What is the difference between not answering a question and posting a frame challenge?

Question

What is a frame challenge?

We require answers to adress the question. However, some questions may warrant answers questioning whether what the OP wants, really is the best choice. These answers are generally of the form:

Don't do [x], do [y] instead.

This is generally referred to as a frame challenge. This is really close to something like this:

Do [y], so you don't have to do [x]

The latter is generally viewed as problematic, but it is clear that the two are pretty closely related.

So what is our stance?

There has been some going back and forth on whether or not we allow frame challenges and what exactly constitutes to a frame challenge. This is an attempt to get this straightened out for future reference.

There seems to be a meta consensus that frame challenges are allowed, but at the same time this site struggles a lot with answers that don't (exactly) answer the question asked. There is a very thin line between posting a frame challenge and posting something that doesn't answer the question at all.

Therefore it is important to figure out where exactly we draw the line. What does a frame challenge need to have for it to be considered a suitable answer to the question?

Answer 1

Here is what I see necessary for a good frame challenge on IPS:

• A clear explanation of why the author disagrees with the frame of the question.
• A presentation of an alternate frame
• An explanation of how the new frame will solve the OP's problem

The best frame challenges I've seen on IPS have all been similar to this answer from ArtOfCode. The general form of this is:

Q: How do I do X politely?

A: You can't do X politely. Doing X is inherently seen as rude because of A, B, and C. Instead you could do Y, which is polite and will achieve your desired outcome because of D, E, and F.

Answer 2

I think a good frame challenge answer has two key components:

• Thoroughly explains why the proposed action isn't a good one

  You need to explain to the OP why you are not going to be giving them an answer to the question they asked. If you can explain why you believe it's a bad idea to go with the requested approach, that gives credence to why you feel you have the authority to suggest a different approach.

• Offers a new IPS solution with reasonable explanation as to why it's better than the requested approach

  The explanation for the new IPS solution needs to explain how it will yield different results than the requested action, and why these results are going to be better for the OP.

See https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/a/11070/8936 for a frame challenge that fits both of these criteria.

What is (still) not an acceptable answer:

"Don't do A. If you do A, you're going to look like a bad person."

This answer tells the OP not to do A (where A is the requested solution), but doesn't offer a different answer. Since there's no IPS solution present, this is not an answer.

"Just do B. Your boss will thank you later."

This answer completely ignores A, without explanation, and writes their own action. This should be invalid, as it doesn't acknowledge the original question, A, at all.

Answer 3

Where exactly does NAA end and a Frame Challenge begin?

A frame challenge is accepted as form of answering on this site where someone answers a question in a wholly different way the querent never asked for. The important factors here are that it still answers the question and that our site considers it an acceptable way of answering. Putting it this way makes the answer to your question quite obvious, If it answers the question and is in a format accepted as an answer - or in other words, if it is a proper frame challenge then it should not be flagged as NAA. If however, the answer fails to adequately challenge the frame of the question and provide a solution then it would not be classified as a frame challenge to begin with, and you would decide to flag as NAA at your own discretion.

So the line between NAA and a frame challenge can be clearly defined if you just ask the question: "Is it a frame challenge?"

I feel that this meta answers that quite clearly. - For IPS, a nice way of putting it is: A frame challenge solves the question's goal in a different way than how the question was framed to be answered.

Lets look at your two examples + one from BlackThorn's answer:

Don't do [x], do [y] instead.

Do [y], so you don't have to do [x].

Here is how you could do [x] (with solid explanation), however, I advise not doing [x] it at all (with reasons)

With perhaps a little imagination, we can imagine a question that clearly prompts for [x] as an answer, in the first two, the answerer writing the response suggesting to do [y] instead of/to avoid [x]. Both of these would classify as a frame challenge, and flagging with NAA would not be appropriate because each of them technically answered the question with Y. However, there are a lot more reasons than just NAA that might make an answer delete worthy. Frame challenges may be the exception to the rule that requires answers to "answer the question" but that fact does not make it exempt from any of the other guidelines for acceptable answers - what do we expect from an answer & how do I write an answer. Answering a question with "Don't do [x], do [y]" seems to me like it is clearly a "try this" solution, since answers should contain adequate explanation about why it is a valid solution, and in the case of a frame challenge they would also need to provide explanation as to why the frame of the question is being challenged. This is different to NAA, but should still be edited or deleted. On the other hand, the third example we always refer to the question in the context of how it was framed to be answered [x], never challenging the frame with an alternate possibility [y]. It is important to note here that saying "Don't do [x]", is a don't answer, not a frame challenge because explaining how to do [x] or why they should not do [x] is all still in the frame of [x]. It is possibly a common misconception due to the fact that a large amount of frame challenges start by telling OP not to do it, however, they only become frame challenges when they introduce [y], a solution that was not in the frame of the askers question, and that they did not ask for/address. That being said, "Don't" answers such as our third example can still classify as great answers, they are simply not frame challenges.

So what is our stance on frame challenge answers?

Frame challenges should all be assessed individually the same as any other question. If it answers the question by challenging its frame and offering an alternate solution then clearly it is an answer (!=NAA) however that in no way impacts whether or not it is a good answer.

Answer 4

Show good faith in the OP's request before you refute it.

Try to honor the OP's request by giving a good answer to their question, then redirect them if you think that is the best course. If these types of answers are possible or palatable, they are probably better than a complete redirect without answering the question. I am not necessarily saying you shouldn't give a complete frame challenge, just that the good faith attempt to answer first makes it better.

One frame challenge I gave that was very well received was more like this half-approach. In this case, I answered the question to the best of my ability then suggested that OP not do it. It was upvoted and accepted.

Answer 5

A Frame Challenge is often related to an XY problem

And those are a problem throughout SE.

Quite often it is simply a matter of reading just a little between the lines. I just saw a question of "how do I get her phone number?" (Y) And I innately read that as "How do I court her?" (X). But would answering X answer the question?

Frame challenges should be necessary

The faceplanting fail of a frame challenge is when everyone else can answer it without reframing.

First, let's set aside an exception. "I want to run power to my shed. I bought and buried 300' of 2-wire cable. How do I do that?" -> You can't / You can't / You can't / You can't / Transformer. You can't fault the vast majority for not anticipating the work of a "steely-eyed missle myn". Nor should you be punishing the odd one, FYI. When this happens it's a no-fault situation.

But when you insist on a frame challenge, and others don't need it, that means you are the one swerving out of the way. And we have a right to ask/examine why you are swerving. Often it's to grind an agenda of your own tangential to the question. A person who wants to grind that agenda should ask their own question to create a proper place for the discussion... preferably on /pol/ :)

In that case, you should not be answering that question. For some people, that can be simplified down to "you shouldn't do frame challenges".

Honestly, I recommend that someone who does a frame challenge, and watches as others plural reasonably answer the question straight, just go ahead and delete their answer, and consider it a learning experience.

"You can't" is a particularly noxious frame challenge

Everything I said above applies -- squared -- when the frame challenge is "you can't do that".

It's a very bold statement and needs very bold proofs.

It better be answering a question like "I'm drunk, how do I drive home safely?"

It's so much fun to slam down "You can't". But that is really where you need to pause and think it through. It is unduly discouraging to the asker, and creates drama where it need not be. It's almost like picking a fight (again see "agenda"). That fun happens at the expense of the community, and that's not cool.

It also tends to resemble superior schoolmarm lecturing, which violates rules like "be nice" and "assume good faith/intent" but again is oh, so fun. Also the fact you are assuming the person is super dumb, making a cartoon caricature of them (a strawman) so you can kick them - Very un-SE.

Find a way. That's what answering is.

I will grant an exception for literary tricks, where you use it as a lead-in to a straight or reasonable answer, i.e. just using it as a bit of clickbait. Wait. Why am I giving that exception?

Answer 6

First, let me state that there are some questions where the only rational answer is to challenge the premise. Suppose, for example, someone asked, "I'm very short, and girls are only interested in dating tall men. How can I make myself taller?" Surely you would not say that only answers that explain how he can make himself taller are valid and responsive. I'd think a good answer would be one that helps him find girls who don't care about his height.

I think the essence of a good answer of this sort is to explain why the proposed course of action is a bad idea, and/or why some other course of action is better.

Some answers here say a good answer must provide an alternative course of action. I'd agree that would make a BETTER answer, but explaining why the proposed action is bad is still potentially a good answer. To take an obviously extreme example, suppose someone asked, "What's the best way to murder my wife?" I'm sure that if I replied that you shouldn't murder your wife, I would get down-voted for "not answering the question". But beyond that, is it really essential to give an alternative to murdering his wife? If the poster said why he wants to murder his wife, perhaps someone could suggest more productive ways to address the root issue. But even if there is not enough information to say what the root issue is, or if someone trying to reply can't suggest a solution, "don't murder your wife" is still good advice.

Some answers say that it's insufficient to say "Just do B". You must say, "Don't to A." But in many cases, this would just be wasted added words. Obviously if someone says he intends to do A and you tell him to do B and explain why B is a good idea, you're implying that he shouldn't do A. Do we really need to say that? I suppose if an answer explains why B is a good thing to do but fails to give any reasons why it is better than A, that makes it weaker, but not necessarily invalid.