How to deal with “Please develop my High Concept” questions?

"Hello Community... I have a great idea for my Worldbuilding. Assume Earth and history as we know it, but in my world, Hitler died from whooping cough as a baby. What is my world like after this change? Ok, thanks, bye. Yours truly, /E. X. Ample"

At least once per week there is this kind of question: the author has come up with a High Concept. But then they have not gone anywhere with it. They have not even started authoring their world or (as is seemingly often the case) their story. Instead they ask here on Worldbuilding about what happens as a consequence of their High Concept.

Two obvious problems with this kind of question:

• Opinion based

...and even if we could just slam-dunk close the questions on that alone, I feel this could be handled better.

Now I truly believe that those that ask in this manner are not actually lazy and just expect us to do their work for them. Instead I imagine that for the most part they — in their eagerness and joy over having come up with this interesting concept — simply forget that it probably has a lot bigger consequences than they could imagine, and that there are many possible variations where it may take them. They have — innocently — missed those bits, and they do not actually want us to be the authors of their world/story.

Nevertheless: in practice they have just asked us to do their work as an author for them.

We then need to inform them of this fact, but at the same time not kill their joy of wanting to write, using the concept. My problem is how to decline their request without quenching their enthusiasm for their authorship.

Hence my questions:

• How can we guide them in cases like this, especially without coming off as rude or unhelpful?
• How should we express ourselves to them so that they are not put down or discouraged?
• How can we encourage them to start tugging on the great conspicuous loose thread that is their High Concept and see what unravels?
• Maybe we could point them to the chat. We regularly discuss a lot of broad concepts in a brainstorming-style there. By brainstorming with them a bit we might make them aware of the problems and maybe they get some ideas for a question that might fit the style of WorldBuilding more, which could then be posted in the Sandbox and, again, discussed in the chat. – Secespitus May 3 '17 at 11:38
• @Secespitus Chat requires 20 rep. – user May 3 '17 at 11:45
• @MichaelKjörling Yes, you are right. This does not work with completely new users, but there are also a few users with more reputation that post such questions. When writing this comment I was thinking about the latest question from Alex. For new users it might still be a good idea to point out that they can come to the chat with 20 rep and use the Sandbox on Meta with 5 rep, so that they know they can ask about their idea there. It just takes a few upvotes on another question/answer to get to that point. – Secespitus May 3 '17 at 11:48
• Related question I asked a while ago – DaaaahWhoosh May 3 '17 at 13:26
• I always instantly VTC them as Opinion Based or Too Broad (if it is the case). The faster the better, I say, such that answer writers don't end up answering a bad question. – Aify May 4 '17 at 23:03
• Seems like "High Concept" is jargon for a high-level concept. This question's title might be more recognizable/comprehensible if the jargon term is avoided. – Nat May 5 '17 at 23:20
• @NatWhic That is why I link to its Wikipedia page. :) – MichaelK May 9 '17 at 6:55
• – user Aug 26 '17 at 21:05

The first thing to do when coming across such a question, in my mind, is to vote to close as too broad. Sorry, but as posed (and I have seen a few such examples myself, so I know what you mean), it's simply asking for far too much. It cannot meaningfully be answered in its current form, particularly within the Stack Exchange format, and therefore should be closed. Remember the so-called book test: if you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

However, voting to close should only be the first step (first in order to ensure that people don't waste time answering what amounts to an unanswerable question).

The very next thing to do is to leave constructive criticism in comments. Such should ideally always accompany a vote to close; in practice, I know that it doesn't always work out that way. For example, particularly for a user who is new to the site or the network:

• If you know of any similar, relevant questions, then link to those. If space allows and it isn't obvious from looking at them, discuss briefly why you feel they are relevant. Avoid calling them "duplicates" if they aren't actually; I like to use "you may be interested in..." or just plain "relevant:" especially if space is tight.
• Explain why the question as posed cannot be answered within our format.
• Try to guide the person asking the question to narrow it down such that it becomes answerable.
• Point out that having a question be put on hold is not the end of the world, and that if the question gets edited during the "on hold" grace period, it is automatically nominated for the community to review for reopening.
• If you can identify some aspect that would narrow the question sufficiently to bring it into scope, then suggest that the OP edits the question accordingly. Do not, however, make such an edit to the question directly, at least unless and until the OP has clearly expressed that they are happy with it; doing so would likely be changing the intent of the question's author, which is something we should always strive to avoid as much as is at all possible.
• Do point out that it's okay to ask multiple questions about a single subject, but that they should be asked as separate question posts and that what one learns from one should be incorporated into the next somehow. (Asking multiple, related questions in a single post is an art that takes time to get the feel for. It's very easy to take what could be a perfectly fine question and turn it into one that is too broad by doing it.)
• Point the person asking the question at the site tour ([tour]) and/or help center ([help]), as appropriate. Particularly if pointing them at the help center, don't be afraid to direct them toward a specific section or even a specific article within the help center. Those texts aren't perfect, and for the very most part they aren't tailored per site, but much of what's in them is generally applicable.
• If the asker appears to be receptive, pointing them to Eric Raymond's How To Ask Questions The Smart Way can also be beneficial; it even has a specific section for Stack Overflow. As written, How To Ask Questions The Smart Way is tailored mainly for technical questions, but lots of it applies equally across subject disciplines, and I tend to find that following the general advice laid out there usually gets me useful answers in a variety of fora.

The reputation limit to participate on Meta has been lowered to 1 on Worldbuilding, so pointing them to the question sandbox is probably a good idea.

If the asker has sufficient reputation to participate in chat (20 rep), then pointing them to our main chat room can be an option for more back-and-forth discussion about the question.

Unfortunately many of the people who most need help getting their questions figured out are those with the lowest reputation. However, I am personally very much against "sympathy upvotes". Posts should be voted on based on their content, not based on who or the reputation of the user who posted them. Instead, encourage them to go answer some question that doesn't require clarification. A good answer to an existing, even an older, question can quickly earn someone several upvotes, moving them quickly past many of the new user reputation limits.

Generally speaking, I try to be more gentle with new users. Someone who has earned a few hundred or even a few thousand rep on a site, particularly with a history of posting well-received material, should know how the going goes; particularly so if they have access to cast close/reopen votes and review such votes, they should be familiar enough with how the system works that they shouldn't need specific guidance. In such a case I might leave a brief comment and maybe link to some other page or question if I have it handy, but I won't spend significant amounts of time hand-holding the person asking the question or digging out obscure posts. More or less the same goes with people who have an established presence on the Stack Exchange network, but who are new to Worldbuilding SE specifically; I might cut those a little more slack for not being familiar with the specific standards of the site, but not for very long. Basically, if you have earned enough reputation elsewhere to get the association bonus to start out at 101 rep instead of 1 rep, I expect that you know how things work at least to some degree.

• You mentioned the book test. That reminds me of a few questions regarding AIs that I've VTC'd with the comment "not only could you write a book about this, but you could write books for an entire lifetime on the topic and barely scratch the surface here. In fact, Issac Asimov actually did spend an entire lifetime writing books on this topic!" – Cort Ammon May 5 '17 at 23:34

I can't top a CVn's answer, but I'd like to add another perspective for the benefit of new users.

Users may not realize it, but when they ask an open-ended or "high concept" question, they're inviting one or both of two things:

1. They're inviting a discussion.

2. They're inviting a short-story writing competition.

Both are off-topic on this site. The first, because Stack Exchange is a question-and-answer site, meaning they want specific, objective questions that have a single, best answer. The second, because while it might seem odd, our purpose is to not help someone write their story, but to develop a world wherein someone can set many stories. And the best questions are those that lead to answers other people can use, too.

A new user may think that we're closing the question as "too broad" simply because the answer(s) would be too long. The issue isn't that Stack Exchange doesn't like long answers. Quite the contrary, SE loves long answers. Or, perhaps more accurately, SE likes thorough answers. An ideal answer on Stack Exchange would be "yes" or "no" followed by a mountain of mathematics, article citations, and analysis to justify the simple, precise, objective answer.

High concept questions cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. They have no simple or objective answer at all. They don't even fall into the SE description of good subjective, bad subjective. They can only be answered by telling a story, often one that only has value to the person asking the question — and that's off-topic.