Avoiding or Interacting with "Don't Do That Then" Answers

Question

Don't Do That, Then! Is well known in the Hacker Jargon.

On a recent question I asked, I felt I got of lot of "don't do what you are trying not to do" answers. I would hope that the presence of a question at all indicates that the asker already knows that there is something amiss or to be improved upon. Answers that state "this is not a good idea" or similar seem to miss the fact that relatively junior employees in large orgs have fairly little redress, and this may be a problem management is already aware of and working on, but will take time to resolve.

How should answers that affirm an issue but offer solutions outside of an asker's abilities to effect that solution be handled?

Edit: The other part of this meta-question should have been: “or is the linked question not asked properly, and if so, how should questions be asked to avoid these answers?”

Answer 1

How should answers that affirm an issue but offer solutions outside of an asker's abilities to effect that solution be handled?

The system provides a standard method:

• These answers should be downvoted.
• You are also free to provide a comment, if you choose.

In this specific case, you wrote "The problem is that sometimes we don't have enough conference rooms in the facility, so we wind up conducting interviews in "hangout" rooms around the campus. "

Some of the answers challenge the premise that the lack of sufficient conference rooms justifies using a hangout room. That seems like a reasonable challenge to me. But those who disagree can vote and comment accordingly.