I for one (as one of those who provided "an" answer) feel almost anxious about going on participating. Especially because of the "scratching the ridiculous"-level of logical fallacies in the way the system is set up.
I am not able (yet) to leave comments as a new contributor, yet I haven't hesitated to write an answer, based on what I know. But not because it was encouraged, on the contrary - what triggered me to do it in the end, was exactly that notion that even speculation shall be written as an answer.
So I wrote.
And I tried to be careful to present my "answer" as neither "just a thought", nor "as is correct". I reduced it mainly to what I know and tried to position it by that in a neutral stance.
Still, in the comments I was asked what I do think of the use of "Iacke"/"Jacke" in the context of the first-portfolio - to which I responded that I would not dare to give a full analysis/review without having the source right before me.
This was interpreted as a lack of effort and I got a biting comment that I do indeed have the full source before me I just need to follow the link.
And that is the point where I am almost "emotionally done for" regarding my further personal engagement. (If you do not understand why that is, leave it be and under no circumstance comment on that.) Because:
The full source is NOT present, it is an excerpt that is linked.
That full source was only accessible to me after utilizing a VPN.
What I was then able to discover on that site is that it is just a mashed-up collection without any relevant side notes, meaning: it does not contain contextual markings as I noted before in my follow-up comment would be a requirement to be able to give a full review. What the site contains is heavily transformed and mangled by stone-age-OCR without human revision, no hypertext/contextual references, let alone high-resolution photographs at the least. This is the equivalent of how "research" in this area was done for centuries BEFORE networking, hypertext, and computer-assisted-workflows were established - which btw. happened in the 1950s ...
Both points show a lack of effort on the side of the commenter. Because it implies that accessibility is a given and that the aforementioned necessities are met. This is not the case. It is extremely discouraging as it falls in line with the usual "you are not able to google"-comments, which are only spouted by people who never even dare to try to come up with the same results on another person's system - or in another country - only to realize that "search-engines", as well as ANY dynamic website is subject to change at the time of loading and is most likely fully customized to the person searching (or in the Google Search case: The system simply does not offer a non-customized search).
Not to mention the legal barriers, e.g. Gutenberg Project - not fully accessible in Germany.
Personally, I at least got a great example of a revision for my answer, from which I learned a lot.
So why all the fuzz, here?
In the end, if a speculation should be an answer or a comment is a nonsensical discussion, as long as almost everyone participating is more focused on their personal experiences/perspective on that matter than what the system actually allows in the first place and what might be a beneficial compromise.
It does not allow commenting as a new contributor, ergo: the whole discussion is irrelevant. The only way to treat it still as relevant is implying that a community split into those that already have the reputation shall have all rights, whereas new contributors shall have all duties, while at the same time not being able to make notions/comments, participate in the general exchange on-topic.
So the only thing you CAN discuss here - and NO I am not SHOUTING, it's called EMPHASIS - is:
Do you (the ALREADY ESTABLISHED) want to let new contributors be able to participate
.. OR (and this is an exclusive or):
Do you want to keep the status quo to ensure your position?
In the end, this all boils down to a hefty portion of necessary self-reflection, having an intellectual stroll into the not-so-green pastures one is used to, and the resulting awareness of the surroundings of anyone participating.
If you - the people who decide how the system works or how its rules are interpreted and applied - are not ready to fulfill these inherently natural requirements in the first place, there will never be an answer to this discussion, as it simply CAN NOT have an answer.
You may treat this as a rant or for what it is (without fantasizing about the in-between-the-lines, as there is no such thing):
An honest contribution to this discussion is rooted in my awareness and my personal experiences accompanied by an attempt to provoke self-reflection in all participants (including myself).
How does that look from your perspective?