The problem here on this site is that too many are pushing for a particular moral stance, rather than dispassionately looking at things from a philosophical standpoint. DON'T answers should be highly suspect for this reason alone.

@Sentinel it's not a question. It's an angry rant about an answer.

@Catija which points specifically in this Q make you think he's "angry" about the answer?

@Catija. Sorry to say it but it is your comment that is the angry rant. The question is very reasonable, even important to the long term viability of this site. If, as a moderator, that is your approach, it does say something about the potential quality of content here.

@Fermiparadox Repeatedly calling it a "terrible answer" is usually a good sign. We really prefer that questions on meta be at least somewhat neutrally phrased and be questions that are general with specific examples. This question is specifically attacking an answer and then trying to get us to make general decisions based on the one answer. That's backwards.

@catija as I said, calling the answer "terrible" is a very safe statement because OA hirself gave the answer only to tear it apart, as I said. Akin to a "straw man", an answer of deliberately faulty construction made to be easy to defeat. Calling it an angry rant is unfair and ascribes motive, which is never constructive. What's more your responses seem to disregard the "be nice" and "assume good intent" rules. All this is beside the point: the question here is how we have civilized and fair discourse about these things.

@Catija why would calling a terrible answer terrible be considered "attacking" or done by someone angry? Do terrible answers exist? Of course they do. So (correct me if I m wrong) but your objection stems from believing that people are very sensitive and a (annoying yet useful) "you are wrong about X because Y" must be phrase with great care as to reduce those negative feelings to a minimum.

@Harper Are you referring to the solution she gave as an option but suggested against? The way I read it; that was basically part of the frame challenge. They provided a solution if the OP really wanted to do as was asked. They pointed out the remaining flaws in that approach and explained why they would still avoid doing it. A frame challenge supplemented with a direct answer is a really good approach IMO. It answered the question, and suggested that "Don't do it" is still the better approach.

@jmac You misundertand my question. This question is not a surrogate place to discuss "that" answer, and I think putting particular answers under a microscope away from the answerer is unfair. I thought that's what comments are for, but mods stridently said otherwise in that case. So this here question is then "how do you have that conversation, then?" Once this question is answered, we will have a venue for your comment.

@Harper Don't use a specific question as an example if you don't want to discuss it. I think the answers here cover in good detail how you "have this conversation", i.e. you don't really in the SE format unless they are willing to take it to chat. The point of the system is to self-regulate the answer quality. If you think that system is inadequate, perhaps you can propose a new system in an appropriate meta. I have my doubts it will get much traction though, this system is well established and seems to work.

@JMac i do want to discuss it. I want to know where. In part, I am certainly asking why the comments of that answer was such an incorrect place for it, and perhaps mods need to explain that properly and professionally, and in particular why they singled out that question for action when it is routine in so many other questions. The action to me seemed ...targeted... And that definitely calls for some explaining. Honestly I feel like there's a secret here that everyone knows and no one wants to explain. I'm not the only one. Why secrets?

@JMac but yes, your point has validity and yes I was referring to the advice of go ahead and do it followed immediately by prognostications of doom if you do. It seemed that and the "don't" was the bulk of the answer. Had they been footnotes and a practical solution dominated the answer, obviously no complaint. There certainly were practical solutions, others gave them.

@Harper Many people (myself included) agree that there are other options, but the answer very clearly detailed why those were not endorsed in the answer. I also agree that those other options were worse than the "do nothing" suggestion. Comments trying to tell them that they are wrong for not endorsing alternate methods don't belong in comments. It in itself is its own answer. If you're "suggested improvements" conflict with the answers intent, you've done all you can for that answer, and should consider posting your own. This is nothing that hasn't been said already.

@Harper wrote "I thought that's what comments are for, but mods stridently said otherwise in that case." While I completely and utterly disagree with you about that answer by Tinker, which I think was a great answer, on the other hand I agree with your premise here, and I support you completely on what you're saying the purpose of this question is for. Makes me want to change my down-vote to an up-vote, except then I feel like I'm agreeing with what you say about Tinker's answer.

@Harper That is: I strongly disagree with your original opinion, but I also strongly support your right to provide it - and as a polite comment on the answer, nonetheless.

@aaron I can work with that. I have tried to genericize this to the extent possible, because it shouldn't be about OA, and I hope to reduce that effect as much as possible. It must not be about personalities, because there's way too much of that here already and that is unfair to the volunteers and creates a chilling effect. Let me see what I can do with an edit.

@JMac wrote "perhaps you can propose a new system" That has been done to death. Lots of people acknowledge that the system only just barely seems to work. I agree there should not be an entire discussion in the comments of the answer, but an initial "This answer is incorrect because..." comment should be completely OK, and maybe 1 or 2 responses depending on the situation; if it becomes much more then someone can continue it in chat. As someone who disagrees with Harper's original opinion, hopefully my respect of his rights is well taken.

@Aaron If you point out what you take issue with, and the answers disagrees with the issue, it should end the conversation. There isn't really a point to discussing it in comments, when at that point you are proposing an answer that the original answerer doesn't want. Disagreement itself does not require a comment. Stating why you disagree isn't necessarily going to be deleted; but when it turns into an opinionated back and forth; it becomes clear that the comments are not productive. In reality though, if you disagree you might as well downvote and either move on, or propose an answer.

@JMac I suspect many users do not have faith in the voting system to post an answer of their own; if Harper had posted an answer, with high probability it would be targeted with a bunch of down votes, even if his answer were a reasonable one -- and the problem with that is that it's not an indication of the quality of his answer but rather with the structural issues with IPS SE, in its current state ...

@D.Hutchinson Sounds more like a problem people have with the community driving the site. I'm not really sure how else to address this. OA shouldn't change their question because someone disagrees, and the comments don't have to be full of people arguing over it. Just based on the conversations I had seen in those comments, it's likely that any comments that didn't support the answer would have wound up buried anyways due to the SE method of collapsing comments based on score. On any SE site, going against community consensus has inherent risk; arguments in comments don't resolve that.