I assume you mean that a list question is defined here, specifically one that "cannot be answered definitively". As such, unclear questions are a species of list question, as well as subjective / opinion questions. In addition, if the question asks for a finite list – what are the amendments to the US constitution as of June 4 2016? – that list would not be a list question. At least, that is the majority opinion, and we don't have to read the dissents.

I am compelled to point out that I find the ban on list questions to be remarkably ill-considered, and should be repealed since it encourages contempt for the law. In ordinary language, a "list" is a set of multiple items that are simply concatenated in an order. If in a legal system there are 5 fundamental elements to a contract, stating what those elements are would be "providing a list". The crime of list-solicitation would at the very least have to include the outcome that a list might be given as an answer. Here, then, is a hypothetical list Q-and-A:

Q: What are the most important elements in a valid contrast?

A: Consideration, Offer and Acceptance, Legality, Capacity, Assent.

This is fairly useless information, because if you know this, you aren't informed, and if you don't know this, you aren't informed (because there is no information via discussion of what the list elements refer to).

The role of a citation is to give evidence for the conclusion. It is not clear to me whether the historical or overarching purpose of SE is to provide just conclusions, or conclusions supported with evidence, however I don't really care – answers that are just unsupported assertions are terrible and we should fight against them. Especially when we don't have extensive knowledge of the professional credentials of answerers, limiting responses to just the conclusions would be the absolute wrong way to go.

A good answer states a general proposition applicable to the topic, and provides evidence that that proposition is true. "Citations" is just another term for evidence (though more narrow, since many people think that "evidence" can include "a made-up line of thought that gets from A to B", whereas a "citation" would be something that actually exists out there -- a statute, legal decision, or even credible expert conclusion set forth in a law journal. Every answer should provide evidence; citations should be encouraged.

I do think that simply dumping the evidence out there is not a good idea -- it needs to be held together with some logical glue, which is what distinguishes an argument for a conclusion, from a list question (though not as defined in SE).

I assume you mean that a list question is defined here, specifically one that "cannot be answered definitively". As such, unclear questions are a species of list question, as well as subjective / opinion questions. In addition, if the question asks for a finite list – what are the amendments to the US constitution as of June 4 2016? – that list would not be a list question. At least, that is the majority opinion, and we don't have to read the dissents.

I am compelled to point out that I find the ban on list questions to be remarkably ill-considered, and should be repealed since it encourages contempt for the law. In ordinary language, a "list" is a set of multiple items that are simply concatenated in an order. If in a legal system there are 5 fundamental elements to a contract, stating what those elements are would be "providing a list". The crime of list-solicitation would at the very least have to include the outcome that a list might be given as an answer. Here, then, is a hypothetical list Q-and-A:

Q: What are the most important elements in a valid contrast?

A: Consideration, Offer and Acceptance, Legality, Capacity, Assent.

This is fairly useless information, because if you know this, you aren't informed, and if you don't know this, you aren't informed (because there is no information via discussion of what the list elements refer to).

The role of a citation is to give evidence for the conclusion. It is not clear to me whether the historical or overarching purpose of SE is to provide just conclusions, or conclusions supported with evidence, however I don't really care – answers that are just unsupported assertions are terrible and we should fight against them. Especially when we don't have extensive knowledge of the professional credentials of answerers, limiting responses to just the conclusions would be the absolute wrong way to go.

A good answer states a general proposition applicable to the topic, and provides evidence that that proposition is true. "Citations" is just another term for evidence (though more narrow, since many people think that "evidence" can include "a made-up line of thought that gets from A to B", whereas a "citation" would be something that actually exists out there -- a statute, legal decision, or even credible expert conclusion set forth in a law journal. Every answer should provide evidence; citations should be encouraged.

I do think that simply dumping the evidence out there is not a good idea -- it needs to be held together with some logical glue, which is what distinguishes an argument for a conclusion, from a list question (though not as defined in SE).