# Why can't you suggest multiple ways of solving the question in said question?

I just asked in Worldbuilding how to stop intelligent races from discovering electricity and it was marked as to broad. I assume this is because I originally suggested two ways to solve my problem.

If I am correct and thats why it is to broad I would like to know why there is no possibility to suggest different ways to solve something as there are rarely math like true false answers on this site.

I am glad for every one helping me to understand this site with an answer.

This was the original formulation of my question:

Without changing a planet from being habitable for humans and keeping a similar ecosystem why could intelligent races never access electricity?

1. What systems need to be erased from the planet to not create any magnets? (I want to keep metals though) Because as far as I know without magnets you cannot manually create electricity.

So what I need is way to stop natural magnets from forming while still keeping the physics and chemistry of the universe the same. While at the same time enabling the people to live the same way or similar to the way humans lived in the medieval age and renaissance. (Yes keep the earths magnetic field)

If this is not possible what effects would these changes cause to the formation of human society. (Please don't blast my world with all the radiation the sun sent at them)

1. What in society or behavior could stop people from discovering electricity?

With this way of solving the problems I need a plausible explanation why a certain behavior or society has risen and why this keeps people from discovering electricity. Also what other changes are attached to this solution?

Religions or media/propaganda cannot fulfill this role as i have already decided on huge parts how they are going to work. It has to be something more deeply enforced. Which excludes a bad accident in history (because people never truly learn from history)

Also people should retain the ability to advance in other fields of technology.

As you correctly guessed, you were asking two different questions all together:

1. how to prevent electricity by altering physical laws or conditions
2. how to prevent electricity by altering social behavior

Each on its own is a fine question, when you put them together you make a hard to digest salad. Look at the only answer you got so far. It addresses only the second question, so I would argue that it answers your original question at all.

Our model is "per post 1 question which can be measurably answered". We never object if you spread multiple related questions over multiple posts.

• OK thanks got it. Is my revised question then narrow enough?
– Soan
Dec 31, 2018 at 14:27

Our Help Center states:

To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where …

1. every answer is equally valid,
3. there is no actual problem to be solved,
4. you are asking an open-ended, hypothetical question,
5. your question is just a rant in disguise.

For the sake of completeness, let me explain all five points.

1. When you ask a fishing-for-ideas question (aka brainstorming, idea-generation, or an infinite list of things), you are asking a question where all answers are equally valid. This breaks Stack Exchange's Q&A model (one-specific-question/one-best-answer, SE is not a discussion forum). Stack Exchange owns the stacks, and while individual stacks enjoy considerable latitude concerning how to deal with many specific rules and the culture of the stack, it's still Stack Exchange's stack — and they have rules we are expected to observe. Insofar as it is humanly possible for questions concerning the creative and imaginative act of world building, questions are expected to be objective and scoped such that a best answer can be selected. Our take on this is that questions must seek a finite list of things. Questions asked such that every answer is equally valid are often closed as "primarily opinion-based."

4. We address open-ended and hypothetical questions in our Meta posts about high concept questions and open-ended questions. In a nutshell, both are intrinsically "too broad" and "primarily opinion-based." As mentioned before, our Help Center explains "the goal of the site is to help you build your world, not to tell your story." Hypothetical questions are certainly an attempt to solicit our help with your story. And open-ended questions, at the least, violate Stack Exchange's premise that it is not a discussion forum.

5. Finally, rants happen. Especially with politically hot topics. Examples that we've seen here are questions about climate change and gender politics. You, the author, may be trying to write a legitimate story discussing these or other social issues of our day. That is perhaps the single most common reason for writing in the first place! But! Stack Exchange is not the place for an argument (even if it's disguised as a polite discussion in comments). We're not here to be convinced, pro or con, about how you feel about the issue.1 We are here to help you develop and consistently use the rules of your world. We're willing to set our politics beside the door if you are so that a good, well-formed question can be answered. We'll remember that we shouldn't argue if you remember that you might not like the answers we give you. That's the fundamental problem with rants in disguise.

Finally, just to close the loop, a word about what makes a question "Too Story-Based." Questions fall into this category when...

• You ask "will it happen?" vs. "can it happen?"