On a recent question about reasoning the constant existence of ice-walls around a flat-earth there has been this one answer leading with upvotes:
As there is not scientific basis for anything like a flat earth, any explanation will do.
I´d go with: The Elephants, carrying your Earth-disc through space, fart magical freezing gases.
It reads like a comment with a bolted on cheap-let's-go-for-the-giggles answer so it can escape
Not an Answer-Flags. And looking at it closely it really just seems to be a critique of the question, rather than a whole-hearted attempt of answering the given problem.
If it is meant as a serious answer, then to my understanding it is coasting close to the Be Nice Policy, especially the point about:
Whether you've come to ask questions, or to generously share what you know, remember that we’re all here to learn, together. Be welcoming and patient, especially with those who may not know everything you do.
It doesn't even try to take the premise of the question seriously, but rather does down with it as something not worthy of receiving proper answers.
If it is not meant as a serious answer (which is how I understand it), then it clearly clashes with the Answering Guidelines:
Answer the question
Read the question carefully. What, specifically, is the question asking for? Make sure your answer provides that – or a viable alternative. The answer can be “don’t do that”, but it should also include “try this instead”. Any answer that gets the asker going in the right direction is helpful, but do try to mention any limitations, assumptions or simplifications in your answer. Brevity is acceptable, but fuller explanations are better.
Answer well-asked questions
Not all questions can or should be answered here. Save yourself some frustration and avoid trying to answer questions which...
...are unclear or lacking specific details that can uniquely identify the problem.
...solicit opinions rather than facts.
...have already been asked and answered many times before.
...require too much guidance for you to answer in full, or request answers to multiple questions.
...are not about worldbuilding as defined in the help center.
If the answerer wants to imply that the question is bonkers, then why not VTC it instead of writing an unhelpful answer that mainly mocks the question and thus the querent?
Another point speaking against the question not being answerable would be the very good and serious answer by Cort Ammon
If the answerer is not happy with the amount of detail given by the querent, as can be understood from the first phrase of their answer, then they should instead comment on the question asking for clarification.
The comment history shows that the answerer did not request any such clarification so we have to assume that at least the first part of their 'answer' must indeed be an attempt to comment, using the answer button by accident(?)
The Answerer has 2k+ rep at the time of this, mine, post. And subtracting the 80ish rep they got from 8 upvotes and a downvote still is near the 2k rep mark - that means they have should have been on the site long enough to not simply drop plain provocations. Which is why I move this issue to the meta..