# "Question Closed: Too Broad" despite numerous clarifications and stipulations

The question of interest is here: All Else Equal, would certain human types be better suited for living in an Ice Age?

I'm not trying to be a poor sport or anything. In the past, I have had several questions closed and I accepted those outcomes. Basically, I could agree that in retrospect those questions were too broad or too story based. However in this case, I'm confused about why it was closed. By learning from my answers that were closed in the past, I really put a lot of effort into proactively narrowing the scope by including the following:

• setting, technology level, climate and other scenario clarifications
• assumptions of the question
• Handicaps
• Victory condition
• scope, (only interested in physical traits, not technology)
• simplifications, I also included a simplification clause, if users think my technology assumptions are too complicated, I said just ignore technology altogether, as it's being held constant and I'm only interested in physical traits
• disclaimer section 1, to narrow the scope and equalize the playing field by giving each group the same culture/technology (which is necessary to scientifically examine the impact of only physical traits)
• disclaimer section 2, to narrow the scope from all ethnicities to 4 distinct human types (each group admittedly has different amounts of genetic variation)

Moreover, in my opinion "Human Types best suited for living in an ice age" is not too broad. I have a clear Question section that asks for something explicit:

"would these human types have the same chances of survival, all else held equal?"

I then added a tag-on question: "what traits would be useful, what traits would get in the way?" Lastly, I had a side question section, but I made clear that was optional.

Given the definition of too broad:

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.

I could be guilty of asking multiple questions in this post, but I wouldn't say they are multiple distinct questions. In fact, to answer my question within the scope, you would almost have to say something about traits. That's why I view the tag-on question as harmless.

I will concede it is a lengthy post. I'm not sure if everyone took the time to read through all of it. I did try to use boldface to emphasize the important parts like the question and assumptions, so that people could skim through effectively. However, it's long for a reason I guess. All that information is there to help narrow the scope, precisely to safe-guard from being categorized as too-broad. So most of the post is not a story-build up, it is a post mainly of clarifications.

Although the question itself is not broad, I will also concede that the field of study and knowledge base needed to answer it is broad. For example, you would have to know a bit about: archaeology, anthropology, evolution, geology and maybe even sociology to give a good science-based answer. But as far as I know, that's not against the rules. In some sense, that's why we are all here, to tap into the community's knowledge resources for questions we can't answer ourselves.

I was at least able to tap the knowledge resources here briefly; I got a few interesting answers. Then I noticed there were some close votes. There were only 3 close votes, it said 22 more needed to close. So I thought, that's normal. Usually when my question is seriously being consider for closure, the OP is made aware and has some lead-time to make adjustments. A bit later, my question was actually closed and there was no warning/citing of what about it is too broad. So that kind of added to the confusion.

So long story short, I think there is a way to pose the question:

"would these human types have the same chances of survival, all else held equal?"

Yeah, I really believe there is a way to pose it so that it meets the requirements for questions here. I thought by including simplifications, assumptions, disclaimers, victory conditions and other clarifications that my OP was very close if not on the mark. Not to toot my own horn, but I feel I posed the question well, with enough articulation so as not to be broad. Unfortunately, that's not how the community saw things. I would make some edits to try to clear things up, but I'm literally out of ideas. Perhaps my brain is on a different wave-length and others don't follow my logic, but to me at least, it is very clear as is. I don't think I can spell it out any more without sounding strange.

What more could I have done?

• Regardless of the outcome of this, thank you for trying to improve. For that alone, I'm upvoting this question. Mar 10 '18 at 6:18

• ok now it make more sense. Thanks for taking the time to walk me through things. I still tend to think how they fared in their original environments is out of scope. Maybe if I had a clearer stipulation that says we evaluate each type's traits "as is", in a vacuum. Maybe that would help? It would have the adverse effect of taking away from the scientific robustness. Still, could be easily considered science-based. At least I have a direction now, that's good. Mar 10 '18 at 6:42