2
$\begingroup$

Many of my worldbuilding questions are deemed as heretic(absurd) and being treated as taboo which often result in closure. I am conflicted since there are two groups of reader that seemingly contradict each other, one side requesting for background story and details while the other group think that the question is story based which is not appropriate. I am quite flexible and willing to compromise, so can anyone kindly show me where to draw the line so that more of my questions will not result in closure? Actually probably all of my questions are affected and I cannot possibly list all of them!

|
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Can you give some specific examples? Some of your questions have been very poorly received, and some of your questions have been very well received. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Nov 22 '16 at 0:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 because you're willing to compromise / this shows you care about your work on here $\endgroup$ – Zxyrra Nov 22 '16 at 1:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I haven't really been active here for a long while, but you may find the Question Sandbox useful. $\endgroup$ – Shokhet Nov 22 '16 at 5:25
  • $\begingroup$ Story based does not mean that there is a problem due to the question containing a story. Story based means that you are asking about the story, not about the world. This is a site about world building, not story building. $\endgroup$ – Tim B Nov 23 '16 at 17:34
1
$\begingroup$

As someone who both is prepared to welcome far fetched and outlandish questions on WB SE, and who criticized one of your questions as being fully of absurdities I am prepared to state my position.

Firstly, user6760, you will note I have answered a number of your questions. Usually your questions display imagination, humour, and a taste for the outrageous. Which is fine, by me, but unfortunately, a number of your questions are overladen with too many factors that are either contradictory, internally inconsistent, and in some cases have a disregard for reality. Now I am happy to entertain questions with some of those factors, but there does come a point where when there are too many of them this reaches the point of overload.

For example, your question about machine vampirism was constructed on a long chain of propositions, any one of which contradicted the realities of biology, technology, and information processing, and which rendered answering your question effectively pointless. Unless someone wanted to go through it and point out the problems with each of the flawed links in your chain. I complained about this as a comment.

In fact, the question was answered by someone who flatly stated they had ignored the chain of assumed events leading to AI/robotic vampires. This, in my opinion, was the only the question could be answered.

I shall point out that I had the opportunity to vote to close this question, but I declined to do so. The point I wanted to make was in my comments. So closing the question wasn't going to achieve anything useful or of substance.

The set of questions you had posted previously about the indestructible time travel booth for Cretaceous tourism were much more effective and answerable posts. Many of which I answered. Probably because they weren't overburdened by too many self-contradictory and inconsistent factors. Although this problem was present over the sequence of questions.

Are your questions too far fetched? No! If anything they are not far fetched enough. Your tendency towards whimsy leads to wacky questions without much substance. In my opinion, a good far fetched question will have something with a core of substance behind it. There should be an element of challenge to them. Answering many of your questions is in itself challenging, but when dealing to many unnecessary and ill-founded factors any answer can soon be reduced to a farrago of nonsense. You need to leave your questions much more open to allow anyone answering them room to conceptually manoeuvre.

I do not pretend to know what is the best way to advise how you can remedy your questions. Asking questions is always difficult.

Here I will put my own head on the chopping block. Take your machine vampirism question. Instead a string of factors leading to robotic vampires, what if the question was put this way. "After centuries of living in harmony humans and AI/robots have to deal with machine vampirism. Robot vampires are preying on humans. What factors could promote machines to thirst for human blood?"

Doubtless that question would be quickly closed as opinion-based, ideas generation, or whatever. I don't know whether this will help. Hopefully the other answers you receive will be of more help.

I can only suggest: try to keep your questions simple and direct. But do try to keep having fun with them.

|
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the responses, in the past I got some complaints saying my questions are completely random and spontaneous and now I find most of my questions which includes a backstory suffered the same fate, which is why I like to find a workaround. $\endgroup$ – user6760 Nov 22 '16 at 7:34
  • $\begingroup$ I don't like complaining. Your questions can be better. At their best they're good fun. Add only enough backstory to set the stage. Try keeping your questions simple. Perhaps posting them in the Sandbox first. The good thing is you are willing to try to improve. Take it one step at a time. $\endgroup$ – a4android Nov 22 '16 at 11:12
  • $\begingroup$ Well explained. $\endgroup$ – AndreiROM Nov 22 '16 at 16:47
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, @AndreiROM. The question may have been inspired by critical comments I had made, if so the OP deserves an explanation of my position and a right of reply to defend himself, if necessary. This is only my statement of how I saw things; others may have different ideas. Better to help someone to improve than put them down. The real work will be done the OP, but a helping hand or two will be encouraging. $\endgroup$ – a4android Nov 23 '16 at 3:41

You must log in to answer this question.

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