I think it is time to have a discussion about the amount of challenging the frame of the question that we have on this site; a follow up to Possible new 'non-reality-check' tag?
So what is challenging the frame of the question? Well, the best explanation of this I know comes from the RPG.SE meta, How do we handle a desire to challenge the frame of a question.
We have had a number of meta posts on this matter, and so I think its time we discussed site policy. Answers on a post(card :P) please.
I think this is a practice we want to avoid, because it can be frustrating to ask a question and only receive answers of the type: "your premises are faulty".
However, it might actually be useful. The OP may not realise where the fault is. So the challenging answer might be more valuable to the OP than a standard answer. It happens. Alternatively, the OP might be aware of the flaw(s) (and thus get more frustrated), but it might help to clarify or refine the question, not to get further challenging answers.
Of course, it might just be useless, especially if it's of the third type.
In my opinion, challenging answers might be left, provided that
Dude, you're so wrong!
In conclusion, I do not think that enforcing a no-challenging answer policy is recommended.
Note that it is up to the OP at the end to select the best answer, and not by the voting of other users.
As others have pointed out, it can be useful if done correctly, and by correctly I mean, constructively. To put it as simply as I can, an individual simply stating, "NO!" adds no substantive value to the question and, doesn't provide any means for the author to restate or reshape their question. The author learns nothing.
If however, an individual states something along the lines of, "No, but..." in order to provide an alternative or states, "No, and here is why..." to explain the faults in the question, they are then contributing to the author and the question by allowing the opportunity to learn or adapt.
I don't see a problem with challenging the frame of a question. It can be beneficial if it's done right by explaining the flaws of the question.
Also, by done right I mean that the answerer should also answer the question as it was asked. One should avoid answering the question that he think should have been asked.
A variation of bilo's answer is to
WB is different from many (most) areas in that the questions don't relate to real things so much and are themselves ideas and works in progress. If a rough idea can inspire something interesting in terms of plot or design, then it's still worthy as a straw-man, and interesting and entertaining to the members.
I would like to make it site policy that we should not be challenging the frame of the question in answers. The fact that the situation you are in is impossible is not relevant to the question in these cases, only what happens from now.
Comments are for clarification are fine, that is what comments are for. 'Do you know this wouldn't happen?' is a perfectly valid clarification request if you are unsure. It isn't however appropriate for an answer to say 'your question is bad'.
The appropriate response to this being done is to downvote the answer and leaving a comment (if you so wish) saying something along the lines of 'OP is not looking for a reality check', or for answers that only say 'this wouldn't happen' flag for deletion as non answers.
Obviously, none of this applies to question who ask 'Is this possible?'
I think that overall, challenging the frame of a question is a great thing. Challenging the frame of questions can cause unanswerable questions to change into answerable questions.
However, even challenging the question needs to be done correctly. You can't just go and say "this question is bad because ___" - I think it's better to about it saying something more along the lines of "Why/how do you explain _____". This method provides a chance for the question to be edited into one that fits the sites scope.
Of course, this isn't to say that you should question the question in an answer - I think a comment should suffice to make your point. I disagree with Bilbo in that regard; challenging answers should never be left since they're rarely actually answers.
Unless the actual answer is just "no". In that case, go ahead and put that in as your answer.
What if I postulate a democracy where a group of people were enslaved but gave their owners 3/5 of a census credit for population weight. Since representatives are apportioned based on population weight, this means that the votes of freemen in areas with high slave ownership are effectively worth more than the votes of freemen in areas with low slave ownership. That's a ridiculous proposal. Why would voters in low slave owning areas agree to it? Yet that is the actual, real behavior in the early USA.
Many times when people point out problems with the frame of the question, what we are doing is pointing out weak areas in the background.
A simple solution to this problem of disproportionate representation would be for the North to secede from the South. Then the North wouldn't be subject to the South's whims. But that's not what really happened. The House of Representatives was overwhelmingly controlled not by the South with its disproportionate representation but by the North.
Why was there a 3/5 rule? In the original thirteen colonies, seven were northern and six were southern. The seven also had more free population. So if the natural rule of only counting free population would have held, then the North would have held control of both houses in Congress. The compromise gave the South control of the House and the North control of the Senate. Later that would switch, the South would use control of the executive and an even split in the Senate to block undesirable legislation.
Knowing the historical background and actual facts of the case would allow people to give realistic analysis of what was going to happen. Without that, people would be likely to give the wrong path forward. Instead of having the South secede, they'd have the North secede. Expecting good answers for badly framed questions is unrealistic.
In theory, these things should be handled via comments, but in practice, comments simply don't allow enough explanation.
I've been making a lot of comments here, so I thought I'd try and get my thoughts on this into an answer.
I'm gonna go a bit Platonic on this, so be aware that this proof has its flaws.
Now, imagine a question that is bad. The asker shows insufficient research effort, and/or is not being clear. Should you post an answer to this question, detailing its flaws? Of course not; you should try to improve the question through minor edits or by asking the asker what they mean and/or what they've tried. After the question is improved, you can answer it, confident in the knowledge that both the question and answer need not be modified in the future, and will be useful to people who find them.
To me, a question with a bad 'frame' is just another bad question. Thus, based on the above paragraph, you should not respond to it until the flaws have been fixed. Note the recent how does light work without mass question; the asker had a flawed knowledge of how light worked, and instead of everyone coming in and answering that light didn't work that way, they tried to explain in the comments and put the question on hold; I believe that is how it should always be.
If you really want to challenge the 'frame' of a question, you can ask and answer your own question about it. Then comment on the user's question, linking to your question and its answer, and suggest they edit their question in light of this new information. If they're not actually asking about their frame, you have no right to write an answer about it on their question.
