The title is awful but I couldn't come up with a better one, feel free to edit
What I'm wondering about is this: when presented with question such as this, this or this, where the answer is most likely a resounding NO and there are strong reasons as to why what is questioned is impossible or extremely unlikely, should we, by default, also try to present possible workarounds to make it at least possible?
The reasons this is different here, compared to more strictly technical sites, such as SO, is because:
- These are imaginary worlds and they're not obligated (nor can they) conform to reality 100% (so workarounds are always possible, if not always good)
- This is a Q&A about building worlds and ideally it should provide help in building worlds, not just stating that imaginary situations are impossible or possible (which feels more appropriate for a science or technology-focused Q&A)
- While many questions are asked by people with some sense of the related subject matter of their question, it's unlikely we'll be getting questions on whether imaginary situations are possible or not, from people who are already experts on the matter. Lacking expertise, it's also unlikely they'll be able to come up with plausible solutions to their worldbuilding on their own. The obvious question a lot of them would ask in real life is "Under what conditions would it be possible?". It would make sense to expect the same from those who search for said questions.
Some questions state this in the question body already, but should we consider this follow-up query on how to squeeze the impossible in there to be an implicit part of these questions always? Should we expect the asker to add this side to the question themselves? or is the answer of "No, here's why" enough considering the scope?
edit: The tag idea was a joke, only placed here for completeness, yet answers seem to be focusing on that part entirely - so I'm editing it out for clarity. Making a note here for future readers: huge success.