8
$\begingroup$

We've had some previous discussion about a problem our sandbox is currently facing (auto-protection). We then gathered some functional requirements, which I summarize here (I've consolidated some similar ones):

  • Anybody, including new users, can use the sandbox to post draft questions for review.

  • Anybody in the community can provide feedback on sandbox questions, and it is easy to do so.

  • Community members can easily see current sandbox questions without digging through obsolete questions.

  • Community members can easily tell whether a sandbox question is active or obsolete.

  • Be just like the regular posting experience.

  • It's easy for new users to see the feedback others give them about whether the question is ready for the Main site or not.

  • The impact of the Sandbox is easily visible.

  • Maintenance of the sandbox can be shared by the community (including protection if applicable).

  • (Relatively) fast feedback.

  • The graduated drafts do not take up too much space.

Of the several suggestions we received from a CM, two appear to not have fatal flaws:

  • Remove auto-protection from our meta. (It has to be all-or-nothing, not just one question.)

  • Instead of a sandbox question, use a sandbox tag. Each sandbox question is its own meta question, to be archived in some way when resolved.

Other solutions might exist beyond these two.

Finally, there's the status quo -- do nothing, and continue to monitor the sandbox and unprotect it when needed.

What should we do about the sandbox? In your answer, please describe a solution and then assess it against the requirements. In particular, please identify requirements it does not satisfy. It's going to be hard to satisfy all requirements, so we might end up having to decide to sacrifice some less-important ones.

I've provided an answer for the status quo to demonstrate what I'm asking for. That doesn't mean I'm supporting the status quo as the solution; I want us to discuss all the options we think might work.


The sandbox question is again triggering auto-protection with every deletion, so I'm featuring this question in hopes that we can decide what to do before (by default) rebooting it again.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Note to future answerers! It would be nice if you could structure your answers so they address each of the above points individually (see e.g. Monica's answer). That makes it easier to compare suggestions. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Jul 14 '17 at 16:15
  • $\begingroup$ Since moderators don't like the correct answer, I shall repeat it simply: the way to improve this is not to have it, as it breaks the model. For rationale, see discussion censored for no good reason (10k only) $\endgroup$ – Lightness Races in Orbit Jul 14 '17 at 20:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @LightnessRacesinOrbit's proposal does not address the requirements in this question and was deleted after multiple "not an answer" flags. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Jul 14 '17 at 20:51
7
$\begingroup$

Status quo with modifications to the Meta Site

  • Lowering the required rep to post an answer to any Meta Post to 1 (currently 5)
  • raising the threshold for automatic protection of Meta Posts to a level that it is effectively disabled

The sandbox is one active question. Its accepted answer provides a log of "graduates" (links to sandboxed questions that were asked on main). Other answers are sandbox drafts. People use comments and votes on those answers to provide feedback. "Graduates" and abandoned posts are deleted.

Requirements assessment

Anybody, including new users, can use the sandbox to post draft questions for review.

Yes. Currently posting on meta requires 5 rep. There has been a discussion about lowering the rep requirement on Meta to 1 where Monica propsed to lower the rep required to post answers on Meta to 1. This way users with < 5 rep can post questions on Meta about their questions and can answer posts on Meta, which allows them to use the Sandbox and get early feedback even on their first questions if they want to give it a try.

Anybody in the community can provide feedback on sandbox questions, and it is easy to do so.

Sort of. Commenting requires 50 rep (except on your own post). Voting requires 15 (up) or 125 (down). Editing requires 2,000 rep except for the author as long as the post is not a community wiki. Editing a community wiki would be possible with 100 rep. New users could therefore not participate in giving others feedback as they are normally the ones in need of feedback.

Community members can easily see current sandbox questions without digging through obsolete questions.

Yes. Obsolete questions are deleted, so in the default view current questions are sorted to the top.

Community members can easily tell whether a sandbox question is active or obsolete.

Yes (see previous point).

Be just like the regular posting experience.

Yes. Same markdown, same site features. (Tags are slightly different, but there's a way to show tagging.)

It's easy for new users to see the feedback others give them about whether the question is ready for the Main site or not.

Yes. Comments produce notifications and are visible below the post. New users can't see vote breakdowns without a userscript.

The impact of the Sandbox is easily visible.

Yes. The accepted answer with the list is at the top.

Maintenance of the sandbox can be shared by the community (including protection if applicable).

Sort of. Deleting inactive posts require high-rep users or, practically, mods, but they can be flagged. Furthermore the limit for automatic protection by the community bot should be raised on the Meta Site so that the Sandbox won't be automatically protected, which would sort of defeat the purpose of the Sandbox by excluding the newest users with under 10 rep. The exclusion would normally be temporarily until someone realizes that the Sandbox has been protected and until a mod or high rep user has acted on this, but this is still unnecessary manual overhead.

(Relatively) fast feedback.

Yes. A new or edited answer bumps the meta question. New sandbox answers feed into chat through a bot. The rest is up to the users. :-)

The graduated drafts do not take up too much space.

Yes. So long as you're not digging through deleted posts, yes. If you're digging through deleted posts, they can sometimes be voluminous. (Why are you digging through deleted sandbox posts? :-) )


Drawbacks

  1. Users with under 5 rep could post answers to any post on the Meta site.
    Currently the traffic seems to be low enough to handle low rep users potentially participating in Meta discussions, but theoretically they could post on any existing question, which is not possible as per the current modus operandi of WB.SE Meta.

  2. Posts can't automatically be protected anymore from users with under 10 rep.
    I haven't seen many posts that were in need of an automatic protection and I can't remember a lot of Meta Posts that were protected, either manually or automatically, except for the Sandbox. I don't think it will hurt to basically disable automatic protection for the Meta Site, but it's still a change that would affect the whole Meta Site. Note that manual protection would still be possible if these changes would introduce a lot of low-quality content from low rep users.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Note that I support this solution but can't upvote my own posts. So the real number of upvotes is one greater than can be seen on the upvote count. Because of the personal sentiment in the answer I refrain from making this a community wiki, which would allow me to upvote it. $\endgroup$ – Secespitus Jul 4 '17 at 13:58
  • $\begingroup$ FYI, you can't vote for your own CW posts. (See FR here.) $\endgroup$ – Laurel Jul 13 '17 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Laurel Oh, interesting, thanks. I was sure I could vote on community wikis created by me... $\endgroup$ – Secespitus Jul 13 '17 at 20:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also, if these changes end up being a problem, I think they're both fairly easy to revert. So it's one of the easier ones to "try out" and clean up if it doesn't work. $\endgroup$ – Troyen Sep 9 '17 at 3:55
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I've removed the auto-protection system (or rather, raised the limits so as to never be reasonably hit) on this meta. Please let me know if you all have any problems. $\endgroup$ – Jon Ericson Sep 15 '17 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ @JonEricson Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Secespitus Sep 15 '17 at 17:52
6
$\begingroup$

Switching to a tag

This proposal is to create a tag on meta. There should also be one Q&A on meta which provides the information on how to use the sandbox. The accepted answer to that would include a list of graduated questions. A script similar to that used for the old topic challenges could even be created to automatically generate the graduated questions list!

People use answers on a question to suggest new versions of it. They use comments to give smaller bits of feedback. Votes on proposed questions and the main question itself give feedback on how ready something is.

Requirements assessment

Anybody, including new users, can use the sandbox to post draft questions for review.

Almost. Posting on meta requires 5 rep. Beyond that, anybody can post.

Anybody in the community can provide feedback on sandbox questions, and it is easy to do so.

This is improved as posting a new answer requires less reputation (5?) than commenting which requires 50 rep (except on your own post). Voting requires 15 (up) or 125 (down). Editing requires high rep (I think 2000) except for the author.

Community members can easily see current sandbox questions without digging through obsolete questions.

We still have the option to delete obsolete questions and can sort the questions in the tag by recent activity. Another option would be to have an and move them to that when complete. This would also automatically give a list of completed sandbox questions.

Community members can easily tell whether a sandbox question is active or obsolete.

Yes (see previous point).

Be just like the regular posting experience.

Yes. Same markdown, same site features. (Tags are slightly different, but there's a way to show tagging.)

It's easy for new users to see the feedback others give them about whether the question is ready for the Main site or not.

Yes. Comments and answers produce notifications and are visible below the post. New users can't see vote breakdowns without a userscript.

The impact of the Sandbox is easily visible.

Yes. A link to the accepted answer with the list should be added to the tag description.

Maintenance of the sandbox can be shared by the community (including protection if applicable).

Yes, changing tags requires significantly lower permissions than deleting.

(Relatively) fast feedback.

Yes. A new or edited answer bumps the question. New sandbox answers feed into chat through a bot. The rest is up to the users. :-)

The graduated drafts do not take up too much space.

Yes. If they are moved to then they only appear at all if looked for. Alternatively if is just added without removing then a search for but not would be needed.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You copied the part about the "chat through a bot". Would that still be possible with a tag instead of a single question? One point to consider in light of some users who used the new Sandbox a lot in the beginning is that this way the Meta homepage might theoretically get "flooded" with questions from users if a few users decide to go on an "asking spree". Currently it would all be contained in one post. $\endgroup$ – Secespitus Jul 4 '17 at 12:48
  • $\begingroup$ @Secespitus Yes, that would work just the same way - it's just a different RSS feed. In fact we already feed all meta posts into chat so that would cover new sandbox questions too. $\endgroup$ – Tim B Jul 4 '17 at 12:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "Flooding" meta is certainly possible but I don't think it's a big risk. Sandbox activity isn't that high. $\endgroup$ – Tim B Jul 4 '17 at 12:51
  • $\begingroup$ I forgot about the general feed, thanks for reminding me. Yeah, Sandbox activity is not that high. It's just that I remember there being a new question or more every day at the beginning of the new Sandbox post. Together with the edits on already existing questions there might be quite a few on the homepage. It's just a point that I think people should consider when voting for this possible solution. $\endgroup$ – Secespitus Jul 4 '17 at 12:58
  • $\begingroup$ The front page holds 50 questions; I'm not too worried about flooding. I'd use the tag wiki as the place for instructions, FAQ, etc. It can link to other posts for the archive and graduate list, but this way the "sandbox" link still provides instructions and a list of active questions to look at. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Jul 4 '17 at 14:24
  • $\begingroup$ I like moving them to a sandbox-complete tag, so the simple thing ("click on the 'sandbox' tag/link") takes you to the stuff you most care about. The sandbox tag wiki should of course link to sandbox-complete. I think that's enough discoverability for the questions we're done with. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Jul 4 '17 at 15:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A tag has a lot to recommend it, but I'd like us to try the less-drastic change first and come back to this if that doesn't work. That is, keep a sandbox post and make modifications on meta to handle the rep and protection problems. People already know how to use (and teach people to use) the current sandbox, so even though a tag appeals to me for its elegance, I don't think it's the next thing to try. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Aug 27 '17 at 20:47
2
$\begingroup$

Make it a more obvious feature. Meta and sandbox posting is rare for the newer posters most likely to need it to craft better questions. The feature should be BUILT IN to the posting process to begin with, perhaps with a "post to sandbox" button and explanatory mouse-over next to the "submit" button.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for your input. We'd love to have better integration, but that would require SE to make changes so for now we're focusing on what we can do. (Only a couple sites have sandboxes, so better integration from the "ask question" page would be pretty far down on their priority list.) $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Jul 14 '17 at 20:53
1
$\begingroup$

Status quo

The sandbox is one active question. Its accepted answer provides a log of "graduates" (links to sandboxed questions that were asked on main). Other answers are sandbox drafts. People use comments and votes on those answers to provide feedback. "Graduates" and abandoned posts are deleted.

Requirements assessment

Anybody, including new users, can use the sandbox to post draft questions for review.

Almost. Posting on meta requires 5 rep. Beyond that, anybody can post.

Anybody in the community can provide feedback on sandbox questions, and it is easy to do so.

Sort of. Commenting requires 50 rep (except on your own post). Voting requires 15 (up) or 125 (down). Editing requires high rep (I think 2000) except for the author.

Community members can easily see current sandbox questions without digging through obsolete questions.

Yes. Obsolete questions are deleted, so in the default view current questions are sorted to the top.

Community members can easily tell whether a sandbox question is active or obsolete.

Yes (see previous point).

Be just like the regular posting experience.

Yes. Same markdown, same site features. (Tags are slightly different, but there's a way to show tagging.)

It's easy for new users to see the feedback others give them about whether the question is ready for the Main site or not.

Yes. Comments produce notifications and are visible below the post. New users can't see vote breakdowns without a userscript.

The impact of the Sandbox is easily visible.

Yes. The accepted answer with the list is at the top.

Maintenance of the sandbox can be shared by the community (including protection if applicable).

Sort of. Deleting inactive posts and unprotecting when it gets auto-protected require high-rep users or, practically, mods, but they can be flagged.

(Relatively) fast feedback.

Yes. A new or edited answer bumps the meta question. New sandbox answers feed into chat through a bot. The rest is up to the users. :-)

The graduated drafts do not take up too much space.

Yes. So long as you're not digging through deleted posts, yes. If you're digging through deleted posts, they can sometimes be voluminous. (Why are you digging through deleted sandbox posts? :-) )

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Note that I posted this proposal but don't support it. (I don't oppose it either.) $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Jul 4 '17 at 15:39
1
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure whether to post this as an answer or a comment, but since I think this will take a bit of space, I posted this as answer.

I don't know the history of the sandbox, and can only guess from its existence. Since I'm not a 10k user, I can't see the deleted posts, but I'm guessing that there are already several generation of sandboxes.

If sandboxes become full so quickly until it become a problem, or we would like to slow it down, I want to propose that users should have only one answer, and should reuse it when they want to propose a new post.

  1. Post "How do I X?"
  2. Graduate the question (post in main site)
  3. Delete the post

When that user want to post a new question

  1. Edit the post "How do I X?" to "Can I do Y?"
  2. Undelete the post
  3. Flag the post (answer) asking for moderator to clear up the comments
  4. Receive feedback and wait for graduation
| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There are currently two Sandboxes: the old one can be found here and contains a list of all Sandboxes with a special emphasis on the currently acitve one here. The second link in the introduction of the active Sandbox leads to the list of all Sandboxes. $\endgroup$ – Secespitus Aug 28 '17 at 12:06
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting suggestion, thanks. Mods would have to clean up the comments (as you said), and we couldn't ascribe any meaning to votes. (Mods can't reset those.) I don't know how much signal those votes provide; anybody want to weigh in? $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Aug 28 '17 at 12:43
  • $\begingroup$ @MonicaCellio Hmm... yes that will be a problem in signalling whether the question is good or not. I was assuming that the vote is not important because the draft will get either graduated or abandoned (deleted) $\endgroup$ – Vylix Aug 28 '17 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ I don't have any numbers on this, so this is just my personal feeling about votes (notifying @MonicaCellio): Currently votes on the Sandbox posts seem to be used for a clear indication. This is how I use them and how I see others use them. If a question is clearly very far from being salvagable or obviously opinion-based, etc. it gets a downvote. If someone feels it's good to go and there is no more work needed the draft gets an upvote. A big part of the grey area in between gets no votes as that area is basically what the Sandbox is about. I think they are a useful fast indication. $\endgroup$ – Secespitus Aug 28 '17 at 12:53
0
$\begingroup$

I am an enthusiast but relatively new user of worldbuilding, and a nonuser of sandbox and (until this post) meta. I am sure I do not understand the merits and history of the sandbox. I humbly submit that there exists a site which meets all the bullet point functional requirements listed in this question: https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions

I suspect most new users with a question to ask find the stack and post it. Any user savvy enough to discover the existence of / negotiate the use of the sandbox is already a stack sophisticate. Rather than maintain a question detention camp site for reeducation of inadequates, one could make the case to improve the site that exists and let new questions sink or swim along with the rest. It would be simpler.

One aspect of the main site which would help in this regard is to require text explanation on close votes, many of which are inscrutable to me.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The sandbox is there specifically to help people of any level of experience (and we have had high rep users posting to it) who want help getting their question ready for the main site and with more direct and explicit feedback rather than going through the close/reopen/edit cycle $\endgroup$ – Tim B Jul 5 '17 at 9:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's preferable for new users to ask "Does this make a good question?" rather than "Why was my question downvoted and closed?". The core site isn't designed for long discussions about the merits of questions and what needs to be done to improve them. If we provide a place to get feedback in advance of asking a question we reduce the number of answers that will become invalidated during the editing process. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Jul 5 '17 at 13:56
  • $\begingroup$ The process helps to keep new users motivated because they can go through the edit/feedback cycle without being downvoted, without their question being put on hold, without having to ask separate meta questions to get feedback on what was wrong and how they can get their questions reopened. Especially for new users that don't have a lot of reputation and don't yet have a lot of experience it can be very frustrating to get their questions downvoted/closed, which is why we have the Sandbox where normally downvotes don't change your rep and your drafts don't get closed. $\endgroup$ – Secespitus Jul 5 '17 at 19:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for sharing your perspective. The sandbox is completely optional; it was created because users (often but not always new) were getting frustrated by the ask-close-discuss-edit-reopen cycle. So this gives people a way to get an initial review/critique before they set that in motion. People are always welcome to just ask on main, same as on any other site. We're trying to provide more tools, not impede questions. I hope this helps explain the context. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Jul 5 '17 at 20:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Will makes excellent point this sandbox is a crutch for StackExchange failings. The comments here are excellent points about how we already have features and they are poor or improperly used. "better feedback than close/reopen/edit cycle" then fix the cycle. "preferable over 'why was my question closed?'" then leave better feedback!!! Close-reasons are often utter crap and not helpful to OP. "how they can get their questions reopened" then don't close them hastily or improve the process (better feedback, better re-open process). Some of this might require StackExchange feature requests. $\endgroup$ – Aaron Jul 13 '17 at 23:38
-4
$\begingroup$

After reading into what this sandbox is and the arguments for and against, I think the ultimate answer is to improve StackExchange. It definitely does have some large, glaring problems in how it is implemented.

Not only is the close/hold-discuss-edit-open process a huge hassle, but it is also quite demeaning when the question is not low-quality and the issue is more a disagreement about what is on topic or too broad. If I ask a question and somebody comments "This is too broad because of nit-picky reason X and so I could technically write multiple different answers" (ex1: That will vary based on country, so what is the location? ex2: You called your example observer Bob instead of 'a random group of people' so it's not worldbuilding. ex3: What is the exact make-up of your asteroids, including density, size, shape and cohesion? Etc... take your pick), and then quickly gets closed when I could easily have just edited in "Italy" or "Bobthe people in a nearby park" or "Assume Iron, one solid, mostly spherical chunk a few meters across." Or if you really care so much when the OP doesn't, just suggest an edit that they can accept or reject.

It's even more frustrating when the reason is debatable and it just so happens that the people on right now disagree with you. I have seen times when high rep users disagree with each other and something goes from closed to open/protected or protected to closed without any changes between. That is because it is too easy to force your site-usage opinions on others if you are high rep.

StackExchange is built around the idea that the crowd can manage itself (It's your site, you decide how to vote and how to manage it), except that it is (unintentionally) rigged such that high rep users get to call all the shots, whether they are right or wrong.

A better fix than having a sandbox (though the sandbox can serve as a temporary crutch until [if] StackExchange is improved) would be to give the people more power. That is, the many people, not the 1% of 100,000-rep users.

I will offer up one such suggestion to get it started (If I have time I might make a proper feature request out of it. If someone else is eloquent and diplomatic and wants to do it, go ahead.):

If OPs could open their own held questions, and there was better feedback left before putting on hold in the first place, that would be one big improvement. Then no meta questions are needed: OP just fixes and re-opens it once done. If OP abuses this (never fixes and always re-opens without edits and without asking clarification or discussion), the ability gets revoked just like other abilities can be revoked.

If OP is honestly trying and there just happens to be a disagreement about what the question needs, that is all the more reason for feedback and discussion, not an outright close.

This ability should require a minimum rep, but it must (repeat: must) be a very low threshold, say somewhere in the 50 to 200 range. By 200, they are already "trusted on other sites" anyway, so obviously they are trusted. 50 would be better since it's intended to keep people from running away and 50 rep is not easy to get on all StackExchange sites - even on WB, it would require a couple of questions with at least 5 +1s each; that's more than enough to suggest OP is worth investing in.

This would also require that questions receive more "on-hold" action and less "closed," and that closed be reserved for actually bad posts that need more than just some TLC.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So there is obviously an issue with StackExchange which should be addressed, otherwise there would not be a sandbox question. Yet someone doesn't like the idea of finding and fixing the issues that the sandbox is meant to be a crutch for, and that person does not care to explain why they want to keep StackExchange from getting better? $\endgroup$ – Aaron Jul 14 '17 at 1:09
  • $\begingroup$ Or maybe the -1 was for the specific feature request I tossed out there. If that is the case: the "self-reopen" feature request was not the topic of this answer. The fact that there are root issues to be addressed which are causing this sandbox creation, and those issues need to be discussed, was the topic of this answer. $\endgroup$ – Aaron Jul 14 '17 at 1:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I haven't voted on this, but I'm not sure that it addresses the question being asked here. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Jul 14 '17 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ I believe that it does answer the question. It is well established that sometimes a valid answer to the question does not answer the question literally as asked. For example, in Outdoors SE, "I'm so cool I want to start doing my hunting with my bare hands instead of a gun, and those Coca-Cola polars look so cute. How do I hunt a bear with my bare hands? I will be flying myself to the arctic to do this, so answers focused on polars get extra points" a good answer could be "Don't hunt a bear with your hands, or you will die. If you want a bigger challenge, some people hunt black bears with bow" $\endgroup$ – Aaron Jul 14 '17 at 17:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The highest rep use on worldbuilding is currently sitting at 74,097 rep. I'm not sure where this idea that there is a cabal of the top 1% of 100,000 rep users came from but unless users have secret hidden rep your claim isn't based in reality. Questions that don't conform to the stack exchange standard should be closed until they have been edited to meet this standard. I don't see how giving users the ability to reopen their own questions would help this process. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Jul 14 '17 at 19:15
  • $\begingroup$ @sphennings I was exaggerating. The strict wordings of exaggerations are indeed not based in reality, but the points made by exaggerations are. "This rock weighs a ton" is not realistic, but the rock still does weigh a lot. As for users reopening their questions, it would help cut down on the needless cycle that so many people complain about. High rep people who vote to re-open are not the only ones mature enough to decide if concerns have been met; people can figure that out themselves. To assume otherwise is condescending. If people abuse the privilege, it's lost, just like other privileges. $\endgroup$ – Aaron Jul 14 '17 at 20:58
  • $\begingroup$ @sphennings Also, your comment "if they don't conform to standard, they should be closed" is itself part of the problem, since the metric of what conforms varies drastically from person to person, and many people force their opinion onto others. A question "how can I make a cool nation that everyone loves in my world?" should be closed, sure, undoubtedly. But there are many others that are borderline and which the authors would like real feedback on and not generic, unhelpful, pre-canned close reason that does not help to fix what you think is wrong. You need to account for the HUGE gray area. $\endgroup$ – Aaron Jul 14 '17 at 21:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It's not as much of a grey area as you think since it requires five people to agree to close a question. It sounds like what you really want is more constructive comments on questions that are closed. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Jul 14 '17 at 21:12
  • $\begingroup$ @sphennings wrote "more constructive comments" That is one part of it, yes. As for the other part, it is more of a gray area than you and others seem to think, as it is easy to find 5 people who either disagree with your or who do not want to help make a question better. It very well is a huge grey area, otherwise it would not be a problem. Problems, by their nature, do not cease to be problems if some people are fine with them. Something is a problem if some people say it is, and plenty of people have issues with SE status-quo. Hence the existence of this sandbox. $\endgroup$ – Aaron Jul 14 '17 at 21:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure I follow how the existence of a space to help people learn how to write questions that conform to the site's requirements implies that there is a problem. The formula is designed to encourage good answers. This is explicitly done at the expense of questions. The stack exchange formula isn't going to change. There are plenty of other places on the internet to ask worldbuilding questions. If you are going to ask your question here we expect you to follow our rules. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Jul 14 '17 at 21:22
  • $\begingroup$ "Just follow the rules!" Ok, whose version of the rules? User A's vision of what following the rules means or user B's? Because there are disagreements all the time on SE about whether a post follows the rules. Imagine that you just wrote a question, you, @sphennings, and you are aware of the rules. Some other user comes along and says "That's off topic." You say "No it's not, read the rules." Let's say you are right, they are wrong. They disagree and vote-close. 4 others jump on the wagon, you're closed. Happens a lot. $\endgroup$ – Aaron Jul 14 '17 at 21:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Then I should probably edit my question to make it less of a grey case and see if I could get it reopened. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Jul 14 '17 at 21:36
  • $\begingroup$ Let us continue this discussion in chat. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Jul 14 '17 at 21:43

You must log in to answer this question.

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