[To be clear, plenty of good questions are posed: "what are the implications on _____", or "what are the _____impliations?" I've got no problem with those. It's the un-scoped "what are the implications if everyone were a foot taller" question that I'm thinking about.]
Pure idea generation?
I think so.
This thought was inspired by this question about a space stationat L4, which asks for "the implications of" putting a space station in orbit at L4 or L5.
I think "what are the implications of" is unanswerably-broad, and so VtC'ed it.
As of this writing there are three answers. One focuses on speculative geopolitics. One treats each of orbital mechanics, space weather, collisions, and shielding. One is majority-devoted to supply logistics.
I could easily imagine answering the question of how long it'd take crews to cycle and the effects of that isolation. Or an answer based on the technologies required to pull it off and the spin-off benefits I expect to redound to everyday people. Or an analysis of how much space stations at L4/5 might actually help the identified purpose--identification of NEOs--and some cost-benefit analysis of that risk-reduction. (Related reading from a guy who's been up there.)
(At this point let me note that the quality of the existing answers isn't an issue--its their diversity I'd wished to highlight.)
That all of these answers could be "good" answers, yet so unrelated as to be incomparable, suggests this is a problem with the question. And it's a well-known problem: idea-generation. And the problem with idea generation isn't that it leads to lots of answers, it's that it leads to a breakdown of the voting system. We can't really compare the answers, so voting isn't working the way it should.
I suggest that "what are the implications of..." should stick out as a red flag for readers, in that it invites idea generation by construction. What are your thoughts?