I was reading an answer to one of the questions asked on Meta - a question I think needs revisiting.
The answer states the following:
Ask 10 people what "Worldbuilding" is, and you'll get 11 different answers. For some it will be analyzing the effects of magic on world economy, for others designing the weather system for planet in a particular orbit.
And you know what? None of them would be wrong. Worldbuilding truly is an incredibly broad topic, from creature design, to linguistics, and much, much more.
Worldbuilding.com, is part of the Stack Exchange family of sites. This implies certain standards as far as the reusability of the questions, and answers are concerned.
I quite often see the phrase "your question is not a good fit for this site."
However, this answer leads me to think, is World Building a good fit for Stack Exchange?
Should the rules of this site reflect the rigorous standards of Stack Exchange, or should the rules reflect the more broad term of World Building?
For instance, allowing users to mark multiple answers as correct would be a good start. This would allow this site to be more subjective - and World Building is inherently subjective.
Plenty of people will be coming here with a correct idea of what World Building is, only to get their question downvoted or closed because it doesn't align with the restrictive set of rules this site uses. It seems unfair to me to punish users simply because this World Building site is part of Stack Exchange. Instead of expecting the users to adhere to restrictive rules, shouldn't we be petitioning Stack Exchange to give us more flexible tools?
Do you think that the subject of World Building works well on a site that uses a restrictive question-and-single-correct-answer format? And beyond imposing more rules on the users, what can be done to improve this situation?