Hey guys, I was thinking about Can there be done more to assure users that closing questions is not a Bad Thing?. As far as I know questions tagged "hard-science" get a special notice that only certain people can put there and remove. Is it possible to automatically add such a notice to any new question?

I was thinking about adding a notice like „This question is new and hasn’t been reviewed until now. If you want to answer this question please make sure that it fits the sites guidelines. If this question does not fit the sites guidelines it will be put on hold to allow the author to edit the question before reopening it for answers.“

This would automatically show the intention of „putting questions on hold“ for new users and it could also prevent some of the cases where new useres were answering very fast even if the question was not a good fit for the site at first. At the same time it would not be as invasive as generally putting the question on hold at first, though I like this idea of SRM.

@Secespitus Not 100% sure on this, but I think the hard-science notice has to be manually added to each hard-science question by a mod. I definitely agree that it's a problem that needs to be sorted out. I can't think of a reason why that's a bad idea. I like the (very similar) idea of rephrasing 'on hold' and 'closed' to something like 'needs further editing/clarification'. Someone else said that putting the question on hold at first invalidates the point of SE

But anyway, I'm off to bed now

@Secespitus the hardsci note has to be put there manually. Please raise your idea on the meta so it can get enough attention, maybe we can make the SE team add this feature to the software

Thanks guys, I added the question to the Meta-Post

@Secespitus i actually meant that you could/should make it a meta question on its own. But upt to you

hrm...what other species besides small felines would be good candidates to domesticate for vermin control? (rats, mice, to a lesser extent vermin-birds such as pigeons)

dogs ofc

...you do have something of a point there...any other ideas, though?

I mean just to be clear, it's already been done with dogs, likewise with birds of prey

for dogs google "ratting dog"

for birds google "falconry"

yeah -- birds of prey are much more difficult to handle than a cat or a dog though

@Shalvenay You could also use ferrets. They were mainly used to hunt moles, rabbits, etc.

Birds of prey are pretty easy to handle to be honest, although the details are a little cruel

ferrets is a good shout. The general formula here is "A creature that preys on vermin naturally"

yeah, I think I'll roll with the ferret approach

@DubberRucky So, basically you want to give North Korea a lot of nuclear weapons?

I think one of the key features of the question is that the island is defensible beyond reproach (bad use of reproach?)

So could an island that is for whatever reason impossible to invade, and with a universally known ability to initiate mutually assured destruction be able to gain a political foothold?

@DubberRucky Britain managed a political foothold and that is basically an island that is fairly easy to invade.

mmh, I think the suggestion also is no invading force of any kind, only a defensive one

Then they can't build an empire. If they can't invade they would have to convince other countries to join them which would be nigh on impossible.

Even with a "we have a nuke button do our bidding" kind of bargaining

It's fairly game theory ish, but with world governance

I still don't think it would work. Someone would eventually call your bluff and either you would destroy the world or lose most of your political power.

Another option would be internal struggles: if your country is invincible at some point people will become drunk with power and someone takes control who is drunk with the power too. Then he starts demanding too much from other countries until people there can't take it anymore. If they die anyway they will fight and BOOM - there goes our beautiful planet.

@Secespitus While your here I wanted to say that your explanation of what on hold meant in the comments on the no oil question was a really good idea and really well done. I'd like to encourage other users to do the same.

We should really set up a bot to do some smart flagging and commenting

@Bellerophon Thanks, I am trying to use text similar to that one when I see a question might be put on hold to ensure new users understand that "put on hold" is different from "closed and marked for deletion". Most think it's a punishment

I'm uh very unconvinced about the "Improvement" to this question worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/71676/…

"To make the sun go explode" should trigger an IP ban

Seems a little harsh.

A temporary IP ban? say. . . . 3 years.

The question should be put on hold for now. OP did provide nearly no information. One sentence containing "it would probably be depleted uranium or even some crazy material like neutronium".

IP ban is a bit too harsh :D

I can't decide what close reason to use. The current reasons used are story based, which it isn't, and not about Worldbuilding, which it is so I'm not sure what to vote. Too broad possibly.

We need a "this question is awful"

but put technichally

Insufficient or self contradictory information should catch most cases.

I can not vote to close but I flagged as "unclear".

Likewise

@HDE226868 Everything is a giant bomb if you try hard enough.

Damn, I closed an answer I've been working on for the past half hour. Time to start again.

Seven words + picture as an answer. I think that is the shortest I have seen around here.

Oh man, it saves drafts for me

(enable cookies?)

Good idea.

Do you think placing potassium in a ,slightly leaky metal container and dropping it into the ocean is a good way to create heat?

I mean, what are you wanting to do with the heat?

the container will get quite hot fast obviously but??? then the sea will cool it and you acheived very little

Not sure, the question just says create heat underwater.

m-m-m-microwaves

but yes

I mean, it will create a lot of hydrogen?? which eh. will generate heat

but I suspect (if my chemistry is correct) a lot of heat will be in hot gas, which will get to the surface depending on depth

Usually the potassium burns, setting light to the hydrogen, then explodes but that is on the surface so it might not ignite underwater.

Ah, mmh, that's right

I think a safer method might be bacteria of some kind.