user-1: There are actually many ways to answer here and that is perfect, since there are different kinds of question which should be answered differently.
The Pañha Sutta says that there are four ways of answering questions. One of these ways is to answer with a counter-question; but is doing that welcome or common, on this site?
Have people considered how "the four ways of answering questions" is relevant on this site? Because it seems to be that the focus is just on one kind of question of the four, or to misuse a kind of answering for all kinds of questions.
Atma thought it would be good to provide also a little bit material for this important matter.

The Karma of Questions
Questions of Skill
AN 3.67: Kathavatthu Sutta — Topics for Discussion

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

user43: This site is mostly meant for the second type of questions, the ones that should be approached with a detailed explanation.
When someone asks the first type of question (categorical yes/no) - we try and complement the answer with a detailed explanation as to why yes or no.
When someone asks the third type of question (that is, a question that is based on incorrect/confused/incomplete understanding and begs for a counter question to help the person investigate the topic for themselves) - we try and give the correct frame of reference, or else ask/help the questioner to edit the question.
When someone asks the fourth type of question (the one that should not be answered) we explain why Buddha recommended to put such questions aside.
Since this site is not meant to be a forum (and is not good at being a forum, actually pretty bad as a forum) - we try to avoid dialogues and polemics in the questions, answers, and comments. We do have a chat feature for people who'd like to discuss things in form of a dialog.

user254: 
There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. 

"Is that so?"
People give Zen-style answers sometimes (e.g. here).
People might want to answer using Zen-like questions too.
"Can you show that to me?"
I guess that (discussion, rhetorical questions, the Socratic method) is not how we use this site (and not the purpose for which the site was "designed" to be used).
See also this meta-topic: Answers vs Advice -- the consensus then might have been that:

People who are asking for an answer want an answer
If they want advice instead of an answer, they can ask for advice
You can sometimes give advice after you answer, but maybe not instead of answering.


The site isn't meant for back-and-forth discourse/discussion/dialog.
The Kalama sutta for example is a long sequence of questions and answers. If back-and-forth dialog weren't allowed then it would have had to stop almost at the beginning, at the first counter-question, i.e.,

"What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

Maybe the Kalamas would "get it" immediately from that first counter-question, but we're meant to assume that if someone is asking some question it's because they don't know how to answer it, and want some explanation and not only a counter-question.
See also Answers I don't understand and/or answers that are questions/riddles/koans -- they're not necessarily seen as helpful.

Consider this question, Do thoughts 'create' vedana? I read it as a basic question, which it has various more-or-less informative answers and references. Conversely, this chat might have been an attempt to answer the question with a counter-question, and that apparently had a relatively unsuccessful outcome.

Another thing to consider is that there are two audiences for every question:

The OP who asked the question
Everyone else who reads the answers

A theory is that someone in the future might use Google to search for 'vedana', find that page and want to read the answers ... and that they want to read relatively impersonal or universally-true answers, instead of counter-questions and one-on-one dialog.

Speaking of counter-questions, you can post a comment if you don't understand the question; e.g. you can post a comment to say,

"I don't understand that question, because..."
"Do you mean...?"
"Where did you read that...?"
"Different schools of Buddhism might different answers to that question. Are you asking for an answer from the point of view of a specific school?"

See also this site's Moderation policies for Questions -- i.e. on this site people try to answer questions even if the question is unclear.
You can try to clarify what the question is, but you probably shouldn't expect to get the OP to answer their own question as a result of your asking counter-questions.

-1: <p>There are actually many ways to answer here and that is perfect, since there are different kinds of question which should be answered differently.</p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.042.than.html" rel="nofollow">Pañha Sutta</a> says that there are four ways of answering questions. One of these ways is to answer with a counter-question; but is doing that welcome or common, on this site?</p>

<p>Have people considered how "the four ways of answering questions" is relevant on this site? Because it seems to be that the focus is just on one kind of question of the four, or to misuse a kind of answering for all kinds of questions.</p>

<p>Atma thought it would be good to provide also a little bit material for this important matter.</p>

<ul>
<li><p><a href="http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/index_en.html#karmaquestions" rel="nofollow">The Karma of Questions</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/questions_en.html" rel="nofollow">Questions of Skill</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.067.than_en.html" rel="nofollow">AN 3.67: Kathavatthu Sutta — Topics for Discussion</a></p></li>
</ul>

<p><em>(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)</em></p>
 43: <p>This site is mostly meant for the second type of questions, the ones that should be approached with a detailed explanation.</p>

<p>When someone asks the first type of question (categorical yes/no) - we try and complement the answer with a detailed explanation as to why yes or no.</p>

<p>When someone asks the third type of question (that is, a question that is based on incorrect/confused/incomplete understanding and begs for a counter question to help the person investigate the topic for themselves) - we try and give the correct frame of reference, or else ask/help the questioner to edit the question.</p>

<p>When someone asks the fourth type of question (the one that should not be answered) we explain why Buddha recommended to put such questions aside.</p>

<p>Since this site is not meant to be a forum (and is not good at being a forum, actually pretty bad as a forum) - we try to avoid dialogues and polemics in the questions, answers, and comments. We do have a chat feature for people who'd like to discuss things in form of a dialog.</p>
 254: <blockquote>
  <p>There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>"<a href="http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/3isthatso.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Is that so?</a>"</p>

<p>People give Zen-style <em>answers</em> sometimes (e.g. <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1561/254">here</a>).</p>

<p>People might want to answer using Zen-like <em>questions</em> too.</p>

<p>"<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazu_Huike#Pacifying_the_mind" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Can you show that to me?</a>"</p>

<p>I guess that (discussion, rhetorical questions, the Socratic method) is not how we use this site (and not the purpose for which the site was "designed" to be used).</p>

<p>See also this meta-topic: <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/61/254">Answers vs Advice</a> -- the consensus then might have been that:</p>

<ul>
<li>People who are asking for an answer want an answer</li>
<li>If they want advice instead of an answer, they <em>can</em> ask for advice</li>
<li>You can sometimes give advice <em>after</em> you answer, but maybe not <em>instead</em> of answering.</li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>The site isn't meant for back-and-forth discourse/discussion/dialog.</p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kalama sutta</a> for example is a long sequence of questions and answers. If back-and-forth dialog weren't allowed then it would have had to stop almost at the beginning, at the first counter-question, i.e.,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Maybe the Kalamas would "get it" immediately from that first counter-question, but we're meant to assume that if someone is asking some question it's because they don't know how to answer it, and want some explanation and not only a counter-question.</p>

<p>See also <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1821/254">Answers I don't understand and/or answers that are questions/riddles/koans</a> -- they're not necessarily seen as helpful.</p>

<hr>

<p>Consider this question, <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/13493/254">Do thoughts 'create' vedana?</a> I read it as a basic question, which it has various more-or-less informative answers and references. Conversely, <a href="http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/33816/discussion-on-question-by-oidaoudeneidos-do-thoughts-create-vedana">this chat</a> might have been an attempt to answer the question with a counter-question, and that apparently had a relatively unsuccessful outcome.</p>

<hr>

<p>Another thing to consider is that there are two audiences for every question:</p>

<ul>
<li>The OP who asked the question</li>
<li>Everyone else who reads the answers</li>
</ul>

<p>A theory is that someone in the future might use Google to search for '<em>vedana</em>', find that page and want to read the answers ... and that they want to read relatively impersonal or universally-true answers, instead of counter-questions and one-on-one dialog.</p>

<hr>

<p>Speaking of counter-questions, you <em>can</em> post a comment if you don't understand the question; e.g. you can post a comment to say,</p>

<ul>
<li>"I don't understand that question, because..."</li>
<li>"Do you mean...?"</li>
<li>"Where did you read that...?"</li>
<li>"Different schools of Buddhism might different answers to that question. Are you asking for an answer from the point of view of a specific school?"</li>
</ul>

<p>See also this site's <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1572/254">Moderation policies for Questions</a> -- i.e. on this site people try to answer questions even if the question is unclear.</p>

<p>You <em>can</em> try to clarify what the question is, but you probably shouldn't expect to get the OP to answer their own question as a result of your asking counter-questions.</p>
