-7
$\begingroup$

Can we fulfill the world electricity production by nuclear power?

Content of the q, just in case, nothing special:

Nuclear energy is a form of energy released from the nucleus, the core of atoms, made up of protons and neutrons. In today's world has 450 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 30 countries.

Globally, around 10% of our electricity comes from nuclear.

Then, can we fulfill the other 90% by nuclear power?

Comment from diamond user account:

Welcome to worldbuilding. As the name of the community suggests, we deal with fictional worlds and their rules. At the moment you are giving exactly 0 information about your world, and it looks more like you are trying to start a debate on nuclear power. Please give a good read to our help center to understand our scope, then edit the question to fit our standards

Let's go to that help center, shall we?:

What topics can I ask about here?

Worldbuilding Stack Exchange is a site for designers, writers, artists, gamers and enthusiasts to get help creating imaginary worlds.

  • it is not about "As the name of the community suggests, we deal with fictional worlds and their rules." - community does not suggest that, so not only rules

everything from the physics underlying your reality to the entire universe you want to build

When asking questions keep in mind that the goal of the site is to help you build your world, not to tell your story.

This one is important enough and directly applicable to the q - element.

If a system, event or element of the world is causing you problems we are here to help.

There is more in that help center, like referencing infrastructure, which that op ask for, to be a good example of a topic. But I just skimming things, everyone can refresh/revisit help center on their own.

Why so sudden, what actually wrong.

I was observing as at least 4 user accounts(soon to be the 5th one, I guess) were attempting, in their own way and fashion, to work with op in a sense of getting more information and clarifications, and they all were silenced by removing their comments.

While diamond user comment is like a lone wolf disguised as a representation of the whole community's take on the question as if there are no other takes.

So the subject of discussion is - is it appropriate for diamond users to disguise as community representatives, in a such way?

Also, on which grounds do we request wrapper stories those days?

$\endgroup$
10
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Diamond users are community representatives. It's often a mod's job to put aside personal preferences, and when it looks like they can't it's time to start a meta discussion, albeit hopefully without the accusational tone of calling them 'lone wolf' or being in 'disguise'. $\endgroup$
    – Pureferret
    Sep 27 at 10:30
  • $\begingroup$ Just for info, I removed my own comment because it has become redundant. Ant, not mod. $\endgroup$ Sep 27 at 11:13
  • $\begingroup$ @ARogueAnt. do not remember your comment. Mine, AlexP, Trioxidane - those I remember. One was next to AlexP, maybe yours, and watched some in notifications, but not sure about it, honestly, do not remember everyone here, and screenshots were taken only after I saw it happening. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Sep 27 at 11:54
  • $\begingroup$ Can you clarify what a "wrapper story" is? $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Sep 27 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ @elemtilas short(or not) cover up story, licensed by CC-BY 4.0(if I remember correctly) which puts some context to a question making it less dry or more understandable or engaging. First paragraph here as an example worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/213951/20315 . Usually may be helpful for some vague and less calculable nature of questions. it was about 7th q I opened from main and would say it has it. Not every q has it. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Sep 27 at 14:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MolbOrg -- Ah, okay. The vital context for the question! $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Sep 28 at 0:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's rather hard to tell just what this question is about, and downvotes would seem to support that. $\endgroup$
    – Monty Wild Mod
    Oct 11 at 22:52
  • $\begingroup$ @MontyWild did you got your account stolen? Didn't you notice the discussion tag? "reaching community consensus" - community support mod, and it is good, cuz actions in q seems exception then. But also, is it that you have trouble understanding the q - is it a good reason to close it? We have -9 meta q's open and votes on meta are different - did u forget? There is a sense of some conflict of interest as well - is it not? Is it that much worse than this one? idk, seems your reasoning is not sufficient and belongs to main $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Oct 12 at 10:58
  • $\begingroup$ This question was being downvoted, flagged, and seemed unclear as to exactly what its point was. If you wanted to tidy it up, it could be reopened, or you could ask another similar question put in clearer terms. Remember that a question being closed is an opportunity to make it better, not a way to get rid of something bad. $\endgroup$
    – Monty Wild Mod
    Oct 12 at 15:40
  • $\begingroup$ When I re-read the question and my own answer to it, and I am uncertain as to whether I addressed all the issues in the question, it's a bit of a hint that the question needs more clarity. That and the flags it was receiving was my motivation for closing this question, nothing else. This could be a great question with just a little work. $\endgroup$
    – Monty Wild Mod
    Oct 12 at 15:48
8
$\begingroup$

Answering in comments in frowned upon, because it circumvents the quality checks in place.

If those 3 comments were actually working with the OP to make the question a better fit for our community I would have left them in place. Since those comments were instead answering the question, I took 2 of them down. The 3rd one was self taken down by the commenter.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is it the best way to deal with such situations? Sometimes I provide one or few links that can help to answer those questions, because I don't have the time to elaborate an answer based on them. Were they to be posted as an answer, it would make a poor quality one. But they DO have a value in providing details that can help. I feel deleting them comes with the danger of "perfect, the enemy of the good". $\endgroup$ Oct 11 at 2:07
4
$\begingroup$

My own take on the question in question is that it initially didn't have enough information for a reasonable answer to be able to be given. Then, subsequently, when the question was edited so as to state that this was a real-world question, it became dubious if the question was on topic at all.

There may be situations in which a real-world-based question can be on-topic, such as when the question proposes a point of departure from our current world and enquires where the change may lead, but this question didn't really propose any such point of departure or express any interest in the potential outcome.

It may be true that WB SE is the Stack Exchange network's dumping ground for questions that are off-topic elsewhere, but it doesn't necessarily follow that such questions are a good fit here if they aren't a good fit elsewhere. Some questions may not be a good fit anywhere on the SE network.

As moderators of WB SE, our responsibility is to this site first, not to the rest of the SE network or to the questions that are asked here, other than to assist in weeding out those posts that don't fit or helping them to fit.

So, while this question may be interesting and relevant to the real world, it has little value as a worldbuilding question, and without such value, it has no place here regardless of how interesting or relevant to our real world situation it may be.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ it not that much about question to be good or not, but the fact that people, including me, recognized things you stated in the first paragraph and later, and they did comment on the q according to that understanding, to see what the op is about. Removing comments had no purpose and did leave no chances to a constructive reaction from op(it could be a less random guy than we know it is), forcing to post not so great answer instead of a comment as an example. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Sep 28 at 17:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And all that for what? What is the motivation, comment section under a q is a disposable place to clarify things, how people do that is their business as long as it is in line with code of conduct, and considering how little L Dutch is seen in there(if he does not have some smurf acc) - those people may even have a better understanding of how to talk to op in such cases - and showing that the answer is way too simple is one of the ways. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Sep 28 at 17:03
  • $\begingroup$ Remove comments a week two later and no one will notice/pay attencion(and I know he does that, lol, when notification ticks), remove on request of cleaning section - there are multiple ways to do good stuff and be more useful with time spend - just removing comments with some formal flags it is script kiddy work, really. As for the q, it is not the point, even I have plenty to say on that topic as well, but removed it all, as it is too long already. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Sep 28 at 17:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @MolbOrg Perhaps it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with our site policy regarding comments. If you're interested in Stack Exchange wide information about our comment policy you can read more here, I strongly suggest you read the section on deletion of comments. $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    Sep 28 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ This also isn't the first time someone was bothered by Worldbuilding's comment policy. You're not the first to have comments deleted and you won't be the last. I don't see there being much value in re-litigating what is policy across every site. $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    Sep 28 at 18:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @sphennings I'm not bothered by comment removal, it just should not be disruptive to the point preventing community to properly handle a question. As I understand(according to my observations) Monty was on duty for past month, while LD was relaxing(or else) - no disruptive behavior was noticed(besides one q closure), wb didn't sink in blue flames, no one died. Also, maybe it you need a refreshment on the link you provided, read that section "When should I comment?" - exactly what it was. Do not think it intencional, just too much energy and happy fellow back to work, and old habits die slow. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Sep 29 at 14:51
4
$\begingroup$

It was painfully obvious that the OP was asking a Real World question for the purpose of solving a Real World problem

And that's off-topic. There is a small group of people out there who figure this Stack should field any and all questions that come to it — but that is NOT how Stack Exchange designed their service, and it's their service, not ours. We're allowed to create our own rules only as a unioned subset of their rules.

This has been problematic long before this issue. The two most famous are (a) how to deal with the "too opinion-based" closure reason on a Stack that's "opinion-based" by definition and (b) how to deal with Real World questions.

It's easy enough for someone to search Meta and find the fairly long chain of discussions involving those two issues, but at the heart of this issue is the basic premise of this site's purpose. To explain it I quote from Monica Ciello:

This site is for questions about building worlds, not questions about how others' worlds work.

That last phrase is incredibly important as it identifies what I believe is the bedrock of all this Stack's policies: The Real World is someone else's world. It is not a fictional world of the OP's own creation. Asking Real World questions for the purpose of solving Real World problems is simply off-topic here.

Will we answer Real World questions? Sure! In the context of helping the OP build a fictional world of their own creation. That would include an alternative Earth — but a necessary context for the question is, what's different between your world and Earth? And the smaller those differences are, the more off-topic the question becomes.

In the end, I support L.Dutch's actions. I do not believe it is ever appropriate to assume a question has been asked under the auspices of both Stack Exchange's rules and our own Stack rules. If the OP can't be clear in that regard, it's reasonable to assume they don't know the rules and that the question should be interpreted at face value.

And looking even at the original post, it's painfully obvious the question was never about worldbuilding.

$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ "Asking Real World questions for the purpose of solving Real World problems is simply off-topic here." - so purpose defines is it or isn't, which is good. Not to deny that OP was a random fellow, can this real-world problem become someone's world-building work. However, this post wasn't about if q is on or off-topic, but about mod forcing people to post answers instead of writing comments, for this, clearly not so great q. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Oct 3 at 23:26
  • $\begingroup$ if you would like to have some maxima, then instead of Monica's, I would like to propose a different one - wb here to help build fictional worlds, help using science and other rational stuff. We do not ask if you do write one, as long as we see it can be used by someone as part of such a fictional world, because of high enough reusability of the q and potential answers(which that q passes btw). And we do that, as a mission, to have better fiction, which we then later consume by ourselves, indirectly, as ideas shares floating in public discourse. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Oct 3 at 23:33
  • $\begingroup$ Setting on the mission is what unties things. Defining the global goal is what unties things, and makes more clear what is on-topic or off-topic. I definitely oppose that formal real-world-q-criteria usage, I understand it and I support it as an idea, sure there are and should be some limits, but saying the real world has nothing to do with us is to get what we have today - magic, anatomically correct nonsense which has no value whatsoever, etc. Better Fiction - we are here to bring some sense to it, decrease bs, increase educational value. Reality is bigger than fantasy - often enough. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Oct 3 at 23:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MolbOrg If you think the Stack today is all magic and no science - you're not paying attention. The Stack is more "the science of the Real World and only the science of the Real World" than I have ever seen it. Ignoring that (if you want to change policy, as that question), the Help Center clearly states, "When shouldn't I comment? Answering a Question." Although we all do it betimes, it's against the rules. In this case it was much worse because... (*continue) $\endgroup$ Oct 4 at 0:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ ...the Help Center also says, "Answer well-asked questions." Every answer on there was against the rules, because the question was NOT well asked. It's an ongoing problem on all stacks - people won't wait for the question to be improved or even ask that it be improved... they just crank out answers regardless. Finally, Moderators are gods. It's irrelevant if you disagree with them. Users can work in Meta to change policy, which they're obligated to abide, but other than that, they're there to be hammers. $\endgroup$ Oct 4 at 0:10
  • $\begingroup$ Will comment on the comments at another day, but mod gods, I habe to comment on it giving you more time to think about it. Every stack has this one - "..It's built and run by you as part..", if you forgot about electing mods process, but mention it as if you would say that 'run by you' means only posting q/a's and you could not fogot about voting, rigth. The whole idealogy of se is not about mods being gods. It more different in this regard than at any other place. And even tops of SE do not think that mods are gods. Mods here is connection between se and users, and to plug holes if required $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Oct 4 at 1:11
  • $\begingroup$ @MolbOrg Good luck with that. Mods are elected to be "super users." I don't know how you intend to hold them accountable for things you don't like to see... but like I say, good luck. $\endgroup$ Oct 4 at 5:15
  • $\begingroup$ "super users." you said it yourself, even if it is super. yes, accountability is a problem, the same time we do not have some nasty case. early this year LD finishing q closures was a norm, even if community is perfectly capable to handle that, we do not see that behavior now which is good, this is like wearing formal cloth to work, check. CMs do present and watch, I can talk all-inclusive language, this was case of oppression, I just do not think it was bad intent. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Oct 4 at 10:30
  • $\begingroup$ U opted for exodus, ?lol, wb already in such a poor state, with some fresh blood. All in all, main point is - wb is a side kick for SE(same as 100+others), as long as it in some borders of rules and fashion of operation and attracts users (google traffic) it good. And what it is inside is defined by actions of community. It is what we make it to be, no the mod. And for guidance it needs to have a motto which reflect a mission to which active users may agree. We can trow rules at each others and I will find mines you will find yours - they are not consistent and do not have to be. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Oct 4 at 10:30
  • $\begingroup$ and the motto that community defines sites, it clearly can be seen in higherups position, you can re-read that post about closure votes change(which you linked in metapost about that change while back), as an example, what he says about mods finishing q's and their excuses in doing so. And I do not want some insanity, I just want this one - community guided site, where the mod is a helper for community and holder of red button and book of rules for that red button provided by SE.gods. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Oct 4 at 10:35
  • $\begingroup$ Please keep in mind, I'm in favor of keeping the way Mods do things just as they are. My only complaint with the Mods is that L.Dutch is doing 99.9% of the work. The Stack could use a second very-active Mod. $\endgroup$ Oct 4 at 22:47
  • $\begingroup$ I also do not have some significant complaints on how things are done atm. 90% percent of the time or even more, they are done okay-ish. When they are done wrong, it is more harmful to the development of the place, from strategic point of view. At beginning of the year, I was looking for stats to catch up, and have seen many new user ids, but I do not see an increase of activity, and I see a decrease in capacities of wb to answer q with science and such. So my complaints are more about what isn't done. As for LD doing most of the work - this energy could be spent in a better way, here on wb. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Oct 5 at 15:02
3
$\begingroup$

The only part of L.Dutches answer I would personally take exception to, is the notion that "it looks more like you are trying to start a debate on nuclear power", which personally I didn't read into the question. But Diamond Mod's are privvy to more information than any other user, and may be aware of previous information we aren't (either from that user or other users etc).

The nuanced take, applicable to everybody, is to assume best intentions (both the asker, and the moderator here). That L.Dutch is genuinely trying to help shape this question to be more focused, and that the asker is not trying to start a debate.

I can see this meta post also comes from a genuine place of concern, but maybe oversteps in terms of the assumptions it makes on the moderator, and not how the community members may have been (I didn't see the comments, just L.Dutch's second comment) trying to answer the question in the comments.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ "is to assume best intentions" - observe such behavior, stealth removal of comments and such for quite some time, a good portion of this year to be more specific. It's just that this q was an interesting example, and I had time. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Sep 27 at 10:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand what you mean by 'stealth removal'? Deleting comments doesn't come with a siren that alerts you it's been deleted. If you have a specific concern about too many comments being deleted in an unwarranted way? For further information, see this FAQ on comments $\endgroup$
    – Pureferret
    Sep 27 at 10:55
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @MolbOrg regardless the mod in question left an explanatory comment explaining the deletion. $\endgroup$
    – Pureferret
    Sep 27 at 10:55
  • $\begingroup$ "Comments exist so that users can talk about questions and answers without posting new answers"(c) - few times it was done in a way that distorted the whole comment section and due to that distortion it did become a pile of misunderstandings among the commenters and become a discussion. Yes, that reminder comment is a good thing, deserves another meta post on its own, but better. Seems it needs a reminder from the tour page, for every se.site it states - "It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&A sites." Mod is to help the community not to make troubles for it. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Sep 27 at 11:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MolbOrg in reference to the question you brought up here, I don't see any troubles caused by the moderator? If you have a more generic issue, maybe post another more focused meta post or contact the CMs? $\endgroup$
    – Pureferret
    Sep 27 at 11:10
  • $\begingroup$ this post is already laser-focused on one instance of series of such things. As an example, I can say that one of the q, which you commented on yesterday, had a comment remove after moving to chat, and yours wasn't - soo where this preferential treatment comes from, lol, but it is not well documented, I may remember things wrong. I just do remember casual observation from my notifications, atm. CMs had their words and I do see positive changes as well, so I do not see it as a lost cause - what the post is against - is doing some dull mistakes, for not-so-great reasons. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Sep 28 at 17:18
  • $\begingroup$ Consider if this "preferential treatment" is actually reflecting how the content of each comment is treated? $\endgroup$
    – Pureferret
    Sep 28 at 17:53
  • $\begingroup$ If you aks what there something special about that comment, no, just regular one, as yours. I know(I guess) the answer it was just soon after all comments to chat removal, and the q was still on mod radar. I caugth it all because it was on my radar as well $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Sep 29 at 14:37

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