Exhibit 1

12th vs 21st century archers in a battle to death, who would survive?

This is blatently off topic and anyone with some experience here would recognise that WB is not for random fiction what-if questions. So why was it upvoted by 3 and not showing close votes, though it attracted many comments from its 50 views?

Don’t upvote a “bad” post post just because it’s a cool idea in general. Please do flag and confirm poor posts ASAP. If you see it, process it.

Exhibit 2

Can a planet have half the orbit and rotation times of Earth?

This asked multiple questions. It should have been noted as too broad immediatly. Then, it could have been fixed by deleting the follow-ups and posting those separately.

  • Can a planet have a 6 Earth-month rotation around its star at the same time it has a 12 Earth-hour day?
  • How does this affect the climate?
  • Can it be habitable?
  • But really, how short can the day/year be so it is habitable?

Instead, multiple people answered, and the answers had to give multiple distinct answers in one post, so they knew it was a multiple.

So now, it can’t be fixed but must be closed, because it should not be edited so as to invalidate the existing answers.

If a question s too broad, don’t answer it (yet)! flag it, comment, and hold your answer(s) until after it has been improved.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm one of the perpetrators who regretfully answered Exhibit 2. I misunderstood the scope of the question and thought it had a straightforward answer. $\endgroup$
    – Thriggle
    May 27 '17 at 2:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Man, u talk against principle - first come first served. enjoy free points capitalism system, lol. As for the first exhibit, it took some time to ensure that the question is simple and what-if, those comments you shame us for $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    May 27 '17 at 3:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Thriggle the question in the Title had a straightforward answer (explaining where day and year come from). But then the list of additional questions (How does this affect the climate? Can it be habitable?) should not be part of it. Note the environment tag too! So the latter is really on his mind. $\endgroup$
    – JDługosz
    May 27 '17 at 3:23
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "Of course, you can have a planet closer to the sun and spinning faster". But how, why, and what would happen is what should consist of an answer on SE, asked for or not. Exhibit #2 is exactly the type and scope of question that should be here. - Exhibit #1 is of the type of question people like to see here. There are intricately deceptive ways to reword that question to make it on topic, but unnecessary IMO. We all know what he's after: which of them would win an archery contest?... after having been sent back in time (lol there it is, now it's on topic :) $\endgroup$
    – Mazura
    May 27 '17 at 21:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What's your beef? That people are getting points where they maybe shouldn't be or that in the end this is just more work for mods, adds noise, etc? I'm of the opinion this is by design, or all questions would start off as closed. The reasoning, I assume, to allow it to be this way, is so that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Which is perpetually up to the community at large. You can ask people to not be FGITWs, but don't expect anything to come of it. It's not against the rules. Again this is prob by design, to inspire the addition of content; the noise of which SE was built for $\endgroup$
    – Mazura
    May 27 '17 at 21:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ «which of them would win an archery contest?... after having been sent back in time (lol there it is, now it's on topic :) » no, too story based. $\endgroup$
    – JDługosz
    May 28 '17 at 3:18
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Suppose the Q was reality check and "I want an Earth like planet with a six month orbit and 12 hour day; otherwise with climate and life much like Earth: Is that feasible or am I missing something?" That seems like a valid reality check question to me, and the answers would be the same. The whole point of such questions is so an author can tap into expertise so their audience can suspend disbelief; reality checkers are inherently groping in the dark without knowing what they might find. In this case, "Will a climatologist slam my book shut when I say X?" $\endgroup$
    – Amadeus
    May 31 '17 at 11:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ We have to walk a pretty narrow tightrope between "Too story based" and "Too broad" here, and IMO the "Too broad" close reason is badly abused in this SE. A major part of building a world is exploring the consequences of worldbuilding decisions, but any attempt to do that here runs the risk of being labelled "Too broad". This post comes across as little more than whining because others don't automatically agree with you. $\endgroup$
    – Werrf
    May 31 '17 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Amadeus I agree. That's asking one thing and is clearly defined. $\endgroup$
    – JDługosz
    May 31 '17 at 20:52
  • $\begingroup$ It's ridiculous to discourage volunteers from posting legitimate non-spam answers on what is primarily a free answers site. $\endgroup$
    – Pranab
    Jun 5 '17 at 8:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .