As far as site vision and obligations go, each and every answerer, questioner, and reader has their own agenda. The site is not set in stone. It can do a 180 just because of one twitter post about some fluff to do with HNQ (this isn't about that debacle, it's just an example; I don't have a twitter account so couldn't care less).
So while people talk about the primary objective being the site vision or whatever. The site is an evolving process, the vision today may be vastly different tomorrow. Each site is different and should be analysed as such by those of us participating especially those of us with high enough rep to close questions etc.
There is a huge difference in the dynamic between stack overflow where there are many ways of answering a question, but at the end of the day 1+1=2.
We deal with people, personalities, cultural differences, fluid and complex situations, locales and a host of other things. At some point this basic fact should be recognised in terms of how things are done for the good of the site.
This would be good for the site as well as aid the retention of valuable users who volunteer their time, energy, experience and insights to actually answer questions. I actually wonder at times how valuable some of the users are who don't seem to actually do much of anything except VTC or downvote.
If you haven't been putting in the thought and energy answering questions regularly over the years, then I honestly don't think you would understand the dynamics, and you might want to contemplate whether you're actually helping or hindering.