To be honest I've always thought this policy over-restrictive and over-literal.
I don't see any reason to interpret "Is X safe?" as meaning the subjective "Is X safe enough for me to feel safe doing the things I do?" instead of the objective "What uncommon safety concerns exist in X, and are the risks of common safety concerns like crime, disease, accidents etc higher or lower than a suitable benchmark?".
Any such question can be given a useful, purely factual answer along the lines of "X location has X specific dangers and here's some context to judge how serious they are [...], and the rates of [common dangers] are [high/low/typical] relative to [benchmark]. [X arbiter e.g. FCO] [do/don't] advise against travel and report that the most common problem faced by travellers is [almost always traffic accidents]".
You'd use knowledge plus government advice plus guidebook "Dangers and annoyances" sections plus any other security info you have access to.
You're not saying subjectively yes or no, this is/isn't safe for you good stranger on the internet. You're describing the objective dangers relative to some more familiar benchmark.
For example if someone said "Is Sierra Leone safe?" (somewhere I've looked into recently), I'd explain that, while on the one hand, crime rates and civil disorder are low by African standards and the risk of ebola is extremely low for non-medics so long as basic precautions are taken (much lower risk than rabies, lassa fever, etc), most governments warn against travel there (invalidating insurance) due not to ebola but the fact the country's health and related infrastructure is stretched to a point where normal health issues would become disproportionately dangerous. I'd explain that traffic is reported to be the biggest danger, and while it's very dangerous by western standards due to unsafe driving, poorly maintained vehicles and poor quality roads, it's not untypical by West African standards. Then I'd point out that while crime rates are low by regional standards, they're at least as high as a typical slightly rough Western city, so precautions should be taken, and I'd point out some specific danger spots and tips (e.g. don't go to major Freetown beaches alone, even during daytime, and beware pickpockets in shared taxis). Then I'd credit and link to sources (FCO travel advice, NGO security briefings, Bradt and Lonely Planet guidebooks) and allude to how up to date the info is.
Nothing subjective there, and I'm not trying to second guess what the random person who asked the question considers safe - I'm just pooling available facts, accurate at time of writing.
I'm really wary of all the suggestions that rely on people already knowing what the dangers in a country or region are to ask about them. Often the most important safety concerns are the ones people don't think about and wouldn't think to ask about:
- Sierra Leone again: people asking will likely be thinking "Ebola? Crime?", when the big danger that should actually make then think twice is "If you're hit by an out of control motorbike, which is not unlikely, there's a real danger you'll die of injuries that would be easily treatable in a country whose health infrastructure wasn't stretched beyond breaking point".
- Central Asia: people might be thinking terrorism, riots, political instability... when the biggest danger is "It's not uncommon for intercity drivers to cut lanes around blind corners at speed, and if you're in a head-on collision, it'll be a very long time before any help can reach you. Make sure you get a cautious driver"
And so on.