We don't have any examples of such questions yet, so I suppose it might be a little silly for me to be asking this on meta already, but I want to know.
Do we consider questions asking if something is realistic to be on-topic?
For example, say I considered a problem my world is having and came up with a solution. There might be some flaws in my solution, so I ask here if my solution is realistic.
I made this writing system based off tying knots in rope. [Examples] Could this writing system (or something very similar) have developed naturally? Would it be too difficult for everyday use?
Alternately, I could ask about the problem I'm having and see if people have different solutions, and then add the system I developed as an answer.
Q: If people had only three fingers, what kinds of writing systems could they develop?
A: Well, there's this fantastic Incan system that should be doable even with less fingers.
I might be particularly attached to my solution, however, so maybe in that case I should ask what kind of an effect this solution will have on the world at large, or perhaps what flaws it might have.
Would it cause any significant changes to the way people gather and share information if writing was not stored on paper, but on rope?
There's a few ways around it, but the core of my question remains the same. If I describe a particular effect in my world to the best of my ability, along with the reasoning for this effect, could I simply ask if it is realistic? Would we need extra criteria for such questions? (Answers must explain why instead of simply saying Yes/No, questions must indicate a few possibly problems, etc.) What do we think?
