Return to Question

I don't wish to come off as being presumptuous. I'm comparatively new here, and there is probably something I'm missing.

Recently, a question was asked regarding inheritance or transfer of memory from hominoid mother to child. I understand perfectly well that the question cannot have a hard science answer for something which does not have a hard science basis. I am wondering: why was it put on hold as being “opinion-based” rather than something a little more suitable to the problems of the question? I do agree that the question, as written, is rather barren and misinformed. I posit, however, that it fails to abide its own tags rather than invite wild conjecture.

It would seem to me that the purpose of Worldbuilding is to pose questions which involve a broad, multidimensional range of approaches and knowledge for the purpose of helping someone who is designing a world but either

• lacks enough expertise to do so,
• wishes to obtain opinions — i.e. the espousing of expertise or perspective — on the validity and consistency of the work they already did,
• or simply has an urge to learn.

They say to write what you know, but the only way you learn is by seeing what you don't know. Building a new world, whether for yourself or for others, need not be a solo venture.

So far, so good. Although I do make a distinction between opinion and absurd or erroneous opinion, that's not what I mean to examine here. My proposal is not as to whether wild conjecture does not belong here, or indeed as to how much invocation of the What–If Machine is too much; rather, it is how we help others refine their questions so as to:

• make the answers as simple and applicable as possible;
• be of the most use to future perusers of this website.

I don't think the Opinion–based Hold is very useful in that regard. So, in conclusion, I suggest that we use the Off–topic version instead, and furthermore that we create subset versions of it to help well–meaning users to see the more precise reasons why their question would be better asked somewhere else.

Can anyone else give me some reasons as to what mistakes I made in my informal, sparse, and shoddy arguments?

P.S. I recently have tried to add such helpful comments in that vein to and questions which I see have been placed on hold, and especially those to which it seems the original asker was genuinely interested in obtaining an answer. So, I'm not being a hypocrite.

I don't wish to come off as being presumptuous. I'm comparatively new here, and there is probably something I'm missing.

Recently, a question was asked regarding inheritance or transfer of memory from hominoid mother to child. I understand perfectly well that the question cannot have a hard science answer for something which does not have a hard science basis. I am wondering: why was it put on hold as being “opinion-based” rather than something a little more suitable to the problems of the question? I do agree that the question, as written, is rather barren and misinformed. I posit, however, that it fails to abide its own tags rather than invite wild conjecture.

It would seem to me that the purpose of Worldbuilding is to pose questions which involve a broad, multidimensional range of approaches and knowledge for the purpose of helping someone who is designing a world but either

• lacks enough expertise to do so,
• wishes to obtain opinions — i.e. the espousing of expertise or perspective — on the validity and consistency of the work they already did,
• or simply has an urge to learn.

They say to write what you know, but the only way you learn is by seeing what you don't know. Building a new world, whether for yourself or for others, need not be a solo venture.

So far, so good. Although I do make a distinction between opinion and absurd or erroneous opinion, that's not what I mean to examine here. My proposal is not as to whether wild conjecture does not belong here, or indeed as to how much invocation of the What–If Machine is too much; rather, it is how we help others refine their questions so as to:

• make the answers as simple and applicable as possible;
• be of the most use to future perusers of this website.

I don't think the Opinion–based Hold is very useful in that regard. So, in conclusion, I suggest that we use the Off–topic version instead, and furthermore that we create subset versions of it to help well–meaning users to see the more precise reasons why their question would be better asked somewhere else.

Can anyone else give me some reasons as to what mistakes I made in my informal, sparse, and shoddy arguments?

P.S. I recently have tried to add such helpful comments in that vein to and questions which I see have been placed on hold, and especially those to which it seems the original asker was genuinely interested in obtaining an answer. So, I'm not being a hypocrite.

I don't wish to come off as being presumptuous. I'm comparatively new here, and there is probably something I'm missing.

Recently, a question was asked regarding inheritance or transfer of memory from hominoid mother to child. I understand perfectly well that the question cannot have a hard science answer for something which does not have a hard science basis. I am wondering: why was it put on hold as being “opinion-based” rather than something a little more suitable to the problems of the question? I do agree that the question, as written, is rather barren and misinformed. I posit, however, that it fails to abide its own tags rather than invite wild conjecture.

It would seem to me that the purpose of Worldbuilding is to pose questions which involve a broad, multidimensional range of approaches and knowledge for the purpose of helping someone who is designing a world but either

• lacks enough expertise to do so,
• wishes to obtain opinions — i.e. the espousing of expertise or perspective — on the validity and consistency of the work they already did,
• or simply has an urge to learn.

They say to write what you know, but the only way you learn is by seeing what you don't know. Building a new world, whether for yourself or for others, need not be a solo venture.

So far, so good. Although I do make a distinction between opinion and absurd or erroneous opinion, that's not what I mean to examine here. My proposal is not as to whether wild conjecture does not belong here, or indeed as to how much invocation of the What–If Machine is too much; rather, it is how we help others refine their questions so as to:

• make the answers as simple and applicable as possible;
• be of the most use to future perusers of this website.

I don't think the Opinion–based Hold is very useful in that regard. So, in conclusion, I suggest that we use the Off–topic version instead, and furthermore that we create subset versions of it to help well–meaning users to see the more precise reasons why their question would be better asked somewhere else.

Can anyone else give me some reasons as to what mistakes I made in my informal, sparse, and shoddy arguments?

P.S. I recently have tried to add such helpful comments in that vein to and questions which I see have been placed on hold, and especially those to which it seems the original asker was genuinely interested in obtaining an answer. So, I'm not being a hypocrite.

I don't wish to come off as being presumptuous. I'm comparatively new here, and there is probably something I'm missing.

Recently, a question was asked regarding inheritance or transfer of memory from hominoid mother to child. I understand perfectly well that the question cannot have a hard science answer for something which does not have a hard science basis. I am wondering: why was it put on hold as being “opinion-based” rather than something a little more suitable to the problems of the question? I do agree that the question, as written, is rather barren and misinformed. I posit, however, that it fails to abide its own tags rather than invite wild conjecture.

It would seem to me that the purpose of Worldbuilding is to pose questions which involve a broad, multidimensional range of approaches and knowledge for the purpose of helping someone who is designing a world but either

• lacks enough expertise to do so,
• wishes to obtain opinions — i.e. the espousing of expertise or perspective — on the validity and consistency of the work they already did,
• or simply has an urge to learn.

They say to write what you know, but the only way you learn is by seeing what you don't know. Building a new world, whether for yourself or for others, need not be a solo venture.

So far, so good. Although I do make a distinction between opinion and absurd or erroneous opinion, that's not what I mean to examine here. My proposal is not as to whether wild conjecture does not belong here, or indeed as to how much invocation of the What–If Machine is too much; rather, it is how we help others refine their questions so as to:

• make the answers as simple and applicable as possible;
• be of the most use to future perusers of this website.

I don't think the Opinion–based Hold is very useful in that regard. So, in conclusion, I suggest that we use the Off–topic version instead, and furthermore that we create subset versions of it to help well–meaning users to see the more precise reasons why their question would be better asked somewhere else.

Can anyone else give me some reasons as to what mistakes I made in my informal, sparse, and shoddy arguments?

P.S. I recently have tried to add such helpful comments in that vein to and questions which I see have been placed on hold, and especially those to which it seems the original asker was genuinely interested in obtaining an answer. So, I'm not being a hypocrite.