In other stackexchange sites, where the topics are scientific, it is quite easy to interact with people that have very little conflict of interest. It exists, but it is very little as the rules are governed by scientific methods that leave little room to mess around.
However, here in politics.stackexchange, this happened:
- I ask a question about a factual or game theoretic explanation on Syria.
- Relaxed (a person) comes in with accusations that I am asking for "conspiracy theory" and thus it is off-topic. Of course, no evidence to support his claim.
- I add a note that "I am really not asking for conspiracy theory, but rather game theory".
- Relaxed comes back by basically saying that "no, you are, and now your note is a lie".
- Related provided zero evidence to support his claims.
He even down-voted an answer from a different user (on the same question) simply for achieving another agenda this is deleting this post. This is a quote from his response to the user: "-1 because it feels like a comment and would prevent this very bad question from being deleted.", Relaxed said. Also note that he has no evidence, but rather feelings
Not surprising in a political domain: To me it's clear that he has other political agenda. Possibly conflict of interest.
In my view, the key problem is that political Q/As are far more sensitive than scientific Q/As, and therefore far more venerable to conflicts of interest.
Therefore I strongly suggest the following changes to politics.stackexchange to accommodate for the political nature of this place:
- Increase number of votes that are needed to hold, close, and delete posts.
The current number of thresholds (3 I think) are suitable for scientific Q/As, but not for political Q/As.
If we have these low thresholds, we will lose many interesting topics of value. Ultimately rendering this site pretty much useless for any serious Q/As that involves game theory or deeper insights.