"I think non-answers or follow-up questions placed there should be deleted by moderators on sight."

upvoted you here, but come now, really? l occasionally comment just to follow an upvote if l really agree with something. Or if someone else answers my question, and l concur. l mean no offense, but is it really that hard to skim past such answers? l'd rather the option of being able to provide them than not at all. And follow up questions are still relevant, so l'm not sure why or how deleting them is useful to anyone who might benefit from the answers.

I disagree. Half of the fun here is the community and hearing what people have to say. Sometimes the answers aren't on point, but that is part of the fun. If this was a strict "Answers Only!" kind of environment it would be the equivalent of just googling your question. People come here for answers to complex questions and to hear different opinions on their question.

Non-answers or follow-up questions are wonderful, and I would probably lose interest in this forum if they were deleted by moderators on sight.

""Answers Only!" kind of environment"

l think this kind of environment is just too restrictive for an allegedly liberal environment like Seattle. l would lose interest too, especially if it meant that we follow any online environment (which by its nature is fluid) TOS to the nth degree.

You guys are missing part of the point he makes though.

"I think non-answers or follow-up questions placed there should be deleted by moderators on sight."

"placed there" meaning non-answers or follow-up questions that are placed in the "genuine attempts to answer area" would be deleted, but there would be a whole other area of the question for just general discussion about the question itself where non-answers and/or follow-up questions are encouraged.

In QL terms: "a general discussion area" could be comments on the question itself (exactly like comments on an answer); and "genuine attempts at answering" would be posts like Jon's above.

But, the crux of the original question still remains, would allowing comments on questions open up too many trolling/passive-aggressive doors?

all the passive aggressive doors are already open in Seattle. In fact, some time ago, the hinges were removed and the doors burnt to warm our cold, cold hearts.

/not entirely sarcastic comment/nonanswer

l think l understand that if there were a general discussion area, l'd be down for that. l just disagree with the proposition that we entirely do away with less relevant comments or follow-up questions entirely.

With all due respect, I don't think this site is meant to be a discussion forum. If you want to abuse the answers section with non-answers, fine, I guess that's up to you, but I'm down-voting you and possibly even clicking "Report" depending on how ridiculous your post is and how mean I feel like being to Megan. If someone asks a question about a day trip to Leavenworth, and the entirely of your "answer" is "What is Leavenworth?" (pure fail--seriously--and just one of many real examples of now permanently-archived noise) you deserve to be down-voted into oblivion and then deleted.

Doesn't everyone hate when people write a "question" that's really just the a thinly-veiled opinion? I know I down-vote that crap. Why put up with it in the answers section?

The Stranger does have discussion forums. It's not very active, and doesn't have the same members, but hey, that's where stuff like that belongs.

Like I said, though, it wouldn't be a big deal if we could edit and delete our answers indefinitely. Then you could post a follow up question as an answer, the asker could answer as a comment, then you could either delete the entire thing or change it to a real answer. Then the asker should delete their clarifying comment.

Really, though, that's just a workaround for actual follow-up questions or comments on the original question. Until we get that, I refrain from abusing the answers section, and I'm going to down-vote people that do at my discretion. No one is going to go back and clean up all the crap from older questions, and there is currently a very short window where the asker could respond and you could edit your answer into something useful, so I try not to add it in the first place.

"If you want to abuse the answers section with non-answers, fine, I guess that's up to you, but I'm down-voting you and possibly even clicking "Report" depending on how ridiculous your post is and how mean I feel like being to Megan."

Do you mean 'you' as in general 'you', or me directly? l admit that l occasionally post irrelevant stuff, but l don't believe l *abuse* that privilege. Then again, you may not be referring to me specifically, which is why l ask.

"I don't think this site is meant to be a discussion forum"

I think this is what it comes down to. There are pros and cons in adding more ways to talk to each other on QL or just leaving the general design as-is.

Well, it would be really nice if we could at least edit indefinitely, and have a way to privately message each other if we want to discuss it further. l'm fine with the current setup, if we only had one or both of those options.

Certainly not you directly, freikja.

I'm probably coming off as really stubborn about this. I don't mind a little humor, sarcasm, or whatever other non-answer in the answers section (and I'm guilty, too, though I'd just as soon go back and delete most of it). Just as long as you're adding *something* to the topic, I'll probably leave the post be without a vote. What gets me down-voting is when people just shoot off an "answer" with absolutely no value, some follow-up question they could have just googled, or "haha that's funny!", and now it's going to live there forever because they didn't edit it into something useful in the very short window that we have to do so.

I think at the end of the day, we agree. There needs to be a place to comment on the question or write a follow-up question without cluttering the answers section and being subject to down-votes. It's just that I'm more easily annoyed when people bend the existing platform as a workaround.

Thanks for the shroom, protosaurus.

One more thing: I don't mean to say that no discussion should occur. That's certainly what the answer comments are there for, and that is arguably the most valuable part of the site. My guideline is don't start the "discussion" until a valid question and a valid answer have been posted. Don't start a discussion at the answer level without an attempt, humorous or otherwise, at actually answering the question. And god help me if you start a discussion by posting a question without asking an actual question.