-1
$\begingroup$

Preliminary Information

Before I begin, I want to make a clear distinction insofar as I understand the principal purpose of this Stack (the following closely fits the rules as defined in the Tour and the Help Center, but may not be universally agreed upon by the community):

Worldbuilding (on-topic) is the development and consistent use of rules, designs, definitions, and explanations that identify or express an imaginary world of the querent's own creation wherein any number of stories may be told, but which are independent of any story that can be told.

Storybuilding (off-topic) is the creation of a story, no matter how well integrated with its world. It includes plot; circumstances; character & organization choices, decisions, options, and actions; and impossible-to-fit-within-SE's-rules aesthetics such as names, language evolution, the influence of culture, species or environment on design, etc.

I'm making this distinction to help clearly define the purpose of this discussion and vote. This is only about worldbuilding. At this time, all storybuilding is off-topic. Therefore, a choice to adopt a policy to accept brainstorming questions is NOT approval to accept storybuilding questions. From the on-topic Help Center page:

When asking questions keep in mind that the goal of the site is to help you build your world, not to tell your story.

If on the other hand you aren’t sure what a character (be it an individual or organization) should do, that is out of scope for the site.

Why am I Asking for This Vote?

This Stack has had a long and complicated relationship with a fundamental and arguably necessary tool of worldbuilding: Brainstorming. Indeed, one of my own earliest answers, and still the answer I'm most fond of, is an answer to a brainstorming question. Although (and if I remember correctly) the statement in the Help Center warning against brainstorming didn't exist back then, all of the Tour and Help Center rules reflected by that statement did.

Brainstorming questions always violate the basic operational model of Stack Exchange: one-specific-question/one-best-answer. Many, if not most, of the non-community rules found in the Tour and the Help Center are influenced by, if not directly supporting of, that premise. It isn't up for debate because it belongs to Stack Exchange, not us. Therefore (and not surprisingly) the first question about the viability of brainstorming questions occurred a scant two months after the miraculous graduation of Worldbuilding.SE from Area 51.

Two months! And we've been debating it ever since... for the last eight years.1 The current manifestation of the brainstorming rule is a non-committal non-rule that makes everyone tear their hair out. Neither allowing brainstorming, nor prohibiting brainstorming, it says:

If you are looking for discussion, brainstorming, or an overall process rather than specific questions and answers, the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange might not be a good place for your question.

Members of the WB.SE community, I suspect that whether you want to see brainstorming questions or not, you will all agree that the current state of affairs is unacceptable.

The purpose of this post is to affect a change to the Help Center's "On Topic" page. However, that can only be done by the moderators. We're at their mercy. However, if a solid consensus is achieved, at the very least we can point to this post as authorization to act contrary to what the Help Center says.

Argument: Brainstorming is one of the most common and most popular question types on this Stack

And because brainstorming is so common and popular, it's fundamentally impossible to stop. We've been trying for eight years to stop it. It's not working. It won't ever work. Why is obvious:

  • Quality worldbuilding involves dependencies. While any worldbuilder could sweep away their problem by declaring their rule to be so regardless of those dependencies, it's often the dependencies that add depth and quality to the world.

  • Almost none of the querents are sufficiently educated in the topic of their question to adequately understand the dependencies, their consequences, or their benefits. They may not even be capable of identifying the existence of dependencies. All they know is that their rule lacks the depth and quality they've seen in the efforts of others.

A choice to forbid brainstorming questions means rigorously policing all users, including new users, about why the round peg of a naturally creative and imaginative process is being pounded into the square hole of a software platform intentionally designed to be specific, objective, and have a clear "best solution" (from the perspective of a programmer, an answer voted "best practice"). But it's the simplest to defend because the rules are clearly stated.

Argument: Brainstorming breaks a lot of Stack Exchange's rules

This is the source of the debate. The following list of rules broken by brainstorming is probably not comprehensive. These all come from the tour, the on-topic Help Center page, the don't ask Help Center page, and the list of reasons to close a question.2

  • They are ambiguous (not specific).
  • They are too often story-based.
  • They are too often an invitation to a discussion.
  • They often lack sufficient detail, context, restrictions and requirements to avoid the prohibition against all answers having equal value.
  • They can lead to too many answers.
  • They are, by definition, open-ended.3

A choice to permit brainstorming questions means we are authorizing an exception to any or all of those violations. While a clear update to the Help Center authorizing brainstorming questions would help tremendously, it will not stop the occasional well-meaning user from voting to close a question for violating those rules. However, this choice is likely also easy because only the most anal of people read the Tour and Help Center anyway.

Argument: The second-to-last paragraph on the on-topic Help Center page might not be within the power of our moderators to modify

While this wouldn't stop a community policy effectively vacating the stated belief about brainstorming, it would mean that adopting a policy to vacate the belief would cause headaches for the next eight years. It would be a great help if one of the Moderators would post a comment telling us if that paragraph can, or cannot, be modified. (If it can be modified, but a new paragraph cannot be added, then the new paragraph shown in "UP VOTE" should be appended to the existing paragraph.)

Why is this important? Because policies that can only be found on Meta that don't quickly burn themselves into the community consciousness are quickly forgotten and often difficult to find. It's the weakest form of community policy.

A Proposal to End the Love/Hate Relationship with Brainstorming (AKA List Questions, Idea-Generation, and Fishing-for-Ideas)

The second-to-last paragraph on the on-topic Help Center page currently reads:

Questions must be specific as well as answerable. If you are looking for discussion, brainstorming, or an overall process rather than specific questions and answers, the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange might not be a good place for your question. Such questions may however be welcome in Worldbuilding Chat. Also see Good Subjective, Bad Subjective for why this type of question is hard, and some guidelines on how to post good subjective questions which are less likely to end up being closed.

UP VOTE: You advocate for changing this Stack's policy and Help Center page to read as follows, or similar as discussed in answers. Lined out text to be deleted. Bold text to be added.

Questions must be specific as well as answerable. If you are looking for discussion, brainstorming, or an overall process rather than specific questions and answers, the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange might not be a good place for your question. Such questions may however be welcome in Worldbuilding Chat. Also see Good Subjective, Bad Subjective for why this type of question is hard, and some guidelines on how to post good subjective questions which are less likely to end up being closed.

Questions seeking a list of possible solutions (also called list questions, brainstorming, idea generation, and fishing for ideas) are permissible only when questions are narrowly scoped by providing details, restrictions and requirements that will lead to a reasonably objective selection of a best answer. Questions deemed to be intentionally written to lead to as many answers as possible will be closed as too broad. Explaining your goals and expectations for answers would be beneficial to avoiding question closure. (Additional details here.)

DOWN VOTE: You advocate for changing this Stack's policy and Help Center page to read as follows, or similar as discussed in answers. Lined out text to be deleted. Bold text to be added.

Questions must be specific as well as answerable. Questions seeking a list of possible solutions (also called list questions, brainstorming, idea generation, and fishing for ideas) are prohibited (additional details here). If you are looking for discussion, brainstorming, or an overall process rather than specific questions and answers, the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange might not be a good place for your question. Such questions may however be welcome in Worldbuilding Chat. Also see Good Subjective, Bad Subjective for why this type of question is hard, and some guidelines on how to post good subjective questions which are less likely to end up being closed.

The reader will note I lined out "discussion" as well. Though not specifically related to this post, the word, in the context of that paragraph, contradicts the following statement from the don't ask Help Center page, "If your motivation for asking the question is 'I would like to participate in a discussion about ______', then you should not be asking here." I consider that statement to be clear and authoritative compared to the ambiguous statement in the paragraph, above.

Details About This Vote

  • Comments to this post are for clarifying this post only. If you wish to voice an opinion or insight about this post, please post an answer so the community can adequately participate in the discussion.

  • Proposed changes to wording of either proposal would be appropriate as answers, not comments. Proposed changes will be discussed in comments to the answers and changes made as efficiently as possible.

1 I will not take the time to list the dozens — more than dozens! — of questions posted on Meta about brainstorming. If you are unfamiliar with the general problem, reading through a bunch of those posts will give you a flavor for the problem. Please search Meta using the is:q filter and, independently, the quoted phrases "brainstorming", "list answers", "list questions", "idea generation", and "fishing for ideas".

2 The appropriate Help Center page for this is here, but it's obsolete, having not been updated since the last VTC rule change by Stack Exchange. That's why I'm not linking to it in the body of the post.

3 And, by definition, they are opinion-based. But the "opinion-based" VTC reason is a big enough can of worms that it should not be discussed here and I believe there are enough other violations to suit the needs of this proposal.

$\endgroup$
48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Are you sure that we can locally change the rules and policies coming from SE? $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch Mod
    Dec 27, 2022 at 6:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @L.Dutch If moderators can modify that paragraph, then the answer is yes. If the only option is a Meta-based policy, then the answer is still yes. Am I answering the correct question? I'm assuming you can modify something about that page because it includes three local links: the Sandbox, the RWQ policy, and the Perfect Question checklist. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Dec 27, 2022 at 6:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ SE policies are decided and enforced by SE. Sort of a constitution. I can rewrite an article of the US constitution, but would that mean that I have amended it? $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch Mod
    Dec 27, 2022 at 6:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is this a philosophical discussion? Or do we expect SE to complain about either of the proposed modifications? I recall reading some Meta Stack Exchange post years ago explaining that SE encouraged communities to set their own policies. Granted, I don't know that they were anticipating setting exceptions to their general rules, but this Stack is pretty hard to use with the strict set SE provides network-wide. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Dec 27, 2022 at 6:51
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I don't see a compelling reason to change the rules. Users keep asking discussion/brainstorming questions allover SE, allowing it would just break the rules. $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch Mod
    Dec 27, 2022 at 7:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Meta question about whether or not we're allowed to override SE rules. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Dec 27, 2022 at 7:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @sphennings I'm not trying to change the rules, I'm trying to clearly create or deny an exception. The idea that we'd need to change everything, everywhere, just to permit brainstorming isn't just overkill... it kinda assumes that we're all idiots. And to make a clear point, if we take all the rules at their word, every aspect of Worldbuilding that can't be answered on another Stack is off-topic because they break one or more rules. E.G., magic. If we chase that rabbit much further, we'll find a valid reason to discontinue WB.SE entirely. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Dec 27, 2022 at 8:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @sphennings When you remove the irrelevant fantasy nonsense, your question is "can 50 newtons shatter bones?" and that could be asked on Physics or Medical Sciences (probably with better results). I am NOT a believer that a Real World question is magically a Worldbuilding question that can only be asked here simply by claiming it's for a work of fiction. But let's not hijack this discussion. That question can be asked on another stack. I've gotta hit the hay, but you're welcome to find a pure worldbuilding question that doesn't violate at least one SE rule. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Dec 27, 2022 at 8:39
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @JBH I probably would have written two answers to the post titled "I (down/up)vote this policy change". That way we can make a distinction between the quality of the proposal and whether we accept it or not ^^. Right now you're trying to force me into a false dichotomy of options, both of which I disagree (even though I agree with a change!) :p. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Dec 27, 2022 at 9:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I second @Tortliena, please change the vote counting to the answers, not to the artificial 2 options you have picked. Leave the upvote/downvote to the proposal itself. $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch Mod
    Dec 27, 2022 at 12:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, @Sphennings, it is... because they have the right to be represented in a proposal to clarify the policy. What would you do if the community voted to permit brainstorming questions? Stack Exchange users have the right to change the site. If that isn't true, then the Santa series is invalid. The ACS is invalid. Most of the Stack is invalid. Deal with it, Sphen. This community allowed exceptions in the past and it's hypocritical to assert they don't have the right to make exceptions now. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Dec 27, 2022 at 18:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Why the obsession to make everything happen on Stack Exchange, why the push to make it a site that it just is not going to be? There are plenty of places elsewhere to have discussions and polls and open-to-all submission posts. Go do it there! Spam is fundamentally impossible to stop and has been ongoing for eight years, doesn't mean that should be allowed either. $\endgroup$
    – Nij
    Dec 27, 2022 at 19:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Nij A friend of mine is quite right... Worldbuilding.SE has lost its heart. That's too bad... especially when the gist of this post is simply clarification to make the moderation process simpler. Why change? Because the Stack has changed. It was once a much happier, livelier, more interesting place. Today, it's just physics-lite that can't gather enough wherewithall to change "maybe..." into a clear "yes" or "no." This Stack is decidedly less than it once was - and the belief that what it is today is what it's always been is heartbreaking. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Dec 27, 2022 at 19:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JBH We constantly suggest that they stop complaining and propose a change to site policy. They never do. It is never actually about the policy itself. They want to be able to do whatever they want and are frustrated that to be on this site we expect them to follow the rules. $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    Dec 27, 2022 at 19:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I’m voting to close this post because it attempts to change fundamentally with how voting works, a core stack-exchange guideline. This creates several issues assessing the post and its answers and makes it broader than it need to be. The post would gain from following a voting model closer to the guidelines. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Dec 27, 2022 at 21:24

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

I am going to quote Shog's answer to the Meta question which says Communities can change SE rules and policies:

We're still not building a Ute

Obviously there are some invariables - we’re building Q&A sites here, not discussion forums or service directories; no matter how much you might want Aww.SE, we're just not building a truck here, and we're not gonna let you use our shoes to drive nails. That's why, even on sites with elected moderators, we'll occasionally step in to remind folks what the purpose of these sites are, and try to refocus them on that goal.

$\endgroup$
31
  • $\begingroup$ Is this an answer to my question? I want to see a "maybe..." changed to a clear "yes" or "no." How is this post relevant to the question? $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Dec 27, 2022 at 19:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JBH blame the OP for having engineered a question which cannot be upvoted/downvoted for its merit and that is being drowned into an endless chain of comments $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch Mod
    Dec 27, 2022 at 19:27
  • $\begingroup$ Then push the comment chain into chat and feature the question so that more than a few loudmouths can see it. I entirely disagree that the question can't be voted on for its merit. I've tried pushing the text modifications into answers and it doesn't work. The question may be voluminous, but it's clear. I'm shocked that Sphennings isn't dancing over the chance to get the clarification he'd prefer. Do you actually believe there's a significant improvement over the wording for the down vote? $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Dec 27, 2022 at 19:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JBH, as far as I have been on SE, upvote = question is useful and clear, downvote = question is not useful and unclear. You are purposely altering this fundamental mechanism, assuming that whoever votes will dive into reading the wall of text to find what you assigned as value to the up and downvote. $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch Mod
    Dec 27, 2022 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ So the last 13 hours have been nothing more than people complaining that they don't like how I wrote the question? That's rich, since one of Sphenning's arguments is that people should be capable of looking past the terrible wording in the help center and see what was meant. Bit of a double standard, there. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Dec 27, 2022 at 19:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Look, Dutch, do us all a favor. Since you're not willing to make this post visible to the general community on Main, delete this entire post (since your answer disallows me from doing it), then go change the help center to clearly state that brainstorming is prohibited. Problem solved, fuss over. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Dec 27, 2022 at 19:41
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @JBH You could always edit the post. Remove the confusing language about upvotes, and downvotes. Either propose a single course of action. Or create two answers, each one taking a single side. That would result in a post much easier for the community to engage with meaningfully. It should be pretty quick to cut out the pro and con arguments into separate answers if you wanted to clean it up quick. $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    Dec 27, 2022 at 19:55
  • $\begingroup$ @sphennings As the post stands, the vote is to edit the help center to clearly state that brainstorming is prohibited. I'm content with that resolution. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Dec 29, 2022 at 15:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @JBH Or people used downvotes for their intended purpose and said that they find your post doesn't show research, is unclear, or not useful. We have no way of distinguishing between the two options. $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    Dec 29, 2022 at 15:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JBH You have 2 cells which can be filled with at least 4 possible different meanings. It's very unreasonable to induce what any of people's vote mean, if they followed you or the widely accepted community guidelines. I myself can only tell I respected your choice, even if it means I cannot vote nor answer. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Dec 29, 2022 at 18:25
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH I agree, we should split the post into multiple posts and vote. I believe and support allowing people to ask open-ended questions, because as far as my short experience on this site has gone, every question I've seen flagged as open ended or requesting peoples opinions have been to positive effect. The core purpose of moderation is, first and foremost, maintaining and improving the thing being moderated. (continues) $\endgroup$
    – Sam Kitsune
    Jan 3 at 1:59
  • $\begingroup$ If our objective is to maintain and improve the site, is allowing these opinion and idea-fishing questions damaging to the site, or improving it. My stance is clear, but for everyone here, I think explaining why you vote in a given direction will, for one, end debate and ambiguity, and secondly, establish a why so no debate on this topic would need to ensue in the future. $\endgroup$
    – Sam Kitsune
    Jan 3 at 2:02
  • $\begingroup$ And for clarification, by maintain, I am referring to removing damaging content or media from the site, such as things that break the rules, which are inherently damaging in one form or another. $\endgroup$
    – Sam Kitsune
    Jan 3 at 2:04
  • $\begingroup$ My apologies for my language skills, I am not usually very good at phrasing my arguments... but I hope you understand roughly what I mean. $\endgroup$
    – Sam Kitsune
    Jan 3 at 2:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It seems like you haven't understood the answer you're commenting in. "where would you post such questions?" - somewhere that is not here. Good for you for wanting everyone to be helped in the one place, but that's just not going to happen, it's not possible to do so. The only reason SE works so well is because it does not allow everything everywhere. Imagine walking into a burger shop and saying they should make you a pizza, what, just because they both involve some kind of bread holding some ingredients? That's what your idea boils down to, and it has all the same problems. @SamKitsune $\endgroup$
    – Nij
    Jan 3 at 7:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .