I don't mind yah Pongo, but I do have a question.
Say the Question is asked.
Person 1 answers it, its wrong.
Person 2 gives the answer they think is right, citing the wrong answer from person 1 as the reason for their post.
Is that ok? I don't mind the hardline QA format as long as if I feel someone is completely wrong I can present an alternate answer without being slapped down. If not then it is kind of pointless as a fora since it becomes who can answer first and if that person says the planet is made out of yogurt then oh well, too bad.
It really depends on what you mean by answers wrong. Let me give an example.
Q: What shape is the earth.
A: Its flat
If you responded to this answer that the earth is really round because of reason X, Y, and Z, then you would be debating in Q&A.
If you responded by saying that the grammar and punctuation of answer is all wrong then you'll probably be slapped with a derailing or low-content warning.
If you responded by saying that you think it's flat but clarify by saying that of course there are mountains and valleys that don't' make it perfectly flat, then you'll be fine.
Here is another example:
Q: How do radio waves work on a flat-earth?
A: Radio waves are really just invisible unicorns.
Now, if that were the literal answer someone gave, then we would warn them for low-content posting. But lets assume that the invisible unicorn theory (IUT) is a respected flat-earth theory to explain radio waves with data and reasoning to back it up. If you start arguing that's not how radio waves work (remember that we are pretending that IUT is a genuine theory) then you will be debating in Q&A. This is so people can get earnest flat-earth responses without the clutter of people saying "You'll not get an answer to this," or, "Flat-earther's will say it's from turtle flatulence," or lengthily debates on small aspects of an answer.
However, you are more than welcome to at anytime start a new thread in FE Debate to discuss IUT.
Does that clear things up?