', but I came into this thread with a particular mindset, even if I didn't know it, and have come out with a different one. I'm probably a bit more 'centrist' in my viewpoint on this matter; I prefer to have solid grounding rules to walk on - but I'm ok with extrapolating reasonable rulings when all around is quicksand. I do think that trying to convince someone on the negatives (WoF doesn't shed light because it doesn't say it does) is a bit foolhardy. Stop trying to make Fetch a thing! Just say 'in my ruling, since it doesn't say it creates light, it's a lightless wall' - that's fine. Saying 'if you cast WoF in a pitch black room, it remains pitch black, that's RAW' - well, you'll be sad then when I rule otherwise I guess. And that's ok too, but heating elements glow, so my Wall of Toasting emits light, damn it.