A large bulk of users with 1 rep ask remedial vague and constantly reoccurring questions, many are not down voted and some are answered. aren't we enablers for laziness? it seems to be acceptable usage of SF. When things are documented better elsewhere and are easy to find - shouldn't we just tell them to RTFM and do our entire industry a favour?
If the questions are of a low quality, they should be downvoted and/or closed. You haven't linked to any of the questions you consider remedial, but I'm assuming that you mean ones that show little or no research effort and that are very basic. The very basic ones can be closed as off-topic with the following close reason:
Questions on Server Fault must be about managing information technology systems in a business environment. Home and end-user computing questions may be asked on Super User, and questions about development, testing and development tools may be asked on Stack Overflow.
If the question is not otherwise bad, and it's about Unix, you can vote to move it to Unix/Linux.
You can also vote to close with a custom reason, where you are free to write what you want. Here's an example:
This question is being voted for closure because the author does not show a level of technical understanding or appropriate due diligence in researching the topic that the community judges as being a minimum barrier to participate.
It's generally not acceptable to say things to the effect of:
RTFM and GTFO
It's rather hostile. I know these people annoy us, and it feels good to chase them out with vigor. But the severed heads on the battlements are not any kind of deterrent, and it makes for a hostile environment.
Sometimes they just need to know that it is documented somewhere, and where to find it. Link to it; if copyright allows, post an excerpt, and if not, post a summary of whats to be found. As my tech-writer friends are fond of lamenting:
You can lead a technician to documentation, but you can't make them read it.
They need incentive. Making it worth their while to go to all the bother of reading pages of indirectly-related material to synthesize their actual answer. Patience is very lacking among all of us, old-timers and new-kids alike. It's part of the job, as there is never enough time to figure it out and also read everything.
And if that doesn't work, the close reason of, 'insufficient understanding' is appropriate. That's the closest we have for an RTFM and GTFO answer.
A short RTFM answer is constructive, if you give a hint at the correct manual. It's very constructive, if you mention the relevant section. The user may have tried to read the manual and did not know in which section he should search for the answer or he may not know that there's more than the sparse readme.txt.
If you answer "read the official docs", you could have not answered at all, as you do not contribute anything. The user either has thought of reading the docs before, or he wasn't asking constructively himself.
And some short example may be way more helpful than a pointer to a too complicated section in the official docs. See the new stackoverflow documentation site, which tries to solve exactly this problem.
It's all fun and games until a forum thread telling the OP to RTFM/Just Google It is the top result on Google for that problem. Since the Stack Exchange Network exists in large part to try and prevent this, I plead to please don't ever let it become what it set out to displace. Either close the question so it doesn't show up on Google, or post the relevant excerpts from TFM. Even better, explain it. Getting dismissive RTFM replies is frustrating when you're legitimately just a new person who did RTFM and it's either not making sense or not working as expected.