(I am setting this up as a separate question to focus on this issue alone, without being mixed with other stuff.)

It has recently come to my attention that at least some moderators consider frame challenges in comments to be disallowed. As a site user for 2 years 9 months, this came as a complete surprise to me. If this is policy, it certainly was not communicated well or much enforced.

To eliminate ambiguity, what I am describing as a "frame challenge in a comment," is any comment saying that the scenario proposed by the question author, about which they are asking their question, is not feasible or would not quite happen as stated in the world proposed by the question author.

Relevant information:


Everyone does this. For example, in response to a recent question, 7 different people offered frame challenges in comments. Judging by that, practically no one is aware that this is a rule.

The official comment guidelines

I was linked to https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment for policy information about what is allowed in a comment. This page says nothing about frame challenges. This is what it does say:

You should submit a comment if you want to:

  1. Request clarification from the author;
  2. Leave constructive criticism that guides the author in improving the post;
  3. Add relevant but minor or transient information to a post (e.g. a link to a related question, or an alert to the author that the question has been updated).

Comments are not recommended for any of the following:

  1. Suggesting corrections that don't fundamentally change the meaning of the post; instead, make or suggest an edit;
  2. Answering a question or providing an alternate solution to an existing answer; instead, post an actual answer (or edit to expand an existing one);
  3. Compliments which do not add new information ("+1, great answer!"); instead, upvote it and pay it forward;
  4. Criticisms which do not add anything constructive ("-1, see previous comments you scallywag!"); instead, downvote (and provide or upvote a better answer if appropriate);
  5. Secondary discussion or debating a controversial point; please use chat instead;
  6. Discussion of community behavior or site policies; please use meta instead.

I will refer to these points as "should-2" ("leave constructive criticism"), "shouldn't-5" ("secondary discussion"), etc.

Now, a frame challenge in a comment fits "should-2" (constructive criticism), as it prompts them to change their question either to revise the scenario they are asking about, or to add context to the question clarifying why the scenario is possible in their world. It seems positively prescribed by these rules; "yes, do that."

It is actually difficult for me to imagine any form of constructive criticism that would fit "should-2" and is not a frame challenge. Can anyone give a real example?

JBH's Primer of frame challenges

I was linked to this primer of frame challenges, apparently with the intent of justifying a prohibition of frame challenges in comments. However, in it, JBH talks about a frame challenge in an answer that should have been a comment, and was at that time indeed converted to a comment by moderators! JBH then says:

Finally, I propose this warning: frame challenges are not an excuse to abuse Stack Exchange's answering system. A frame challenge must be more useful than a comment or it must be posted as a comment (see previous paragraph about reviewing the answer). This warning is not meant to be anything more official than the community-approved existence of this paragraph.

By saying this JBH is explicitly saying that frame challenges that are not up to a certain standard of usefulness should be posted as comments! Again we have community guidance that frame challenges positively should be posted as comments. Let's call this the JBH-rule for later reference.

(A note: in the question JBH's thread links to, apart from the frame challenge that was converted from an answer to a comment, I count 3 other frame challenges in comments.)

"A frame challenge should be an answer, and whatever is an answer should not be a comment."

This argument is the only one I was given that makes any sense. It is supported by "shouldn't-2." However, a one- or two-sentence comment saying there's something inconsistent with the question author's scenario is not and should not be an answer. It does not reach the standard of usefulness of a full answer, and therefore, by the "JBH-rule," it should positively be posted as a comment.

So, why?

How widespread is this idea that frame challenges should not be posted in comments? Where did it originate? It was definitely not widespread in 2019, when JBH gave his proposal to put less-useful frame challenges in comments, and at that time the community approved. And if indeed the moderators are set on this being policy going forward, how can it be effectively communicated to users? (Does someone have privileges to edit the comment guideline page?)


4 Answers 4


The problem here/Question being asked is where does a critical comment stop and a formal frame challenge start?

I've written a number of Frame Challenges that started out as mere comments "I think this is a problem, have you considered X?" - Given an imaginary question of:

"How can my worlds Legal system be 100% perfect"

And someone puts a comment "Have you considered people lie?" - Is that a Frame challenge or a comment? As it stands, it's clearly just a comment.

Could it become a Frame Challenge? Absolutely.

To me - the difference is that a Frame Challenge is a fully fleshed out and realized answer. It could be because the answerer has specific knowledge or interest about a subject or that they have a perspective that they think could be valuable to the question.

Whereas a Comment, even one that could be considered a Frame Challenge in-of-itself, is brief and points to what the casual observer might consider a gaping hole in the premise of the question.

I think JBH's point is mostly valid, but there are times when a comment that is asking for clarification... is in itself, an Answer - again - my hypothetical question and comment - pointing out that people lie is an answer of sorts - and depending on how you interpret it, could be considered a full answer or merely a comment e.g.:

Interpretation 1: There is no way to have a 100% perfect system where the inputs into that system are inherently flawed, ergo the premise of the question is false.

Interpretation 2: This is the problem that you will need to narratively overcome in order to have a believably perfect system. You need to outline a method by which lies and deception can be 100% accounted for.

I've not read the other question - but from the context it seems there was a lot of back and forth - Discussion is generally frowned upon (but sometimes it can be worthwhile)


Definition of a frame-challenge

To know whether a frame-challenge can be put in comments or not is to first know what a frame-challenge is. So let's agree on a common definition before we go forward with this answer.

To me, frame-challenges are attacks on the initial premises, goals and intentions of the world that surround the question.

In other words, if you state that the world behind the question has flaws that makes no logical or real sense, this is a frame-challenge. More precisely, if you state that one premise contradict with another premise, this is a frame-challenge. If you state that one premise makes no sense in regards to one of the worldbuilding intent, this is also a frame-challenge. By worldbuilding intent, I mean anything that relates to what the querent wants : Be realistic and grounded in science, use a lot of magic, follows steampunk technology tropes...

Here are two oversimplified question examples leading to frame-challenge :

Question A : I have pink elephants in my world, how can I make it so I have no elephants in my world?

This is heavily prone to the following frame-challenge : Removing elephants one way or another answers the question, but it means you have to break the premise "I have pink elephants", meaning you haven't actually answered the question with all its premises. The contradiction here is so obvious it is ridiculous, but you'd be surprised how often this can happen! People sometimes don't see that they ask for to prioritize.

Question B : In my sci-fi story, I have a space ship with 3 helicopter rotors. Where should I put my rotors so that my space ship travel from planet to planet?

Here, you'll (hopefully) notice that helicopter rotors are not notorious to move ships in space. Since the querent doesn't explicitly state how ships move in space with only helicopter rotors, this contradicts with the implicitly stated premise that it should follow most sci-fi tropes (ie. that rotors don't move ships in space). This often happens when the querent under-detail their question, or lacks knowledge in the domain they are asking.

Make the difference within each frame-challenge

Now we have the basic definition in, we need to distinguish three main types of frame-challenges, depending with what they're being blended with. Let's call them frame-challenge answers, frame-challenge questions and purebred frame-challenges:

  • Purebred frame-challenges only tell "this is not possible" and basically only that.
  • Frame-challenge questions tell "this is not possible, but I may missing something from your world, can you help us understand how this is possible in your world?".
  • Frame-challenge answers tell "this is not possible, but if you changed that this could be possible that way". They still tackle down the world's flaws, but change the initial conditions so they eventually answer the question to an extent.

Let's take our example question B above, here are the three kind of frame-challenges to this weird rotors in space issues :

  • Purebred frame-challenge : "Helicopter rotors need to be in air to move. They don't work in space, so you won't be moving your spaceship from planet to planet by using them."
  • Frame-challenge questions : "As you tell, this is not possible since rotors need a medium like air to work. Are you actually asking how to land and take off on and from planets, using thrusters for the rest of the trip? Or perhaps in your world the space is filled with some substance, like aether?"
  • Frame-challenge answers : "This is not possible as rotors need air to move around, and there is none in space. However, if you replace rotors with rocket thrusters, you could move from planet to planet. You'll need to put them here and there to move correctly from planet to planet."

Where can you put which kind of frame-challenges?

We now know and now have all elements to answer your question :

  • Purebred frame-challenges should be only limited to comments and you should use them sparingly and be respectful with the querent. Indeed, we're not here to refuse the querent's world and just tell "it stinks, go away!" (what most will feel when reading your challenge), but to help them improve it. Guiding them to relevant sources and principles is almost an absolutely absolute necessity to be helpful and polite. Also, explicitly telling it's about this specific premise and not the whole world helps a lot... And is generally more accurate anyway. Purebred frame-challenges fall mainly in "adding relevant but minor or transient information on a post" and "leave constructive criticism that guides the author in improving the post", from the comment guidelines. Purebred frame-challenges should never, ever be put in an answer, because you risk to snatch their world from their hands, which will make them lose interest in actually improving them.
  • Frame-challenge questions should be left in comments. Their aim is to both request clarifications from the author and to improve the post, from the comment guidelines. They should not be posted as answers since answers are not the place to request for clarification. They are often made along with closure votes, since you lack details or/and cannot prioritize premises and goals yourself.
  • Frame-challenge answers should be used in answers. Since you are answering the question, you should... Well, just answer it! Be careful to avoid frame-challenge answers entirely if you're removing too much from the querent's world and especially worldbuilding goals to answer : The more you stray away from the question, the less you actually answer it. Mileage may also vary if the answer part is too short to be an official post, but those cases are quite rare.

Warning : Don't over-presume implicitly stated elements of the querent's world

Be careful when you evaluate the question. You should remember that not everyone want a realistic world, even though it is a common goal among authors. E.g. : A real case I had is people complaining that my bear men cannot -emphasis on "cannot"- sleep in winter because real-world bears don't always hibernate. But they are not real-world bears, and having my bear people being stomped on just because they're not following the real-world was frustrating and is still making feel bad today.

Therefore, put sometimes water in your wine and don't overextend your frame-challenges through multiple comments. What you think the querent world is is not necessarily what it is, nor what they want it to be. And well, ignoring repeatedly what the other wants gives one of the worst after-taste an artist can have, especially when there is no absolute reason they cannot do it.

Special case : Questions of the type "Can X work?"

I've seen a lot of users making this mistake with "can X work?" questions, questions that fall in the tag. Indeed, in this case the querent is explicitly asking to find flaws in their premises and intentions, so purebred challenges should be posted as answers, not comments. For instance, this question :

Question C : Can I have pink elephants with helicopter rotors, in a world where only blue and yellow, 4-legged elephants exist?

Here, purebred frame-challenges like "You can't have pink elephants in a world with only blue and yellow elephants" are perfectly valid : because they answer the question, they cannot be put into comments anymore (from guidelines, comments should not answer the question).

Ideally you'd also offer the tiniest change to the premises to make it work (e.g. : "Just paint your blue elephants in pink and attach rotors to them!"), that's almost always more helpful than the challenge alone, but this is not necessary if you explain things well!

  • $\begingroup$ I think the differentiation between the different 'types' of Frame challenge is actually really good - and perhaps with some tweaking could/should make it's way into the Wiki $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 5, 2023 at 21:53

Confusion Clarification

I think there might be some confusion on terms here. Specifically, the term "frame challenge" itself. In terms of WB.SE, a frame challenge is anything that seeks to upend or replace one or more essential premises of a querent's world with a different premise. This could come in the form of an off-hand comment; it can come in the form of a more thought out and expansive comment; it could include links or supporting data and span several comments; it could take place as a back and forth discussion, either in comments or in chat; or it could be a properly written out response to a question.

The linked query about questionable moderator actions deals solely with the latter: a frame challenge that was constituted as an answer in comments and thence written up as a proper response.

For the purposes of this question, we'll examine some potential exemplars of comments and answers and also discuss what might or might not happen if such a frame challenge is issued.

The Marquee Question.
The short answer to this query is yes, obviously frame challenges are "allowed" in comments. There are caveats, of course, and the querent has already essentially answered his own question:

Any frame challenge that falls under Should #1 or Should #2 is unquestionably okay as a comment. As TDL indicates, a comment could be seeking clarification but also could be seen as a challenge to the frame. "Did you consider that people lie?" This challenges the premise of a perfect judicial system, but is not a proper frame challenge (an answer) because it's point is more to elicit a clearer understanding of the situation from the querent.

If the commenter bumps that up even a little, by discussing how a real world justice system handles deception or by offering a way this could be done within the fictional world, this could still be seen as a comment. I probably would gloss over it. But I would not argue if someone responded to this comment by saying "hey, that's a good frame challenge, you should post it as an answer." This happens with some frequency!

If the commenter is spending more than 20 or 30 seconds discussing the hows and whys of deception, legal (and shadier) countermeasures, delving into psychology and so forth, then there is an issue. This is clearly no longer a comment, and is simply turning into an answer. If the text now spans two or three comment boxes, the respondent should reconsider and simply do the work to make it a proper answer. I would make that request myself, especially if it's really good!

The Policy.
As we can see, it is easy to make a comment that is clearly a comment and it is just as easy to muddy the waters by making it anything in between a mere comment and a fully explored and annotated response.

The policy that guides decision making is quoted in the above question: If you're engaging within the scope of the three Shoulds, then you're golden. It's a comment! People might still ask you to write it as an answer, but you are not obligated. If what you're writing falls under Not Recommended #2 (writing an answer or offering an alternative solution), then the commenter needs to make his comment an answer. If someone suggests this to the commenter, he really should take the suggestion seriously. If he complains and someone else swoops in for the score, well, the idea is fair game!

All actions have consequences. If you write a minimal frame challenge as a comment, likely nothing will happen. The querent is not obligated to accept or even consider your comment. Your comment will eventually be buried. In many forums, comments are deleted (they should be deleted here more frequently!) and you would risk losing a potentially useful answer.

If you write a comment in the grey area, there is a (slim) chance someone will come along and complain that you're writing answers in the comment section. I honestly think that if causative and JBH hadn't had a little spat in comments, none of this would have occurred. Causative's presumed frame challenge comment would have been properly ignored and lost to the ages. Monty never would have written an answer, and all of this discussion in Meta would never have come to be.

If you write a clear and obvious answer, there is a better than slim chance that someone will suggest you turn it into answer. If you don't, someone else might come along and flag the comments. Moderators might or might not act on the flag. Ultimately, your comment will be ignored and lost to the ages.


To sum up, frame challenges are allowed in comments, so long as the frame challenge itself is obviously a comment. Since the frame challenge itself is an acceptable answer type in WB.SE, and at times a useful one, no frame challenge comment is immune from a request to convert it into a proper answer. If the community asks for this, it becomes an obligation for the commenter to do so, simply because the community thinks it is useful. Ideally, a frame challenge will be issued as a full answer.

SE comments are not meant to be permanent. Ideally, users are supposed to self-delete their own comments when no longer useful! How many people actually comb through questions looking to see if their comments were acted upon? (Admittedly, I don't! Except on very rare occasion.) I'm of the opinion that, after a month or so of relative question inactivity, all comments should be wiped.

You (causative) seem to be very passionate about this issue of frame challenges in comments. That's fine! Just keep this point in mind as you argue your position: anyone can come along and flag your comment as not needed or mark it for moderator action. The mod can delete it without warning.

As a final commentary on the querent's tone of communication in this Meta question: please be aware that SE rules are not matters of law, and WB.SE policies do not have the force of local ordinances. People bend and break rules all the time; policies are not uniformly accepted or followed by the community. Breaches of policy are not uniformly addressed by moderators and there are often conflicting reactions within the community.

There is no police force here to uphold the law. Our moderators are expected to uphold SE rules and policies. They don't have to uphold community guidelines or policies, though they usually do. We can't and don't expect them to be ever vigilant to catch every single minor infraction that occurs and punish the miscreants by breaking them on the wheel. No one wants to engage with such a tyrannical forum, and I honestly don't think any of our Mods want to be such tin hitlers.

  • $\begingroup$ You're presuming a lot about the comment in question which you have not seen before it was deleted. What I said was, paraphrasing, "This is not feasible because we can't build a system capable of shooting down bullets even in ideal circumstances when the system is down on Earth close to the bullet, and putting it in orbit makes that much, much harder." That is not a complete answer, it is a single point of constructive criticism. $\endgroup$
    – causative
    Commented Dec 5, 2023 at 8:46
  • $\begingroup$ JBH's objection at the time was not about the length of the comment or that it would be suitable as an answer, but just that he thought I shouldn't be challenging the author's premise that way. $\endgroup$
    – causative
    Commented Dec 5, 2023 at 8:59
  • $\begingroup$ Although I do recall other people responded later before everything was deleted, and I responded with some further points explaining why the system is not possible. I'm sure I mentioned the number of satellites that would be needed (trillions), and possibly later I gave another response which I forget. No individual comment in that discussion would have been suitable as an answer, but combining them and adding a lot more explanation might have. They weren't posted together, though. $\endgroup$
    – causative
    Commented Dec 5, 2023 at 9:09
  • $\begingroup$ @causative --- 1. "This is not feasible..." That's not even a frame challenge comment, let alone an answer. It's more a statement of what real world tech is capable of. 2. Generally speaking, we don't (and shouldn't) deny or challenge the OP's world. Especially in comments. It is possible that JBH read your comment as trying to make a frame challenge, in which case I'd agree with JBH. As I said in my response, you can challenge in comments, but it is much more useful and constructive to do so as an answer. 3. The more points you make in comments, the better off you'd be posting an answer! $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Commented Dec 5, 2023 at 17:58
  • $\begingroup$ (1) Some users including yourself see it as "challenging the OP's world." Many, many users - myself and now 8 different users who posted comments about how it's not feasible as stated, plus the many people who upvoted those comments - interpreted the OP's world as an extrapolation from modern 21st century warfare, as he implied in the post, and therefore it is helpful to tell him what is and isn't possible as a realistic extrapolation. You should not impose your interpretation of OPs post on everyone else. If the OP has left something ambiguous, the OP should clarify. $\endgroup$
    – causative
    Commented Dec 5, 2023 at 19:08
  • $\begingroup$ We should not assume the OP's world completely ignores speed of light delay if he has not said so. We shouldn't assume the OP's world has sensors that are literally billions of times better than ours if he has not said so. We should not assume the OP's lasers are magically immune to atmospheric blooming unlike real lasers if he has not said so. It is up to the question asker to say how their world is different from the real one. I and many others thought the most likely interpretation is the OP mistakenly thought his satellites would be feasible without magic. $\endgroup$
    – causative
    Commented Dec 5, 2023 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ @causative --- 1. Yes, this has become a trend on WB. A most unwelcome trend. 2. As far as "imposing my interpretation", that is a false premise. The foundational idea of this forum is simply to assume the factuality of the OP's underlying world. As it relates to this question, we can differ on the OP's intention and can seek clarification as needed in comments. However, the OP clearly introduces the fact that her world's (cont) $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Commented Dec 6, 2023 at 3:11
  • $\begingroup$ (cont) -- tech and science are far in advance of ours: Imagine a constellation of satellites equipped with sensors capable of identifying any object posing a risk to humans and targeting it with lasers to neutralize it. The constellation covers the entire globe 24 hours a day. Seeking for clarification or pointing out potential issues, such as you seem to have done, is normal in comments and not even at issue. 3. As for what we should and should not assume: generally speaking, we positively assume that the querent knows far more about her world and everything in it (cont) $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Commented Dec 6, 2023 at 3:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (cont) -- than we will ever know. If the querent says there is a constellation of satellites with X, Y and Z capabilities, we assume that as axiomatic. It's not our job to point out that we can't do this in the real world. That's what Physics.SE is for. No. On the contrary, our job is to take what the querent tell us about her world and use that information, combined with real world science and tech if necessary, to devise a creative and useful answer. There are some exceptions: queries that specifically seek a "hard science" answer are in fact placing a limit on answers based (cont) $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Commented Dec 6, 2023 at 3:16
  • $\begingroup$ (cont) -- on the current limits of scientific knowledge and technological advance. That limit would be found in the question's tags. This query does not require hard science; therefore there is no expectation that the underlying world or science or tech are limited by real world science. 4. I would argue that you are perhaps assuming too much from silence. In fact, in WB.SE, we actually positively assume those things about the querent's world. Based on the text of the query, we definitely assume better sensors and ways of countering atmospheric flowers. (cont) $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Commented Dec 6, 2023 at 3:21
  • $\begingroup$ (cont) -- This is the only way our community can actually function as a creative and artistic community within the framework of SE, which demands highly focused, fact based answers to focused queries. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of how WB fits within the broader scheme of SE? Essentially, if I ask about fluid dynamics of water at STP on Physics.SE, I should expect responses to be roughly the same, I should expect a barrage of equations that describe the queried phenomenon (e.g., the sealed water maze). Here, in WB, if I ask a query about the fluid dynamics of light water (cont) $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Commented Dec 6, 2023 at 3:26
  • $\begingroup$ (cont) -- as it flows through a region of low atmospheric pressure, are you going to tell me that the phenomenon of "updraught rain" is impossible? Nope. In this forum, it's all on you to assume that I am addressing a real phenomenon, a real fact of the fictional world, and you have to work with that. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Commented Dec 6, 2023 at 3:29
  • $\begingroup$ It's on the OP to describe what if anything would make their system possible in their world. What they don't say, the default is to assume it's like the real world. They said "laser," so if they don't say anything else this means an actual laser limited by speed of light, not a magic one. $\endgroup$
    – causative
    Commented Dec 6, 2023 at 7:24
  • $\begingroup$ @causative -- Almost. I agree with the first part, but it really is not for us to "assume" anything. Especially when the querent is unclear. We run into all sorts of problems when we do this, ranging from hurt feelings to questions that can't be fixed because we were too eager to run with our own assumptions, and now the querent is left with a bad question. I'm not sure what your point about lasers is. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Commented Dec 8, 2023 at 19:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I've only read the few last comments, and I'd like to correct something @Causative : If we have to assume something, we should assume it is following the general tropes this kind of universe usually has, which will sometimes contradict with the real-world. To retake your example, if someone says "I'm making a sci-fi/fantasy universe like Star Wars", don't think the lasers coming out of the blaster guns they made will necessarily go as fast as light (ironically). $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 9, 2023 at 11:39

What is worldbuilding?

I need to start with this because there are nearly 8 billion people on Earth and that means there are nearly 8 billion definitions of what worldbuilding is. I do not have a perfect answer, but in regard to this Stack, worldbuilding is the development of the rules for an imaginary world of the querent's own creation. But...

It's incredibly common that what the worldbuilder is doing is trying to hybridize the rules of their imaginary world with the Real World.

Which means it's tempting to tell worldbuilders that their imaginary world won't work because it fails Real World physics.

Your comment was not a Frame Challenge

I responded to your comment because what you did was tell the OP their question was invalid because it didn't meet Real World expectations. You didn't ask for a clarification - you told them their idea couldn't be done.

And trying to justify your actions by claiming after the fact that it was a frame challenge makes things worse.

The querent that started all this has, as of writing this response, 159 reputation points. That's a new user still unfamiliar with the rules. They deserve the benefit of the doubt unless the question is so far off-base that it'll cause bigger problems to leave it open.

What could you have done?

You could have asked if the user wanted the question judged by known physics because real Life cannot be an overriding limitation on any question unless specifically requested. We are not allowed to assume that request was made by default simply because the querent (a new user!) asked what the impact would be on Real World warfare.

What is the purpose of a Frame Challenge?

Frame challenges are NOT intended to tell people their questions, ideas, or rules are wrong. Frame challenges ARE intended to help the querent understand when the premise of the question might be based on a faulty assumption. "The premise of your question has a problem because of X, but you can resolve it by Y." This is specifically important when querents are trying to hybridize their world's rules with Real Life.

The goal is to help the querent build their world, not to tell them why they can't.

Even a Frame Challenge must meet that expectation.

Is it wrong to answer with a Frame Challenge about the Real World?

Not necessarily. At best such a challenge identifies a real conflict in the querent's effort to hybridize their world rules with the Real World. At worst, the respondent's confusion is simply ignored by everyone else but those who were equally confused. It happens. I've done it myself.

But whenever anyone is tempted to raise a Frame Challenge on the belief that the querent's question is inappropriate because it conflicts with the Real World they should sit back and ask themselves, "why am I on a website with the goal of helping people build imaginary worlds?"

Stop pontificating and answer the question: should Frame Challenges be allowed in comments?

Heck no.

You've linked in both your Meta questions to the comment rules that state no answers should be made in comments. Yes, it happens on every stack. Yes, every stack has little choice but to let it happen otherwise Mods would spend 100% of their waking hours policing comments.

But that doesn't change the rules....

No. Frame Challenges (like any other answer) do not belong in comments.

  • $\begingroup$ And what do you say about your own words, "a frame challenge must be more useful than a comment or it must be posted as a comment"? $\endgroup$
    – causative
    Commented Dec 11, 2023 at 19:11
  • $\begingroup$ @causative I stand by them. But you had the audacity to tell a new user that their question was inappropriate for reasons that this Stack, in policy, doesn't accept. There was no frame challenge and you didn't make a constructive comment. I regret that L.Dutch deleted the comments rather than pushing them into chat. It would have made this discussion simpler, because you're fighting a battle you've already lost. I will offer you no other comments unless you open a chat room. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Commented Dec 11, 2023 at 20:49
  • $\begingroup$ You stand by your words that less-useful frame challenges must be posted as comments, and also your words that frame challenges do not belong in comments? You do not see the inconsistency here? $\endgroup$
    – causative
    Commented Dec 11, 2023 at 22:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .