4 replaced http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.stackexchange.com/
source | link

I'm going to second Kevin's answer. It's NOT OK to say that "any answer of a 'bad writing'/'plot hole' type" is a bad/inappropriate/offtopic answer. While in some situations such an answer can range from sub-optimal to trolling, in others, properly formulated, it's THE correct answer.

What makes such an answer more acceptable?

  • If the answerer researched (widely) all expected in-universe resources, and demonstrates so. Ex:ample: "This is not mentioned in any book, guide, or author interview - I just re-checked".

  • If there is demonstrable lack of in-universe answer otherwise (e.g. no answer after a reasonable period of time, say 2-3 weeks).

  • If there is a general fandom consensus outside of SO question agreeing that this is a plot hole. Again, ideally demonstrated via links.

  • If the "plot hole" is a note at the end of the answer which actually contains in-universe explanation/retcon, but states dissatisfaction with its logical quality/consistency.

  • Obviously, if there's an actual reference, e.g. someone involved with the work admitting "we screwed the pooch here". A good example is an afterword to "Ender in Exile" by O.S.Card which openly addressed some inconsistencies with the original version of "Ender's Game".

  • If the only answers are speculations from SO members, AND the speculations are absolutely weird/not matching the universe/don't make sense/overstretch suspension of disbelief. Example:

    Q.: "Why does Millenium Falcon bank when turning in a vacuum?".

    OK answer: "Because it looks good and dramatic to the audience who grew watching atmospheric dogfights. No in-universe explanation was ever given, despite the fact that banking is required for AIR flight only".

    Not very good, speculative answer: "Because Millenium Falcon probably has a special drive that, when turning, changes thrust in a way that causes banking". Um. No. That was not mentioned in ANY canon. Ever.

What makes such an answer less acceptable?

  • Quick draw "bad writing" shots that don't bother explaining the research done to show that it does NOT, indeed, have in-universe explanation

  • An answer that is contradicted by another answer with in-universe explanation/retcon, no matter how bad (however, saying "here's a retcon, and it isn't very good, so plot hole is a better explanation" is perfectly fine IMHO).

  • A rudely worded answer. "Do you really expect logic in Voyager writing" is not very nice.


Here is a truly excellent answer exemplifying how "no info" answer should be handled:

I'm going to second Kevin's answer. It's NOT OK to say that "any answer of a 'bad writing'/'plot hole' type" is a bad/inappropriate/offtopic answer. While in some situations such an answer can range from sub-optimal to trolling, in others, properly formulated, it's THE correct answer.

What makes such an answer more acceptable?

  • If the answerer researched (widely) all expected in-universe resources, and demonstrates so. Ex:ample: "This is not mentioned in any book, guide, or author interview - I just re-checked".

  • If there is demonstrable lack of in-universe answer otherwise (e.g. no answer after a reasonable period of time, say 2-3 weeks).

  • If there is a general fandom consensus outside of SO question agreeing that this is a plot hole. Again, ideally demonstrated via links.

  • If the "plot hole" is a note at the end of the answer which actually contains in-universe explanation/retcon, but states dissatisfaction with its logical quality/consistency.

  • Obviously, if there's an actual reference, e.g. someone involved with the work admitting "we screwed the pooch here". A good example is an afterword to "Ender in Exile" by O.S.Card which openly addressed some inconsistencies with the original version of "Ender's Game".

  • If the only answers are speculations from SO members, AND the speculations are absolutely weird/not matching the universe/don't make sense/overstretch suspension of disbelief. Example:

    Q.: "Why does Millenium Falcon bank when turning in a vacuum?".

    OK answer: "Because it looks good and dramatic to the audience who grew watching atmospheric dogfights. No in-universe explanation was ever given, despite the fact that banking is required for AIR flight only".

    Not very good, speculative answer: "Because Millenium Falcon probably has a special drive that, when turning, changes thrust in a way that causes banking". Um. No. That was not mentioned in ANY canon. Ever.

What makes such an answer less acceptable?

  • Quick draw "bad writing" shots that don't bother explaining the research done to show that it does NOT, indeed, have in-universe explanation

  • An answer that is contradicted by another answer with in-universe explanation/retcon, no matter how bad (however, saying "here's a retcon, and it isn't very good, so plot hole is a better explanation" is perfectly fine IMHO).

  • A rudely worded answer. "Do you really expect logic in Voyager writing" is not very nice.


Here is a truly excellent answer exemplifying how "no info" answer should be handled:

I'm going to second Kevin's answer. It's NOT OK to say that "any answer of a 'bad writing'/'plot hole' type" is a bad/inappropriate/offtopic answer. While in some situations such an answer can range from sub-optimal to trolling, in others, properly formulated, it's THE correct answer.

What makes such an answer more acceptable?

  • If the answerer researched (widely) all expected in-universe resources, and demonstrates so. Ex:ample: "This is not mentioned in any book, guide, or author interview - I just re-checked".

  • If there is demonstrable lack of in-universe answer otherwise (e.g. no answer after a reasonable period of time, say 2-3 weeks).

  • If there is a general fandom consensus outside of SO question agreeing that this is a plot hole. Again, ideally demonstrated via links.

  • If the "plot hole" is a note at the end of the answer which actually contains in-universe explanation/retcon, but states dissatisfaction with its logical quality/consistency.

  • Obviously, if there's an actual reference, e.g. someone involved with the work admitting "we screwed the pooch here". A good example is an afterword to "Ender in Exile" by O.S.Card which openly addressed some inconsistencies with the original version of "Ender's Game".

  • If the only answers are speculations from SO members, AND the speculations are absolutely weird/not matching the universe/don't make sense/overstretch suspension of disbelief. Example:

    Q.: "Why does Millenium Falcon bank when turning in a vacuum?".

    OK answer: "Because it looks good and dramatic to the audience who grew watching atmospheric dogfights. No in-universe explanation was ever given, despite the fact that banking is required for AIR flight only".

    Not very good, speculative answer: "Because Millenium Falcon probably has a special drive that, when turning, changes thrust in a way that causes banking". Um. No. That was not mentioned in ANY canon. Ever.

What makes such an answer less acceptable?

  • Quick draw "bad writing" shots that don't bother explaining the research done to show that it does NOT, indeed, have in-universe explanation

  • An answer that is contradicted by another answer with in-universe explanation/retcon, no matter how bad (however, saying "here's a retcon, and it isn't very good, so plot hole is a better explanation" is perfectly fine IMHO).

  • A rudely worded answer. "Do you really expect logic in Voyager writing" is not very nice.


Here is a truly excellent answer exemplifying how "no info" answer should be handled:

3 added 200 characters in body
source | link

I'm going to second Kevin's answer. It's NOT OK to say that "any answer of a 'bad writing'/'plot hole' type" is a bad/inappropriate/offtopic answer. While in some situations such an answer can range from sub-optimal to trolling, in others, properly formulated, it's THE correct answer.

What makes such an answer more acceptable?

  • If the answerer researched (widely) all expected in-universe resources, and demonstrates so. Ex:ample: "This is not mentioned in any book, guide, or author interview - I just re-checked".

  • If there is demonstrable lack of in-universe answer otherwise (e.g. no answer after a reasonable period of time, say 2-3 weeks).

  • If there is a general fandom consensus outside of SO question agreeing that this is a plot hole. Again, ideally demonstrated via links.

  • If the "plot hole" is a note at the end of the answer which actually contains in-universe explanation/retcon, but states dissatisfaction with its logical quality/consistency.

  • Obviously, if there's an actual reference, e.g. someone involved with the work admitting "we screwed the pooch here". A good example is an afterword to "Ender in Exile" by O.S.Card which openly addressed some inconsistencies with the original version of "Ender's Game".

  • If the only answers are speculations from SO members, AND the speculations are absolutely weird/not matching the universe/don't make sense/overstretch suspension of disbelief. Example:

    Q.: "Why does Millenium Falcon bank when turning in a vacuum?".

    OK answer: "Because it looks good and dramatic to the audience who grew watching atmospheric dogfights. No in-universe explanation was ever given, despite the fact that banking is required for AIR flight only".

    Not very good, speculative answer: "Because Millenium Falcon probably has a special drive that, when turning, changes thrust in a way that causes banking". Um. No. That was not mentioned in ANY canon. Ever.

What makes such an answer less acceptable?

  • Quick draw "bad writing" shots that don't bother explaining the research done to show that it does NOT, indeed, have in-universe explanation

  • An answer that is contradicted by another answer with in-universe explanation/retcon, no matter how bad (however, saying "here's a retcon, and it isn't very good, so plot hole is a better explanation" is perfectly fine IMHO).

  • A rudely worded answer. "Do you really expect logic in Voyager writing" is not very nice.


Here is a truly excellent answer exemplifying how "no info" answer should be handled:

I'm going to second Kevin's answer. It's NOT OK to say that "any answer of a 'bad writing'/'plot hole' type" is a bad/inappropriate/offtopic answer. While in some situations such an answer can range from sub-optimal to trolling, in others, properly formulated, it's THE correct answer.

What makes such an answer more acceptable?

  • If the answerer researched (widely) all expected in-universe resources, and demonstrates so. Ex:ample: "This is not mentioned in any book, guide, or author interview - I just re-checked".

  • If there is demonstrable lack of in-universe answer otherwise (e.g. no answer after a reasonable period of time, say 2-3 weeks).

  • If there is a general fandom consensus outside of SO question agreeing that this is a plot hole. Again, ideally demonstrated via links.

  • If the "plot hole" is a note at the end of the answer which actually contains in-universe explanation/retcon, but states dissatisfaction with its logical quality/consistency.

  • Obviously, if there's an actual reference, e.g. someone involved with the work admitting "we screwed the pooch here". A good example is an afterword to "Ender in Exile" by O.S.Card which openly addressed some inconsistencies with the original version of "Ender's Game".

  • If the only answers are speculations from SO members, AND the speculations are absolutely weird/not matching the universe/don't make sense/overstretch suspension of disbelief. Example:

    Q.: "Why does Millenium Falcon bank when turning in a vacuum?".

    OK answer: "Because it looks good and dramatic to the audience who grew watching atmospheric dogfights. No in-universe explanation was ever given, despite the fact that banking is required for AIR flight only".

    Not very good, speculative answer: "Because Millenium Falcon probably has a special drive that, when turning, changes thrust in a way that causes banking". Um. No. That was not mentioned in ANY canon. Ever.

What makes such an answer less acceptable?

  • Quick draw "bad writing" shots that don't bother explaining the research done to show that it does NOT, indeed, have in-universe explanation

  • An answer that is contradicted by another answer with in-universe explanation/retcon, no matter how bad (however, saying "here's a retcon, and it isn't very good, so plot hole is a better explanation" is perfectly fine IMHO).

  • A rudely worded answer. "Do you really expect logic in Voyager writing" is not very nice.

I'm going to second Kevin's answer. It's NOT OK to say that "any answer of a 'bad writing'/'plot hole' type" is a bad/inappropriate/offtopic answer. While in some situations such an answer can range from sub-optimal to trolling, in others, properly formulated, it's THE correct answer.

What makes such an answer more acceptable?

  • If the answerer researched (widely) all expected in-universe resources, and demonstrates so. Ex:ample: "This is not mentioned in any book, guide, or author interview - I just re-checked".

  • If there is demonstrable lack of in-universe answer otherwise (e.g. no answer after a reasonable period of time, say 2-3 weeks).

  • If there is a general fandom consensus outside of SO question agreeing that this is a plot hole. Again, ideally demonstrated via links.

  • If the "plot hole" is a note at the end of the answer which actually contains in-universe explanation/retcon, but states dissatisfaction with its logical quality/consistency.

  • Obviously, if there's an actual reference, e.g. someone involved with the work admitting "we screwed the pooch here". A good example is an afterword to "Ender in Exile" by O.S.Card which openly addressed some inconsistencies with the original version of "Ender's Game".

  • If the only answers are speculations from SO members, AND the speculations are absolutely weird/not matching the universe/don't make sense/overstretch suspension of disbelief. Example:

    Q.: "Why does Millenium Falcon bank when turning in a vacuum?".

    OK answer: "Because it looks good and dramatic to the audience who grew watching atmospheric dogfights. No in-universe explanation was ever given, despite the fact that banking is required for AIR flight only".

    Not very good, speculative answer: "Because Millenium Falcon probably has a special drive that, when turning, changes thrust in a way that causes banking". Um. No. That was not mentioned in ANY canon. Ever.

What makes such an answer less acceptable?

  • Quick draw "bad writing" shots that don't bother explaining the research done to show that it does NOT, indeed, have in-universe explanation

  • An answer that is contradicted by another answer with in-universe explanation/retcon, no matter how bad (however, saying "here's a retcon, and it isn't very good, so plot hole is a better explanation" is perfectly fine IMHO).

  • A rudely worded answer. "Do you really expect logic in Voyager writing" is not very nice.


Here is a truly excellent answer exemplifying how "no info" answer should be handled:

2 deleted 3 characters in body
source | link

I'm going to second Kevin's answer. It's NOT OK to say that "any answer of a 'bad writing'/'plot whole'hole' type" is a bad/inappropriate/offtopic answer. While in some situations such an answer can range from sub-optimal to trolling, in others, properly formulated, it's THE correct answer.

What makes such an answer more acceptable?

  • If the answerer researched (widely) all expected in-universe resources, and demonstrates so. Ex:ample: "This is not mentioned in any book, guide, or author interview - I just re-checked".

  • If there is demonstrable lack of in-universe answer otherwise (e.g. no answer after a reasonable period of time, say 2-3 weeks).

  • If there is a general fandom consensus outside of SO question agreeing that this is a plot wholehole. Again, ideally demonstrated via links.

  • If the "plot hole" is a note at the end of the answer which actually contains in-universe explanation/retcon, but states dissatisfaction with its logical quality/consistency.

  • Obviously, if there's an actual reference, e.g. someone involved with the work admitting "we screwed the pooch here". A good example is an afterword to "Ender in Exile" by O.S.Card which openly addressed some inconsistencies with the original version of "Ender's Game".

  • If the only answers are speculations from SO members, AND the speculations are absolutely weird/not matching the universe/don't make sense/overstretch suspension of disbelief. Example:

    Q.: "Why does Millenium Falcon bank when turning in a vacuum?".

    OK answer: "Because it looks good and dramatic to the audience who grew watching atmospheric dogfights. No in-universe explanation was ever given, despite the fact that banking is required for AIR flight only".

    Not very good, speculative answer: "Because Millenium Falcon probably has a special drive that, when turning, changes thrust in a way that causes banking". Um. No. That was not mentioned in ANY canon. Ever.

What makes such an answer less acceptable?

  • Quick draw "bad writing" shots that don't bother explaining the research done to show that it does NOT, indeed, have in-universe explanation

  • An answer that is contradicted by another answer with in-universe explanation/retcon, no matter how bad (however, saying "here's a retcon, and it isn't very good, so plot wholehole is a better explanation" is perfectly fine IMHO).

  • A rudely worded answer. "Do you really expect logic in Voyager writing" is not very nice.

I'm going to second Kevin's answer. It's NOT OK to say that "any answer of a 'bad writing'/'plot whole' type" is a bad/inappropriate/offtopic answer. While in some situations such an answer can range from sub-optimal to trolling, in others, properly formulated, it's THE correct answer.

What makes such an answer more acceptable?

  • If the answerer researched (widely) all expected in-universe resources, and demonstrates so. Ex:ample: "This is not mentioned in any book, guide, or author interview - I just re-checked".

  • If there is demonstrable lack of in-universe answer otherwise (e.g. no answer after a reasonable period of time, say 2-3 weeks).

  • If there is a general fandom consensus outside of SO question agreeing that this is a plot whole. Again, ideally demonstrated via links.

  • If the "plot hole" is a note at the end of the answer which actually contains in-universe explanation/retcon, but states dissatisfaction with its logical quality/consistency.

  • Obviously, if there's an actual reference, e.g. someone involved with the work admitting "we screwed the pooch here". A good example is an afterword to "Ender in Exile" by O.S.Card which openly addressed some inconsistencies with the original version of "Ender's Game".

  • If the only answers are speculations from SO members, AND the speculations are absolutely weird/not matching the universe/don't make sense/overstretch suspension of disbelief. Example:

    Q.: "Why does Millenium Falcon bank when turning in a vacuum?".

    OK answer: "Because it looks good and dramatic to the audience who grew watching atmospheric dogfights. No in-universe explanation was ever given, despite the fact that banking is required for AIR flight only".

    Not very good, speculative answer: "Because Millenium Falcon probably has a special drive that, when turning, changes thrust in a way that causes banking". Um. No. That was not mentioned in ANY canon. Ever.

What makes such an answer less acceptable?

  • Quick draw "bad writing" shots that don't bother explaining the research done to show that it does NOT, indeed, have in-universe explanation

  • An answer that is contradicted by another answer with in-universe explanation/retcon, no matter how bad (however, saying "here's a retcon, and it isn't very good, so plot whole is a better explanation" is perfectly fine IMHO).

  • A rudely worded answer. "Do you really expect logic in Voyager writing" is not very nice.

I'm going to second Kevin's answer. It's NOT OK to say that "any answer of a 'bad writing'/'plot hole' type" is a bad/inappropriate/offtopic answer. While in some situations such an answer can range from sub-optimal to trolling, in others, properly formulated, it's THE correct answer.

What makes such an answer more acceptable?

  • If the answerer researched (widely) all expected in-universe resources, and demonstrates so. Ex:ample: "This is not mentioned in any book, guide, or author interview - I just re-checked".

  • If there is demonstrable lack of in-universe answer otherwise (e.g. no answer after a reasonable period of time, say 2-3 weeks).

  • If there is a general fandom consensus outside of SO question agreeing that this is a plot hole. Again, ideally demonstrated via links.

  • If the "plot hole" is a note at the end of the answer which actually contains in-universe explanation/retcon, but states dissatisfaction with its logical quality/consistency.

  • Obviously, if there's an actual reference, e.g. someone involved with the work admitting "we screwed the pooch here". A good example is an afterword to "Ender in Exile" by O.S.Card which openly addressed some inconsistencies with the original version of "Ender's Game".

  • If the only answers are speculations from SO members, AND the speculations are absolutely weird/not matching the universe/don't make sense/overstretch suspension of disbelief. Example:

    Q.: "Why does Millenium Falcon bank when turning in a vacuum?".

    OK answer: "Because it looks good and dramatic to the audience who grew watching atmospheric dogfights. No in-universe explanation was ever given, despite the fact that banking is required for AIR flight only".

    Not very good, speculative answer: "Because Millenium Falcon probably has a special drive that, when turning, changes thrust in a way that causes banking". Um. No. That was not mentioned in ANY canon. Ever.

What makes such an answer less acceptable?

  • Quick draw "bad writing" shots that don't bother explaining the research done to show that it does NOT, indeed, have in-universe explanation

  • An answer that is contradicted by another answer with in-universe explanation/retcon, no matter how bad (however, saying "here's a retcon, and it isn't very good, so plot hole is a better explanation" is perfectly fine IMHO).

  • A rudely worded answer. "Do you really expect logic in Voyager writing" is not very nice.

1
source | link