Is it time to officially close and terminate all questions applying to the Anatomically Correct Series?

Question

The Anatomically Correct Series has been a treasured Worldbuilding tradition for seven years. Some amazing questions and even more amazing answers have contributed to the series. But...

Back in 2020 a silly question about a character from Minecraft prompted me to write the following:

This is a place to help people build worlds, not indulge in whims. There are clear precedents in Meta that this forum is NOT for extending pre-existing or commercial worlds (which Minecraft clearly is). There are other forums for that purpose. I've noticed over the last 6 months a number of complaints that ACS is getting muddied by low-quality entries.

This prompted @L.Dutch to ask, "Should we narrow down the scope of the Anatomically Correct Series?"

Which led a number of us working with original poster TrEs-2b to create a set of enhanced rules that, we hoped, would return the ACS to the quality it once enjoyed. (It might not look like anyone but I created those rules, but there were discussions in answer and comments all over the place.)

Unfortunately, despite that effort, we have experienced an avalanche of terrible questions over the last two years . Everything from pure nonsense to stream-of-consciousness ideas that have been thrown out with less effort than is required to throw spaghetti on a wall. The ACS has become ridiculous, with an incredibly high closure rate.

Perhaps it's time we ended an era.

And it breaks my heart to recommend this. The ACS was pure worldbuilding! Taking a mythological creature as described by human hands and feared or loved in human hearts and asking the simple question, "how could this reflection of the human soul be realized?"

But a search of recent questions shows that, thanks to the voluminous and (and this is a very blunt personal opinion) massively low quality submissions by a small handful of users, it's right to consider this.

Question: Should we terminate the Anatomically Correct Series... while we still have fond memories of it?

1. The ACS page would be updated with a notice at the top of the page that NO NEW SUBMISSIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED.

2. The anatomically-correct tag will be updated to explain the termination and the fact that it can no longer be used.

3. If it's possible to close/protect a meta page, the ACS would have this done to it so that no one could edit it more.

4. We will actively close any question that suggests the goal is to realize an "anatomically correct" version of any mythological creature of any kind.

If accepted, a user's only option would be to ask for specific help developing a creature for their own fictional world. Period.

Upvote if you agree it's time to bring the ACS to an end.

Downvote if you disagree.

Comment if you seek clarification about the question.

Answer if you wish to add to the discussion, pro or con.

---

EDIT: It's worth noting that the meta post creating the ACS was necessary because questions about the evolutionary justification of human myths are intrinsically off-topic. Remember, the goal of this site (see the Help Center) is to help people create imaginary worlds. Their own imaginary worlds. Without the ACS Meta post to legitimize the presence of the questions, no "how could this human myth evolve?" style question can be asked and not closed.

This isn't the first time this has happened. This stack once embraced a Fortnightly Challenge. One of those challenges was concerning Santa Claus, which evolved into the current tradition of permissibly asking Santa-related questions during the Christmas season.

This question is asking if it's time to withdraw permission to break the rules, because all ACS questions are asking about something the poster didn't originally create in a world that isn't theirs.

Answer 1

A Troublesome Solution to a Problematic Trouble

Issue: It seems to me that the underlying issue is that this proposal rests on what is admittedly an opinion, that there are voluminous and (and this is a very blunt personal opinion) massively low quality submissions by a small handful of users. While I share the opinion in general, I do have to ask two questions.

• The first is not so much if this is the best solution to the problem, but rather is this a proper solution to the problem at all.

• The second is whether or not this is even a problem requiring a solution.

Assessment: As I see the issue, it does not appear to me to be a SE or a WB related problem. I may be wrong, but given the background of the problem, the issue seems to be more of a personal one.

If this were a matter of users breaking WB or SE rules, then I think we'd all agree that SE has in place methods of addressing that issue. Closing queries, deleting queries or responses, disciplining and perhaps expelling users.

This, however, looks to me like it is an issue of taste, or aesthetics, or (as was clearly stated) opinion. Now, this is an opinion that I share. I think we all know who the user in question is; I know that I have engaged with this user multiple times in the past in order to help improve their question conception and writing; and I also know that that has not worked, so I don't do it anymore.

As I read the proposal, and given that JBH and L. Dutch have done so much work on making the ACS a truly wonderful sub-forum, I must say that it reads almost like a kid who brought out the balls and bats and hoops and things to play a game, now upon determining that a few kids refuse to play up to quality, has decided to take said balls and bats and hoops away. I hope this is not the case! But in any event, the problem to be solved is not the game, but rather the poor quality playing!

In reviewing the ACS ruleset, and in reviewing the list of recent questions, my assessment summation would be that I honestly don't see where the ACS itself is broken to the point that it needs to be closed down. Is it being abused? I think the answer to that is a strong probably. Is the abuse equal to the proposed solution? There I believe the answer is no.

Recommendations: I am going to downvote the proposal for the following reasons, and then provide a potential counterproposal.

First, I don't see anything within the ACS Guidelines that would act as a red flag for sub-forum closure.

Second, on the contrary, I would argue that the ACS continues to be a valuable sub-forum that for the most part has worked and that I believe could be a good model for creating other similar aggregations based on other common question genres

Third, I don't see where any ACS guidelines are out of order or impractical or onerous to the querent. If anything, I would argue that the guidelines are perhaps not clear enough to be fully practical.

Fourth, I believe that the original proposal comes from a good place --- the ultimate desire to see WB and ACS play host to high quality questions --- but I also hold that shutting it down isn't the best answer.

THEREFORE: my recommendation is that the proposal be voted down due to its faulty conception. We don't accept questions that are of a purely opinion based nature; I don't think we should close a sub-forum or disable a tag for a similar reason.

Rather, I'd suggest that the ACS be given a proper set of rules. Through it's history, its guidelines have been tweaked and improved. That's a good thing. Rather than end the era, I'd call for the ACS to enter a new era.

To that end, I'd suggest a much more focused clarification of the sub-forum's expectations from both querent and respondent.

• Take stock of the questions we've been getting and compare their deficiencies with the present guidelines
• Examine the present guidelines to see what's missing
• Put the two streams of data together to come up with a simple set of rules that, like the no commercial property rule, will ensure that querents have clear guidelines to follow
• Create a similar set of rules for respondents

I think that if we clarify the expectations for both parties, the overall quality of questions and answers will be higher and no unnecessary burdens will be placed on either.

Answer 2

Rewrite your Meta page - leave the questions alone

It looks like the site did something very convoluted here. Some people asked a number of similar questions about different organisms, which is understandable. Somebody came up with a tag to classify them, which is understandable.

Then somebody made an index page to specially highlight all those questions. Isn't that nice...

And then, because that page encouraged more of that type of question, and because not all of them met the standard, you augmented that kindness with a long list of rules tucked aside in a Meta post. Honestly I'd never heard of them, or the index.

And now, it's burdensome for close voters to look over each and every new question in the series. After all, a close voter is so much more important than the author of a creative question, you can't expect them to read everything that they want to close. So let's just close ... everything. Everything faintly resembled to what might have gotten a tag that might have been unfairly spotlighted in the special Meta page had no action been taken.

But we'll leave the "historical" Meta page, because it's so important...

---

How about a simpler solution: rewrite your Meta page to show "The Best Of", or delete the Meta page and all its guidelines, and even delete the category tag if you want, but then leave any such questions to be read and thought about like any other posting, with no new or topic-specific rules at all.

Answer 3

Kill ACS the tag, not the idea

I agree that the tag is being used as an excuse for low-quality questions; including one of myself back in the day. The format actively invites low-quality questions, because it provides a template where you only need to fill in a description of a creature, with no other specifications or indeed further thought. I got lured by that myself, I am sure others have as well. And I think adding new rules to the meta page will start having diminishing returns.

But the 4th point of the OP goes way too far. Making things plausible and realistic is what this site is for. Every single question on this platform could be answered with "a wizard did it", but the reason people go the lengths to put the questions here is because they want an answer that's a bit more supported by some manner of science, truth, or popular understanding, in order to enhance their creative story-telling.

Questions about things set in the real world are on topic. Questions about testing things against real science are on topic. And evolution is a science like any other. There is no difference between a realistic evolutionary path, as tested with our understanding of evolutionary pressures and biology and such; and a realistic bridge, as tested with our understanding of physics and material science. Evolution may be a "softer" science than Newtonian physics, but the need to speculate has never been an obstacle to science-based questions in the past.

I also think the tag and meta post are unnecessary; we have science-based and evolution. A high-quality ACS-ish question can still live without the ACS tag by having those two.

Kill the tag and close the meta post, as they invite questions that are only descriptions of creatures which would not be allowed otherwise. Don't kill the whole idea of a realistic evolution, or questions about mythological creatures, or the two together.

Answer 4

The Anatomically Correct Series is fundamentally fine. There are a lot of low-quality submissions with it, but the issue in that case would be the submitter instead of the series itself.

The real underlying issue is that there is no valid format or example for both submitters to follow and for voters to judge a question with. As a result, people post ACS questions with minimal and unclear content and voters downvote and close ACS questions for arbitrary reasons not in the site rules or ACS rules; even if previous similar posts are upvoted and accepted.

Exhibit A: Check out this post versus this post. These two posts are almost identical. They both cover a non-Western mythological animal, they are both written in a very similar way, and both posts are only a month apart from each other. Yet, the latter post was immediately downvoted and closed while the former post was repeatedly upvoted, stated to be "an ACS question that meets the requirements." by JBH himself, and was left open for several weeks until I pointed out the discrepancy. Was there any major edit to the Stackexchange rules between June and July? No. Was there any rule changes to the ACS series in the past month? No. Then the question is why are two very similar but non-duplicate questions receive two very different reactions? It is almost like there's a hidden double standard at play.

Exhibit B: Compare this post to this post. Once again, two very similar (but not duplicate) posts covering a similar topic and written in a similar way. Once again, we see that the more recent post is immediately downvoted and closed while the older post is repeatedly upvoted, still open, and has received quality answers. The latter post is 3 years old but it also still post-dates any major edit to both the Stackexchange rules and the Anatomically Correct Series. The latter post should be a shining example of an ACS question. Why it was written by a moderator himself! Yet if a new user copies the moderator's example, they are chastised instead of praised. Why would that be? Unless there are some unwritten and subjective rules that recent ACS questions are now being judged by.

I believe I have made my points clear. Even though there has been no major revision to the Anatomically Correct Series since April 27, 2018, I wager the overwhelming majority of linked ACS questions after that date would be downvoted and closed if they were deleted and resubmitted this week. Several posters are very hostile towards ACS questions and submitters don't have a good idea why since previous ACS questions can no longer be followed as good examples. Even the official ACS thread on the Worldbuilding Help Center would almost assuredly be downvoted and closed if it was deleted and resubmitted today.

To improve both the Anatomically Correct Series and Worldbuilding Stackexchange in general. I propose two solutions; none of which include closing and terminating ACS. Solution one is to edit and rewrite the opening post of the Anatomically Correct Series. It hasn't been seriously revised in 4 years and it is clear that the standards expected from the Anatomically Correct Series have changed. This revision should not only include rule changes but a template or templates for future submitters to potentially follow. After this revision happens, close/reopen voters should closely follow it and only judge ACS questions by the ACS format and the stackexchange rules. There should be no such thing as an unwritten rule on stackexchange. Questions should only be judged for being a proper and abiding submission to this website and not be judged by the subjective interests of the voter.

Solution two is to create some new and proper examples of high-quality submissions for the Anatomically Correct Series. It is clear that using previous questions in the Anatomically Correct Series to format your question is non-viable. We have all seen recent examples of how ACS questions shouldn't be made. Now let's all create many new examples of how ACS questions should be made. If you want high-quality submissions for ACS instead of low-quality ones, The right path is for posters to lead by example, and be the change you want to see in the world. I invite moderators and other high reputations users on stackexchange to make proper and high-quality ACS submissions of the organism of their choosing. You can either submit a question about a mythological creature or plant not submitted yet, or you can go back to some closed/deleted ACS questions, massively improve them, and reopen the question. Use real-world biology and physics as the basis for why and how the organism of your choice would evolve and what its anatomy would probably be like. Do this and everyone wins! Submitters can make quality questions and get quality responses to their ideas, and voters will see far less low-quality submissions.

So come on @Willk, @L.Dutch, @o.m., @John, @Nosajimiki, @Starfish Prime, @LSerni, @Monty Wild, @Daron, @HDE 226868, @JBH, @sphennings, @Keizerharm and anyone else. Take the ACS challenge! I will even bounty all high-quality submissions that get made by high reputation users.

Answer 5

Can't vote so have to write it as A

This category of q's was always - lazy as fuck, and low effort, low quality, low value for WB as a place for authors in a sense of reuse in a sense of quality answers.

Starting from 'anatomically correct' - like - butter butter butter - wtf it should mean, I guess everyone has its own opinion.

The fact most of them pass - is annoying for sure, especially when you see people have fun there, but reasonable tech questions, where one not necessarly can suck an answer from a finger, are closed faster than one can count 1,2,3

Or questions like that What biological functions robots will never be able to replicate no matter how advanced robotics become? (not the best for sure, but fresh)

It is not worse than some anatomically correct half burn match. If one does not know the difference between high tech robot and a human then - do not get involved, do not vote, do not answer - ignore.

Same as I do for that anatomically correct stuf - add the tag to ignore and see it never again. So that inro of @Tortliena is very good.

No need to reduce fun, people have it - okay, let them, the annoying part is that tech stuff gets trown under the bus regulrly, partially for reasons it often harder to creatively suck an answer from nothing, sometimes it harder to understand the question, sometimes it require some specific set of knowledge to intrperet the question in a meaningful way etc. Unfortuntly this is a fundamental problem, changing it may be possible, but it does not require reshaping in this way, and this way not a good way for WB.

Answer 6

Logic issue

-Hey Tobby, I've got really bad news.
-What John?
-Some people have been using our paint cans to make graffitis in the streets.
-Ah. How many people?
-Well, 2. But they are really active and nasty!
-Were they told it's forbidden to paint graffitis in public spaces? That the paint cans are used to paint one's house, or stuff like this?
-Yes, I did warn them multiple times for one year now, but they still continue! I tell you, our paint cans make hooligans out of people. We have to stop selling them.
-Uhh... Next time you see them, just call in the police.

Story aside, it's not because something exists that everyone will make something bad of it. And in this particular case, having just a few people on this kind of question is definitely statistically too little to know whether nothing good comes from this tag anymore. It might be just the three or four users.

Yes, I know that we told them to improve their question. Multiple times. And they continue. But that's a moderation issue with these users, not a moderation problem with the tag itself. The same deal happens with other users, on other subjects (Not quoting anyone, that's not the goal).

In anycase, if the tag was removed, it won't stop said users to ask bad questions (for instance in the mythical-creature tag). Going back to the story, it's like you confiscated their paint can, nothing prevents them to start using paint spray guns instead.

My opinion

Whether or not this tag is "metaphorically deleted", it should stop having this "aura" with specific rulesets. In general, the more rules are uniformized, the easier it is to work with rather than having to deal with people trying to walk around them.

This goes both way : Either as promoting them : Telling "this question is part of the anatomically-correct series" in every question, or not doing your proposal 3️⃣ (I'd go as far as moving the meta's text to the wiki instead of a link). Or as banning them : proposal 1️⃣,2️⃣ and 4️⃣, namely. A deconsecration of the tag could make them less interesting as an hiding spot, and easier to moderate as a vote-closer. In any case, the search for quality needs to be on par with other questions and leads to a swift-closure/downvote as usual, regardless if it is an anatomically-correct question or not.

Edit : As a follow-up to a gigantic comment thread, I would also suggest merging anatomically-correct tag towards mythical-creatures or equivalent tag, this in order to suppress the aura some people would still see looking just at the name. Not suggesting to synonymise though, given how the synonyms system works, it might very well end-up in the review queue without bulging (only people with +5 votes can vote, and there wasn't many people on this tag) :/.

Answer 7

Kill it.

The number of recent entries that are not a good fit for this site is too high. Most of the questions that do fit with site policy are low quality "How would the anatomy work for a man with a bull's head?" has a trivial answer in the question itself, "Well you have a bull's head and a man's body, just like you described".

Stack Exchange was intentionally designed to create a repository of high quality answers, that are meaningfully useful to later visitors, at the expense of some questions. That's why every site closes duplicate, overly broad, subjective and opinion based questions. They're not conducive to good answers. There are other opportunities to ask questions about worldbuilding online. What makes this site unique is the promise of the Stack Exchange model's more structured format.

If you read the tour you'll see what the site promises. When we allow low quality questions to still be asked for historic reasons we're breaking that promise. It sets a poor example for other new members of the site. It creates an inconsistent standard of review.

We should not formalize and sanction any line of questioning that leads to frequently closed posts and low quality answers. This doesn't mean that we should prevent people from asking new, high quality, questions about anatomy, just that we should hold every question to the same standard of review.