OK, now that the lock is off, here's the real bottom line.
Should people not be voting down answers because it's a legitimate answer but doesn't fit their particular playstyle? Probably, especially if it'll be helpful to the OP and/or other viewers.
Can or should we somehow enforce that? No. You know the score, you should vote down something that's "unhelpful" but different people have different perspectives on that and vote their minds. We have no Big Brother-esque power to affect how and why people are voting.
Look, we have an issue especially with our D&D 3.5e questions that we can't really do anything directly about. We have a cadre of "our way is the right way" users that have a deep love for 3.5e optimization and any question or answer that mentions in a positive way monks, rogues, Sean K Reynolds, the D&D FAQ, Weapon Focus, using larger/smaller weapons, critical fumbles, and a list of other items that are "hot button" to that clique will get instantly downvoted and sassed as "never good" by members of that group.
This behavior presumes that every poster wants that kind of optimization, which is inaccurate (and in the case of the noobs, it's pretty clear that these issues are down in the noise in terms of weird choices they're making). We the community can intervene when comments are actually rude, but other than that people are free to vote however they want, even if it's just because they're grumpy that day.
These kinds of answers will never be deleted, because the community and/or the mods certainly won't allow playstyle advocates to censor others - downvotes aren't delete votes, however, and there is no mechanism (nor should there be) to override them.
I would recommend that people who consider an answer to be Advocating Suboptimal Play to find mildly more constructive ways of expressing that - "This is a legitimate option but you might want to note that it's going to almost always be mechanically less optimal than X" is a comment someone might actually incorporate into their answer and serve your actual goal. We know that just "YOU ARE WRONG" comments will get deleted eventually. They also cause fights, like this one. Such commenters are partially responsible for these fights, and can't just give that "who what me?" line when they are knowingly making absolutist statements and piling on people legitimately answering a question. Don't contribute to fights: even if you are right, you're still part of the problem. And "He was rude, but he was right about games" is a reasonably unfulfilling epitaph.
I would recommend that people who find those folks and their votes and comments obnoxious to just vote and comment (ONCE!) their mind and move on. As you'll note on this question, as more eyes not part of the 3.5e Quick Response Team land on the question, those other answers start to get voted up too. I know it offends your sense of justice in the universe, but part of participating on a social site with people with wildly varying belief systems is accepting that there will be some subgroup with strongly held beliefs that work counter to yours. Flipping out every time they do it doesn't help anyone. You don't need to 'wake up the sheeple,' we all know it's going on, but given the democratic nature of the site it has to be allowed to go on. Counteract it with positive acts (answers, votes, etc.).
For everyone else, especially new users who contribute an answer that runs afoul of this debate. remember that any one given comment is only a statement of opinion of one of... looks like... 14,000-ish users of the site. Four downvotes is a pretty damn small clique on a site of this size. Evaluate the worth of comments, determine if your answer really could be improved by incorporating something from them, and then just let 'er ride. Consider what someone says, but don't feel the need to overreact to it. Those comments will likely go away soon enough, remember. And upvotes are worth way more than downvotes rep-wise, and you'll get some ups as long as your answer really does make some sense.