The rules are clear that posters are not allowed to "debate" with reviewers. However, what kinds of discussion are allowed. Clearly it's not allowed to dispute what a reviewer says, which I fully agree with. I would guess that posting to thank people for their critiques is allowed. How about accepting and expanding on what a reviewer says? E.g. "I see what you mean about X, and I think that Y has to change as well." How about mentioning potential changes, improvements? E.g. "After thinking about your comment X I think what I need to do to improve things is Y." The rules do say not to explain what a piece is trying to convey. I can see the point of this when a story or excerpt is first published. But what about after there have been reviews. Can there be some response to critiques explaining more of the background of a story if that is a cooperative, positive, response? And under what circumstances can a reviewer respond to what an author posts in a Writing Workshop thread? Are there any such circumstances. E.g. if a reviewer posts "Yes, if you do X as you say then that would address the issues I raised?" Though in this circumstance I'm not sure that really adds much to the already posted critique.