7
$\begingroup$

Would a taxidermied jaguar make decent armour?

The question was closed without explanation, and I am making a Meta post hoping to find out why.

Questions along the lines of "would this material make decent armour" have been asked time and again.

I am having a hard time figuring out why mine is so different from them.

One bit that perhaps confused people is that I mentioned some specific points about what makes the armour possibly suitable or unsuitable. Those being its resistance against the weapons found in the Aztecosphere, the strength of the skull, whether the suit would last long, and how well it would fare in the tropical climate. I gave those to show my research and to invite answers to disagree with any of my conclusions. The core question found in the question title did not change.

I am open to being proven wrong in my assumption that the jaguar armour question is similar to all the other exotic armour material questions. I ask questions, both here and on the non-meta site, because I want to become correct, not because I want my existing opinion proven correct. But I cannot become correct if I am dismissed without explanation. So please tell me how the jaguar question is different from the twelve questions here linked so that I can improve it.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It's possible the reason is simply that you've misunderstood what taxidermy is and the disconnect between that and using it as armour was too great to make any sense. $\endgroup$
    – Separatrix
    Apr 26 at 14:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Separatrix when you see a question that you think is based on a fundamental misunderstanding, your first instinct is not to make a comment but to vote to close it? How does that make any sense? $\endgroup$
    – KeizerHarm
    Apr 26 at 15:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ First I saw of it was when I saw this, but if a question makes no sense then it's likely to be closed even if that's something so simple. I'm a native speaker, many are not and will not be able to spot the problem. $\endgroup$
    – Separatrix
    Apr 26 at 16:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Separatrix But I have no way of fixing my question, or resolving any misunderstanding that invalidates the question, if nobody tells me what my misunderstanding is (or that there was even a misunderstanding). Also, downvotes are for low-quality questions but I haven't received any. I am beyond confused by this response to the question. $\endgroup$
    – KeizerHarm
    Apr 26 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Separatrix to ask directly, could you tell me what I have misunderstood? $\endgroup$
    – KeizerHarm
    Apr 27 at 7:40
4
$\begingroup$

I'm one of the original close-voters, and I'm delighted to be the fifth open-voter

I cast my VTC based on the original question: which was (at least) four distinct questions, and the rules allow for only one. At 9.5K+ reputation, I expected you to have the experience to know better.

To my delight, the question has gone through a series of edits. It's not just a single question, it's now a very well focused and properly conditioned question! Frankly, that doesn't happen very often on this site.

Thank you for presenting a fabulous question and for taking all the proverbial arrows in the back to make it one — and I hope you get equally well qualified answers! (And to help, because it really is rare to see improvement and a willingness to work with the system for that improvement, I've thrown a bounty on the question to get it more attention.)

$\endgroup$
2
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for the response, and thank you very much for the bounty. The real culprit (this time) is honestly in my limited communication skills rather than a misunderstanding of the rules: I did have four sentences ending with question marks in the question body, but I did not mean to get individual answers to each of them. They were a way to phrase my thought process regarding armour suitability and invite answers to challenge any of the points - not necessarily all four. $\endgroup$
    – KeizerHarm
    Apr 28 at 10:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Now we'll just have to wait and see who can shoot some arrows in the back of that jaguar armour! As for the multiple questions: a couple of those at least will be worth asking on their own. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    May 2 at 18:36
3
$\begingroup$

You can deny it all you want, but you were in fact asking multiple questions! So far, pretty cut and dried: the question was closed for the stated reason.

So, what can you do about it?

First thing is: don't edit your original query to complain about other people's motives. Certainly asking here in Meta is a good starting point. You can edit your Main query with a link inviting people to read your complaint / excuses here.

As I read through your query, I found that you are actually asking six qualitatively different questions. This is nothing to worry about, and lots of querents have made this mistake. That's why closure & editing are fundamental parts of SE. You ask if a material can be effective armour. That's a good question, and you should have stuck with that, because as you noted, that kind of query is well received here. However, you went on to ask five more specific questions that differ considerably from your initial question. You ask about stabbing weapons, you ask about slicing or slashing weapons, you ask about skull protection, you ask about durability of material, you ask about wearer comfort.

While all these questions relate to the armour, they leave your query as a whole open ended, liable to receive many opinions on each point and quite the untidy and unfocused mess. Hence the closure.

As I'm sure you're aware, you do need to be careful how to word the body of a question. Generally less is best. Take a look at the aluminium armour question. Like two sentences and everything that needs to be communicated is communicated perfectly.

Suggestions

You could literally show the picture and edit down the chat to write "Would this make for suitable armour?" and you'd have a good basic question.

In your considerations, don't ask extra questions! Just state your concerns:

"I've done some basic research and am worried that these might affect the utility of this kind of leather armour:

  • typical weapons in use include stabbing & slashing blades made from PRS and whacking weapons made from TUV
  • given that a tanned jaguar pelt is W mm thick;
  • dead bone weakens as it ages;
  • there's no access to stable storage facilities;
  • the armour will be roughly handled and abused;
  • leather is a really good insulator
  • the climate of the people who will use this is XYZ"

Something like that and you should be golden!

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ I just want to establish that there is a difference between intent and interpretation. My intent was always to ask a single question about suitability, and I supplied context and my existing reasoning in the form of the four points. Any disputes to the points are welcome, with as goal to answer the question in the title. My intent was never to ask answerers to address each of the points individually, which would be four questions. $\endgroup$
    – KeizerHarm
    Apr 27 at 10:02
  • $\begingroup$ Also, I am 99% sure that if the aluminium question were asked today, it would be downvoted and closed for lacking research and worldbuilding context. I don't think it is a suitable example to follow. $\endgroup$
    – KeizerHarm
    Apr 27 at 10:03
  • $\begingroup$ Nevertheless, I appreciate your insight and have duly rephrased the question body. Is this close to your intent? $\endgroup$
    – KeizerHarm
    Apr 27 at 10:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I certainly get the distinction between intent and interpretation. I generally assume innocent intent, but simply because I can not know your actual intent or other people's interpretations, I can only go by what I see on the screen. I've already discussed that, and you've already fixed the issues! So yes, I think the revised query fits the bill. I've already voted to reopen! $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Apr 27 at 10:54
  • $\begingroup$ Good to hear, thank you. $\endgroup$
    – KeizerHarm
    Apr 27 at 10:54
  • $\begingroup$ Sure! As for the word "taxidermied" -- yeah, I can see how some folks might stare at that one oddly. Typically taxidermy refers to preservation and display of dead animals rather than just preparing and tanning the hide; but I think it actually works in this context! $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Apr 27 at 10:58
  • $\begingroup$ @elemtilas Taxidermy: "the art of preparing, stuffing, and mounting the skins of animals with lifelike effect.".. The "some folks" who would stare at that one oddly are the people who own a dictionary. Taxidermy focuses solely on the accurate lifelike depiction of a creature, with almost no focus on wearability or durability. Taxidermied skin is not a pelt, and doubly not leather. $\endgroup$
    – PcMan
    May 7 at 6:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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