-2
$\begingroup$

Deities vs You /Liquid Anon/ What'd be the most optimal carrier fluid comopsition?

I really don't have a clue. Why was the question put on hold as too story-based of all reasons?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

This is a blunt response

1) You can't ask a straight question.

Your entire question could have been asked as follows:

I am designing a creature with a body made out of a fluid similar to a magnetorheological fluid, save that rather than using magnetism I'm using nanomachines. This allows the fluid to become a permeable solid not unlike the holographic doctor in Star Trek: Voyager. What would be a good fluid to use as the suspension for the nanites?

  1. It must be magnetically permeable.
  2. It should have good cohesion.
  3. It must be fireproof and resistant to acids and bases.
  4. It should be lightweight

We don't usually mind creativity in the questions, but it should never interfere with your question being concise and clear. As the quantity of flourish increases, the comprehensibility of your question decreases. For example, your Objective #2 required me to read it a couple of times to realize you were trying to be funny and not actually trying to add anything principally meaningful to the question.

(BTW, IMO you should replace #2, which is irrelevant since your nanites are creating the cohesion, with a minimum temperature the fluid must remain a fluid. As temperature drops, everything eventually solidifies. You might also consider a maximum temperature for your fluids, as some materials won't be fluid at your max temp.)

2) You asked about one character.

How you ask a question is important on this site. We aren't being rude, we're trying to draw a clear line. The moment you made this about a single character you made this too story-based. Single-character questions are almost always closed because a single character is 100% a function of the story — he/she/it can literally be whatever you want them to be because there's no reason for consistency (which is required for even a second creature of the same type).

3) You're asking a question about magic.

Your knee-jerk reaction to that statement will be, "no I didn't!" But yes, you did. Nanites or nanomachines fall squarely inside Clarke's third law:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

This means you could use urine (or any other non-solid) and achieve what you want. Just have the nanites solve the problem, which is a story-based solution.

Asked in a better way this question might have been popular

I believe if you fixed (1) and (2) then ignored (3) the question would be reopened and might even become quite popular. It's an interesting question. There was just too much nonsense to wade through.

One more thing: it's important to keep in mind that the longer your question, the more likely people will skip it. Many users are squeezing in a free minute here and there to participate. They won't/can't take the time to read a long question no matter how relevant the marshes. And when they realize the marshes aren't relevant, they'll tolerate the question length even less.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I guess it's better if I do this in the Q.... $\endgroup$ – Mephistopheles Mar 25 at 18:46
  • $\begingroup$ I made some modifications to the original question. $\endgroup$ – Mephistopheles Mar 25 at 19:20
  • $\begingroup$ Which consistency are you talking about? $\endgroup$ – Mephistopheles Mar 25 at 19:31
  • $\begingroup$ "As the quantity of flourish increases, the comprehensibility of your question decreases" that, and prior user history. I stopped reading the question after the "a tragic backstory" bit. $\endgroup$ – Renan Mar 25 at 19:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Renan So, you didn't read through the question? $\endgroup$ – Mephistopheles Mar 25 at 19:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Mephistopheles I did. You keep weaving a story into it. I also saw you edited it. Still non-standard. If you take the time to completely remove all traces of a story from it I'll vote to reopen. $\endgroup$ – Renan Mar 25 at 20:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Renan That's petty. $\endgroup$ – Mephistopheles Mar 25 at 20:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Mephistopheles, Renan's response may be petty, but there's a point to be made here (beyond my point #1). If you remove 100% of the story from your question and you no longer have a question, it's too story-based. That's the one, fool-proof test. If you remove 100% of your story and still have a question, but you believe readers will misunderstand your question without the backstory, add only as much as is necessary. $\endgroup$ – JBH Mar 25 at 21:20
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Mephistopheles I don't really see any "pettiness" to Renan's comments above. Short, yes. Blunt, possibly, though personally I'd prefer to call it "to the point". Constructive and actionable? Yes! Basically, a user who voted to close your question has offered their specific opinion on what is needed for them to be willing to vote to reopen it; namely, cut the backstory exposition and remove the parts that are about your story rather than about the world your story is set in. Isn't that pretty much exactly what you asked for here; feedback on why the question was put on hold by the community? $\endgroup$ – a CVn Mar 26 at 8:17

You must log in to answer this question.

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