9

It somewhat pains me to do this, but as it stands, the question needs to be rolled back. So that's also what I did. As MartinR observed in the comments to your inquiry here, answers to off-topic questions do not trigger answer-invalidation concerns. But since the question was on-topic when you answered it, this is a case of invalidation and needs to be ...


9

Lock the question as soon as it is answered. Sound a bit too drastic. Locking is a moderator tool with good reason. For one the lock mechanism implemented by SE currently only allows completely locking a post, which would preclude any subsequent answers. As it currently stands this is not feasible, especially since there are valid reasons for editing a ...


7

No the question should stay as it is, because not only would this edit invalidate two answers (first, second) but I think we would send the wrong signals as well. It would look like it could be allowed to invalidate answers if one just asks an answerer of the question if he/she is ok with it. This could lead to extensive comments and could weaken the ...


6

A rollback is a dangerous option and should always be considered carefully. And yes, I've screwed this up myself at least once, so don't beat-up yourself too much about it either. The entire point of a rollback is to prevent a question and answer being out-of-sync. So, a rollback causing this, is not a good situation. Does the question need to be rolled ...


1

Why do you need to come to meta? In this case both parties involved are ok with it. Let them edit their posts however they want. Surely we don't need a rule that says: If an answerer agrees and removes part of their answer that an OP wants to change, then the OP can answer invalidate the older revision of the post. If you actually think about it, that'...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible