Recently, two of my questions were closed. It can be found here. The reason given for it being closed was,

This is a very broad questions. It would have a lot of implications on social, economic, and generally every aspects of the society. It is likely to produce a civil unrest or war. And your last questions focuses on situations where the whole step was done. So in the worst case, you ask us to describe hypothetically a few decades. That's what I call too broad. – bilbo_pingouin

However, this was after I edited it to make my focus how would the government deal with them. Which is precisely the advice given on the little ribbon that says it's closed (please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue). So why was it closed? Bilbo was the only one to even provide an answer as to why he voted to close, and I think he was going off of what he had read earlier. The other four people didn't even upvote his comment, much less provide a reason.

Is my question still too broad? Or is there some other reason my question is invalid?

  • $\begingroup$ What will likely happen to these little people? Will we have tiny towns? How will it affect government? <- That's three questions right there $\endgroup$ – Tim B Feb 6 '16 at 11:34
  • $\begingroup$ @TimB I meant those questions as far as the government is concerned. Like will there be tiny towns sanctioned for the use of these people. But I can see why that might seem overly broad... $\endgroup$ – Xandar The Zenon Feb 6 '16 at 14:40
  • $\begingroup$ Just to clarify that point, my comment and vote were before your edits. You were probably at it, but nevertheless they were published a few minutes after my comment. $\endgroup$ – clem steredenn Feb 6 '16 at 20:34

I was not involved in the closing of this question, but I will speculate this:

It was closed because it is a "What if" idea generation question. The very text of the question poses it as a hypothetical, and the details are minor and suggest you just want to know: "What if this happened? How would the government respond?" That is fundamentally not about world building -- it invites speculation, opinion, and does not have a reasonable metric by which a correct answer could be judged.

  • $\begingroup$ All right, I am satisfied. I can see how this would answer my question, although the world building site regulations feel a little bit tight right now. People still have to speculate how much the answers will have to speculate, and it's still being established how in or off topic questions are. $\endgroup$ – Xandar The Zenon Feb 6 '16 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ There are some discussions about redefining the scope of the site. I'd recommend to join them, or join the Worldbuilding Chat for further discussions on the subject. $\endgroup$ – clem steredenn Feb 6 '16 at 20:37

I've made an edit to the mini-me question that I think captures your intent (based on what you said here on meta) and makes the question not too broad. If you think I've missed your point then feel free to edit further, but if you're happy with the edit I made, let's see how the community feels. (It already had reopen votes before my edit, BTW.)

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you Monica. $\endgroup$ – Xandar The Zenon Feb 7 '16 at 5:40

You must log in to answer this question.

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