I recently asked a question based upon the surprising popularity a comment in another question received.
My question received a lot of criticism. I tried to improve the question based on that criticism (and I'm still open to suggestions), but some of the criticism was that hypothetical questions are... well, to paraphrase just a bit... poison. For example, I received this comment:
-1 for hypothetical. Asking hypotheticals where you don't really have a dog in the fight and don't have real details will make for a weak Q&A that will inhibit someone who really has this as a real problem from asking it. Seeding questions is bad, don't do it.
Yet according to the top answer in a meta discussion dealing with hypothetical questions, being hypothetical isn't a problem by itself. Rather, it can lead to related issues:
A hypothetical question should be fine, but if there isn't enough "information" (or a detailed enough description of the problem), then it becomes unanswerable anyway. There will be too many possible answers to the question and the whole thread will become a discussion.
While I understand that hypothetical questions frequently suffer from lacking details necessary to make it answerable, if enough details are present, is a hypothetical question still bad just because it is hypothetical?
If hypotheticals are allowed, should they be identified as such? I had placed a comment explaining the origins of my question, but the question then got edited to mention in the first sentence that it was hypothetical. It felt like that disclaimer was creating more negative reactions, so I removed it from the question body, but some guidelines for if/how/where to put such a disclaimer might be helpful, as well.