In respect to the question here on Meta: Does adding context hurt questions?
I was checking out that discussion because I think my most recent question (and, I feel like a lot of my questions) is suffering from this somewhat
Blind Humanoid Species - how would they discover the concept that some species have sight?
- I am trying to focus on a scientific path which would be plausible for an intelligent, blind, non-hunter society to discover that other species have sight.
I am struggling with the view that "this setup is not possible", or "never". This is not a reality-check question, and I'm encountering a lot of resistance when it comes to the existing conditions. It's actually got me a bit frustrated, and regretfully a bit defensive, which is why I'm posting here to try and figure out what I'm doing wrong, or if its just a bad question for this site, or if I should just get used to having those answers generally being top-voted.
Am I asking my question incorrectly? Should I just go and explain the entire world, even though my particular question shouldn't need to incorporate all those details? Maybe all these details are things which a reader would have to discover as they are reading my story!
If I'm not asking incorrectly, do we need to police for "this is not possible" more closely? None of the answers which directly disagree with the base setup conditions are useful, so I have downvoted them - but is that enough? Other people seem to upvote them, because they are more realistic, but they are not helpful.
It's related to the problem in: Possible new 'non-reality-check' tag? (though I don't believe a tag should be necessary if this is even a problem)