I am not convinced that voting would not have taken care of this answer. Beyond that, providing a link to a XKCD comic rather than an SE meta struck me as bad form. The justification for the mod hammer was that a devil's advocate position is not a valid answer:
We don't need a devil's advocate. In formal debate lingo, the devil's advocate position "refers to when, for the sake of debate, a person presents a point of view that they don't necessarily agree with just to make another consider an opposing point of view." That's necessary for certain forms of formalised debate but we have no need of it here. If you seriously believe in this perspective, please expand on how it's worked out for you in real play, and don't hedge it as a devil's advocate response.
Sometimes, someone needs to speak up. Granted, the hive mind/group think of RPG.SE would likely attract a lot of down votes here, and some rage votes, and it's not the solution I would have presented (my answer was quite different) but it is an answer and it violated no SE policy. Is the problem that it didn't have enough support or wasn't long enough? If so, then make that the comment/criticism.
If there is in fact an SE policy against using a devils advocate approach, or deliberately posting what may be an unpopular answer, then link to that.
(PS, I've seen a few answers where the same person gave two different answers and let the votes take it from there ... but it's not that common).