[EricH]

Linking to the Q&A system's individual Q&As would be really nice.
Linking the updated Manual to the answers would be even better.

There are a couple of other things that would be really nice.
--Think through all of the implications of a given answer, trying to see this from the perspective of someone who doesn't know the intent. For example, the bridge definition given in Q&A that allowed the troll-bot scheme.
--What is the intent of the rule? This one thing would really, really help with interpretation. Applied during the manual-writing stage, this could cut Q&As in half.
--If a team submits an unclear question, a request for clarity would be helpful, instead of trying to answer.
--For "design reviews", trying to look past the design to "what rules could this violate?" and saying something like "We do not perform design reviews. However, if you have a question on rules X, Y, and Z, we will do our best to answer it" would be really helpful.
--If someone asks for a definition, give it to them! What is the common definition of grab, grasp, grapple and/or attach to? What is the GDC definition? Do "certain designs" fit the GDC definition of those words? Right now, some poor head ref may need to make that call--I don't want to be the ref that sets that precedent!