I'm sure simply opening a post even vaguely related to the recent heated comments will raise hackles, but I'm not interested in the inflammatory language here. What I'm interested in is the comment by Keelan that "There is, especially because this is a meta discussion, no need to discuss whether this post answers the question, considering it has been accepted by both the community and the OP". This raises two related questions.
If one disagrees with an answer but only in that it lacks clarity, or requires further explanation (i.e doesn't fully answer the question), what exactly is the appropriate way to express that if not in comments? I'm struggling to see how one can hold a "discussion" as per the tag, without raising issues in comments. A whole series of answers without any attempt to resolve differences is not, by my understanding, a discussion.
If this restriction on comments is indeed somehow based on the fact that "it has been accepted by both the community and the OP", what level of acceptance by the community is being used as a guide that further discussion is to be circumscribed? My own answer had only one vote, is that not enough to prevent the disagreements with my conclusion being aired in comments? In a community of nearly 2,000 users, I'm not sure I see how 3 people agreeing is really of any significant difference to 1 person agreeing.