-3
$\begingroup$

What would the consequences of Cold Fusion, Quantum Computing and Room Temperature Superconductors

I have rephrased my question until it was compliant to the more rigid standards I could come up with, and I have addressed all the complaints of the moderation about the question needing to be "more focused", and it is still locked. If the same standards were applied to all questions in this community, I doubt many of them would remain open as soon as the moderators who closed mine would show up.

I am used to pedantry over in StackOverflow, where I usually ask questions about C# (ironically, Eric Lippert himself never failed to offer insightful, generous answers, very much unlike his lessers). I was not expecting to find the same kind of behaviour in a forum about zombies, dragons, fairies, faster than light travel, and parallel universes.

I am a bit disappointed on the moderation Worldbuilding, and I sincerely hope that, by bringing this issue to light, I am acting for the greater good of the entire Worldbuilding community. This is my first meta-post (in all of my accounts).

EDIT: The answer offered by https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/users/30492/l-dutch-reinstate-monica is clearly less than satisfying. Not only it doesn't properly address the issues I brought, it also unjustly implies that I have treated this community disrespectfully by taking a quote out of context and making a personal interpretation of it. I have offered a comment rebuking that specific part of the said answer, but it has mysteriously vanished.

I regret risking getting some other person's question arbitrarily closed due to the "no 3 questions allowed" rule, but I would like to present as evidence of apparent prejudice against my question this other one, which contains exactly 3 questions in it, 7 positive votes, and is active: Crew needed for a large FTL spaceship

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's not expressly stated, but there's an implicit understanding that 'Exceptions don't set precedents'. In other words, just because a question exists which technically violates guidelines doesn't mean the new standard is to violate the guidelines. It's not fair, but that's how we operate and it seems to work for us. $\endgroup$
    – Halfthawed
    Mar 15 '20 at 3:00
5
$\begingroup$

I am a bit disappointed on the moderation Worldbuilding,

You have been pointed more than once to the help center, nevertheless

  • your latest version of the post counts 3 questions in 1 post, which makes it too broad. One of the first commenter pointed out that your question is overly broad. You failed to address this point
  • you keep asking for "any idea". As I have told you, give us a sharp question, and you will get answers. If you are looking for ideas fishing, go elsewhere. We need a metric to evaluate the best answer. You have failed to address this point, too.

I was not expecting to find the same kind of behaviour in a forum about zombies, dragons, fairies, faster than light travel, and parallel universes.

What makes you think that since we deal with zombies, dragons and associated friends, we are loose on our criteria? We are not the dumpster of SE, though this seems to be the concept of Worldbuilding in many other SE community. "This question is not a fit here, try posting in Worldbuilding".

You are more than welcome to bring your contribution to Worldbuilding, but please first understand the community. We are more than happy to help newcomers in moving their first steps in the community, if they are willing to listen.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ The help page is extensive. I have read part of it, and it doesn't seem to me that asking simple "yes|no, because" questions is forbidden if there's more that 1 of those. If that's the case, it would help a great deal more if you linked the exact section where it says that is forbidden. The 3 questions are part of a same problem. I am sure you will realize that if you give the question a more thorough read. $\endgroup$
    – Davi
    Mar 14 '20 at 15:42
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think this community is less valuable than the others, I just think the standards for asking questions related to fantasy should be less strict than those related to exact sciences, otherwise people will just ask their question in Physics, Chemistry, History, and etc. What's the point of a Worldbuilding community if not to help authors in their world building? $\endgroup$
    – Davi
    Mar 14 '20 at 15:48
5
$\begingroup$

Independent Opinion
I read your initial query and I read through your meta query. Frankly, I've heard of those things, but don't know how they might fit together, so I am actually quite eager to see some good answers to your questions!

You opened the door re snarkiness, so I'm just going to offer a friendly bit of advice, and that is, please don't lower yourself that way! It's just not needed here!

As for reopening, I see it's already got one reopen vote, and the question doesn't appear to be edited at all. If it's not your own vote, why are you complaining about the mods? Opening and closing of queries is a community task, not a moderator task.

The Meat & Potatoes
As for why your query should remain closed: I should think that would be patently obvious. You're asking at least four different questions. At least one of those questions remains overly broad. You've even bolded and numbered the other three of them for us! If you are so familiar with asking questions elsewhere in SE, why would you think it's any different here?

I don't like the fact that there is no discussion forum attached to WB.SE (because I think this would be a hopping geopoetical forum if there were)! I personally don't like the strictures, and I personally agree with you in so far as at least certain standards ought to be laxer here because of the material we deal with. However, I concur with the SE model that we all have to deal with, which as you know very well, is one focused query gets on point responses for you to consider.

So, what's the solution?
That's easy! Get off your keister, stop complaining and edit your questions to fit the model, just like everyone else is supposed to do!

  1. What would the consequences of Cold Fusion, Quantum Computing and Room Temperature Superconductors (be) --- this is your basic, underlying query. It is too broad. Narrow it by focusing on a particular worldbuilding problem, like "What would the consequences of Cold Fusion, Quantum Computing and Room Temperature Superconductors be on XYzed materials manufacturing?"
  2. Is this a valid assumption? --- This is a fair question. It deserves to be its own question. Make it so!
  3. Any sci-fi idea of what that may be? --- This is a fair question, but it is too broad, because you're asking for a list, which as you well know is a no-no. Maybe turn it around on its head: "What RealScience or SF breakthrough in Quantum Thermodynamics as we know it must have been achieved that might lead to making room-temperature-superconductors?" It too deserves to be its own question. Make it so!
  4. Am I correct to assume that? --- This is a fair question, but does not deserve to be an independent query. This is simply a "correct me if I'm wrong" kind of question. Fix this by prepending that phrase to your assumption thus: "As for the new techs that would soon emerge, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that ab-initio Chemistry..."

Some Final Notes
WB.SE does not impose any kind of rationing scheme on its members. You are welcome to ask as many queries about your universes, worlds, and settings as you'd like! There's just one caveat: you can only ask one at a time!

Since you pointed out that other question, yes I voted to close it and for the same exact reason yours was closed: lack of focus d/t there being too many questions. (And as of the time of this edit, it's been closed, and is now awaiting the same kind of focus editing yours is awaiting!)

Honestly, I just don't understand why querents can't seem to grasp the simple idea that they can ask only one question at a time AND they can ask multiple questions about the same problem!

This is not rocket science.

Keeping that in mind, as you edit & rearrange your original query, try to keep them linked together so folks can follow the progression!

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for taking the time. You see, there are lots of posts with more than one question in them; they exist and they thrive. It is frustrated to get singled out. I would appreciate it if would show me the section of the rules that says that you can't have three questions, even if they are intrinsically connected. Those three questions are to confirm assertions of mine about the subject. If one of them is not true, then the entire idea falls apart. It's like the premisses of an argument. Each one of them has to evaluate to true so the argument itself can be true. $\endgroup$
    – Davi
    Mar 15 '20 at 1:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Davi - I can certainly empathise!! And yes, I agree that it must be frustrating to be the one guy the cop pulls over for running a stop sign that everyone else in the neighbourhood has run for the last twenty years. No human organisation is perfect and no human system of rules is applied equally fairly. As for the rule, I'm going to modify my response to answer your challenge. As for your subquestions, I think I modelled a successful way of doing that without asking ... $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Mar 15 '20 at 2:03
  • $\begingroup$ ... multiple separate questions. I really think two of your subqueries are sufficiently different & independent that they ought to be asked separately. But if you really want to roll everything into one question, then you would need to restate those subquestions in some other form, perhaps following my model. Either way, you'd still have to narrow the focus the main question somewhat, simply because almost any answer will be valid, and that's not good either! Finally, there's no reason why you can't ask the premise evaluating queries first, then if they prove true, ask you main question. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Mar 15 '20 at 2:04
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think I can emphasis enough that you are not limited in any way as to the number of queries you can ask about a single worldbuilding problem here! But for us to be able to give focused answers that will a) be helpful to your particular problem and b) be helpful to someone who comes along five or ten years from now, we need to impose some kind of order on the chaos. And that's what the Stack Exchange method is all about and why it's different from all other worldbuilding forums you could have asked these questions in! $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Mar 15 '20 at 2:10
  • $\begingroup$ I will end up having to formulate my questions as logical arguments, with axioms, propositions, hypotheses and conclusion, so people will inescapably have to see how each question is connected by context and logic and cannot be separated into multiple posts (if proposition a is false, then b is false, then hypothesis 1 is true... and so on). Maybe then people will realize that multiple questions in one post are just a way of being formal while making a question. Anyway, I rarely use this community any longer. Very bad experience. Thanks for being so understanding. $\endgroup$
    – Davi
    Mar 27 '20 at 14:29
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, nobody sent me the section of the rules that says "multiple questions are not allowed in a single post". I looked for it. Could not find it. Maybe it is there now, hastily added to justify the closing of my question based on something not in the formal rules. Maybe my meta has established a new form of jurisprudence (seeing as everybody agrees with the moderation). I'd like the hastily added rule named after me: The Davi Law, a tribute to me, a lone new user who thought he had found a community of his peers, just to be shunned by extremely harsh moderation (dramatic-mode: off) $\endgroup$
    – Davi
    Mar 27 '20 at 14:35

You must log in to answer this question.

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