« first day (383 days earlier)      last day (2077 days later) » 

2:35 AM
So, after Bryce's comment here, I've realized that quite a few of our top questions could be closed for the same reason.
Heck, possible two of our top three ever (excluding Groundhog Day).
Same for a bunch of others.
Have you ever had a moment when you realize something and think, "Oh, crap."?
This is one of those moments for me.
I suspect he (Bryce) may have done it to try to point out some unintentional hypocrisy I'm evidently guilty of, but it certainly made me think.
Meta discussion, anyone?
cc @MonicaCellio, whenever you see this.
Just so I'm being fair, I've certainly asked questions that should be closed if this rule is used.
All "How should/could/can/would/[etc.] [X] do [Y]?" questions should probably be closed, by extension.
Damn, this is bad. A lot of our top questions (at least 5/top 15) could fall to this idea.
That's a major issue.
On the plus side, it would mean that a lot of the recent questions that I've disliked (I've seen a trend growing from about January that I'm not a fan of) could be closed as off-topic.
I'll see if I can write up a meta post tomorrow at some point.
[End of 20-minute stream-of-consciousness run.]
'Night, all.
2 hours later…
4:33 AM
@HDE226868 You mean Brythan? Anyway, I think your right. Some of our question are off topic but we are reluctant to apply a stricter definition of ''off-topic''. Leaving off-topic question is bad because it encourage people to ask other off-topic questions thinking that they are good questions for this site.
So, maybe it seems worst than what it really is, if your following my logic. Striker rules could lead to less questions or just a reorientation toward real Worldbuilding Questions. But the line is not always clear.
2 hours later…
6:21 AM
Q: Single individual response is off-topic

bilbo_pingouinThe Help secton states that questions are welcome that are about [...] as long as they are not about: Actions of individual characters, rather than elements of the world they inhabit The problem is that we have a rather huge number of questions which might be considered off-to...

@HDE226868, here you go ^^^
Note that I changed the title afterward.
7 hours later…
1:06 PM
Q: Rynn's Jewelry Box: Best Way to Use a Unique Small-Scale Replicator?

Serban TanasaIt is a jewel-encrusted black box, seemingly made out of a dark exotic wood, a mere few inches across, so it can be held rather comfortably in one hand, although it certainly feels a little bit heavy for its size. At first glance, it might even seem a bit cheap. However, there is something remar...

I notice this was put on hold.
I would love to hear suggestions on how to define "good" without going to philosophy.stackexchange.com
"you're just a regular person living somewhere in the Western world. You wouldn't even know where to buy LSD from if you wanted to." Our definition of "regular" may differ. Seriously, it's not that difficult... and that's without me ever looking for any of it ^^"
@SerbanTanasa back to your actual question here. I personnally would have closed your question for being opinion-based instead of too broad.
Generally questions like "what is the best way to do whatever" are closed for either too broad or opinion-based.
you need something that could be, to some extend, quantifiable.
What is the best way to go from city A to city B? is hard to answer.
What is the fastest way to go from city A to city B? is much more clear.
same goes with cheapest.
in this example, some would say "best" means "fastest". Others would go for "cheapest". But some other may consider the least environmental imprint, the best sightseeing way, etc.
That's the same for your question. What do your character wants to achieve?
Maybe you can focus by having: the best way to use the box to make sure that Rynn comes back. But since we nothing about Rynn that would be hard to answer.
1 hour later…
2:54 PM
So we're doing the "is this on or off topic thing again...good times.
3:44 PM
@SerbanTanasa I happen to have a degree in philosophy...lemme look at it.
4:20 PM
@SerbanTanasa I wrote an answer that I think answers in a fairly 'objectively' good manner...
4:32 PM
@SerbanTanasa ok you have one of two options in my mind. Restrict what the box can copy in some significant way. Or use a fairly benign non-religious definition of good...for example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good
Knew I could count on the collective intelligence of Worldbuilders! :)
1 hour later…
5:55 PM
@SerbanTanasa Its an eclectic group for sure :)
6:35 PM
@James I kind of wish we had more biologists/chemists so that rumgruf would have someone to answer his questions. They're so good but so far outside my experience/expertise.
7:03 PM
@Green I was actually a biochem major my first couple years of college...but its been so long and I haven't used it since that my knowledge is a bit...suspect.
7:36 PM
@James that sounds like me and calculus.
Q: Does adding context hurt questions?

DaaaahWhooshSomething that I'm sure others have noticed, but that always seems to plague my questions, is the fact that answerers tend to focus on parts of a question that don't actually matter. For example, while I admit my recent question How big can a moon be where you can jump to its planet? suffered fro...

8:02 PM
So how realistic do we hold reality-check to be? for instance, the accepted answer here: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/27012/3510
Has 4 gas giants, 12 double planets, and 15 habitable moons
all in the habitable zone. Even assuming some insanely improbable stable orbit could be computed, a frozen butterfly passing through the solar system would destabilize the whole thing.
Uh...thats a tough one. I think the scale necessarily has to slide with how realistic the question is to begin with...now if the question is outright wrong, I feel its okay to write an answer saying as much and offering an alternative.
not the question, it's the accepted answer.
@SerbanTanasa Downvote!
@SerbanTanasa In that case I think that the answer is just as outlandish as author wants it to be.
8:15 PM
hmm, i guess i don't downvote as often as i should, especially when i have an answer in the race.
feels unethical somehow
I think that question is ridiculous to begin with and I believe betrays a certain amount of ignorance on the part of the OP as to how solar systems are put together and gravitational harmonics work.
The only way to test such a system is to model it in Universe Sandbox^2 and watch what happens.
@Green Right which is where I would suggest an answer that explains the miss assumptions of the question
@SerbanTanasa I hadn't considered downvotes on competing answers. I just leave my competitors alone. Getting downvoted stinks, especially when you've got a nice answer.
@Green dunno, i can imagine an unlikely to arise by chance system where up to 4 or 5 planets are habitable
@Green 9 planets is surely pushing it. Gravitational interference would affect things if you try to cram too many into a small orbit, plus you might not have enough accretion material....
@SerbanTanasa I think a system could be designed to have those kind of habitable planets but the odds of one just arising is really small. In the kepler surveys we don't see those kind of systems, only more conventional sol-like systems.
8:19 PM
@Green I see your point, but the Kepler survey is biased towards detecting Jovian planets by its design limitations
@SerbanTanasa I'm a bit lazy at this time of the day, but have you checked the blog the answerer cite?
yeah, it's not a realistic thing. The person had heard of trojans, so he slammed binary earths on both pre- and post- trojan orbits
as for downvotes, there is a badge for upvoting "concurrent" answers, so if you can upvote them, you can downvote them. It was accepted either way. So I would not do that too often, but I don't downvote so often anyways
cross-orbital interactions be damned
@SerbanTanasa Kepler has found some super earths that might be habitable.
8:22 PM
@Green considering the standard of the OP, that question is actually quite good.
This chart was rather helpful in getting an idea of the size and radius of the planets found. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth#/media/…
@Green, yeah, looks like +90% are superjupiters
which is unlikely to be the true distribution of planets by size
@SerbanTanasa sure wish they had put a H2 line on that chart.
oh, wait, I may be reading it wrong. damn these R-plot-defaults-generated charts with microscopic axis labels
The ghosted ones are jovians.
What the heck is Kepler 51-d made out of?
8:33 PM
@Green: warm wishes?
@SerbanTanasa Or hot slobbery kisses by a super high hydrogen atmosphere? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that one.
remember, there are significant measurement errors
@SerbanTanasa Ah, thank you for the reminder. :) I forget about that sometimes. My brain was just about to kick into overdrive trying to figure out what that thing is made of.
Maybe a lead/uranium core?
I'd guess a water core with lots of hydrogen on top
think a larger, warmer neptune
allow for 50% error in measurement
it fits
1 hour later…
10:05 PM
@bilbo_pingouin Thanks. I'll look at it tomorrow (since this happened, I can only access meta sites from school, so my access to meta sites is accordingly limited).
@SerbanTanasa WTF? I'm this close to downvoting, but I'll let him make an attempt to prove his point.
I'm also this close to writing an answer on resonances, but I doubt anyone would read it.
10:54 PM
Okay, downvoted. I'm skeptical.
11:22 PM
Q: Finding a more objective way to identify questions that are too broad

VincentThis is an attempt to settle a discussions started by Mourdos almost a year ago. I would like to know what others think of this. There is the full version here but I made some modifications to the proposition, see below. I believe this could help people write their questions and help users dete...


« first day (383 days earlier)      last day (2077 days later) »