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.

| |
  • 3
    This isn't a site for political discussions, discussions are strictly off topic in all Stack Exchange sites. Your question is incredibly broad and open ended. It might be suitable for a politics forum, but I don't see how it could work on a Q&A site focused on specific questions that can be answered factually. – yannis Aug 14 '16 at 12:06
  • 2
    Also, it takes 5 votes (or a single moderator's vote) to close a question, same with every other Stack Exchange site. This is evident in your question, it was closed by 5 regular users. The threshold has been working fine so far, and I don't see a reason to change it. – yannis Aug 14 '16 at 12:08
  • By discussion I meant Q/As. By 3 votes I meant an example. Whatever it is there, it needs to be larger here. – caveman Aug 14 '16 at 14:27
  • You have given us no actual reason to increase the threshold. Your question was closed correctly, it is indeed too broad to work in a Q&A format. – yannis Aug 14 '16 at 14:43
  • Given your resistance to address - or even acknowledge - any of the actual issues of your question, I've removed it. There's no reason to keep a -6 closed question around. – yannis Aug 16 '16 at 12:25
  • @Yannis all "issues" that I did not acknowledge were not supported. You have to support it by evidence first. I will not simply believe. – caveman Aug 16 '16 at 15:06
  • @yannis, re "the threshhold has been working fine so far": it's difficult to see how that would be publicly knowable, since it would seem to require comparing closed and deleted messages with existing ones. But deleted message are not publicly visible, so there's a transparency problem. Not that we don't trust the mods now, but if we suppose all forms of organization are prone to corruption, it's only a matter of time... that's where transparency is useful, it helps the public determine what time it is. – agc Feb 13 '17 at 4:37

5 is not too many people. We get much less traffic on this site than other SEs, and getting 5 close votes isn't as easy here as it is in some other places.

Secondly, increasing the close threshold doesn't do anything to solve bickering in the comments.

Thirdly, Your question read like

The media believes that the refugee crisis is caused by [...], but I don't believe them. What is the real cause of the refugee crisis.

And yes, that question is way too broad, and deserves to be closed as such.

| |
  • 1
    That quote is not mine. Why don't you bring quotes from me? I didn't say that "I don't believe them". I said that there are disagreements, what is the right one? Here is my quote "That is the surface observation. But there are many disagreeing explanations that claim to have a deeper insight into the situation.". – caveman Aug 15 '16 at 4:23
  • Either increase number of needed votes, or strip some mods from their permissions so that they don't wreck havoc. – caveman Aug 15 '16 at 4:24
  • @caveman That's what your question sounded like. The phrasing is there for your benefit. It's to let you know how other people are interpreting your question. everyone else already gets that impression when reading your question directly. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Aug 15 '16 at 14:36
  • I think you are guided by "feelings" more than "facts". The fact that you are unable to quote me directly, and -instead- find the need write your own text to convey your feelings says a lot. – caveman Aug 15 '16 at 18:23
  • @caveman I am guided by both feelings and facts. They are not mutually exclusive. A large part of what feelings are(at least how you seem to be using the word "feelings") is your subconscious brain doing a lot of hard computational work behind the scenes to come up with a meaningful conclusion. I didn't quote your entire question for the sake of brevity, and there's' no purpose in quoting it, because it is easy to click the link you've provided. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Aug 15 '16 at 18:59
  • @caveman Furthermore, as I write this, the question part of your question is: "What is going on? And what is your justification?" and since you've demonstrated that you already know the straight-forward answer to that question, we can conclude that you're looking for some other, alternative answer. Therefore, you question is incredibly open-ended, and it is way too broad. Until something about it changes, it will remain closed. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Aug 15 '16 at 19:04
  • 1
    No. You are assuming that game theoretic explanations don't exist. The media simply reports surface information. Not game theoretic explanation. I am amused how tunnel visioned you guys are. You really have not used any facts. The quote "What's going on? And what is your justification?" really doesn't say anything about any of the accusations. It's all just you assuming things because you have never read any game theoretic analysis. Because of this tunnelvisionness of the mods in charge (you and others), you simply make it impossible to discuss anything game theoretically of value. – caveman Aug 15 '16 at 19:56
  • Since caveman's original Q has been deleted, that paraphrasing non-quote prevents later readers from judging for themselves what the OP actually wrote. Ellipses would be better. – agc Feb 13 '17 at 3:16

This question was closed rightfully so.

  1. The author claims that they look for a "game-theoretical explanation". But the original question didn't say anything about game theory at all. Game theory was mentioned later in a comment and much later in a preface-edit, but nothing in the question body even alluded to game theory. That makes it unclear what you are asking.
  2. The question ended with "Q1: What is going on?" This question is simply too broad. You can not summarize everything that is happening in the refugee crisis in just a single answer. A question needs to provide focus and scope in order to write the answer the asker expects.
  3. A subsequent edit did not reduce the scope but further insisted on it being answered with that huge scope: "There are many explanations to what is really happening around the refugee crisis. However, to the best of what I know, there is no comprehensive list of such explanations/theories in politics.stackexchange.". Such "comprehensive list" questions are not a good fit for the stackexchange concept. Robert Cartaino (Stackexchange Director of Community Development) explained it well in this meta-post.
  4. The question mentioned several conspiracy theories, like involvement of Israel, some ominous "New World Order" or the no longer existing think-thank Project for the New American Century. Speculation about conspiracy theories should have no place on this site, because by their very nature they can not be proven or disproven. That makes questions involving conspiracy theories primarily opinion-based. Individual theories might be on-topic on skeptics stackexchange IF the asker can provide a notable claim and IF that claim is falsifiable.
  5. The author claims the question was closed for ideological reasons. But with such an open question it is hard to imagine which political ideology it could be which would oppose that question. It was so open-ended that it could have been abused as an opportunity to write an "answer" to spin any ideology, including "It's a plot of [state I don't like] to harm [state I like]", "It shows people of [ethnicity I hate] are all evil" or "The whole mess is caused by [ideology I dislike] and could be avoided by [my ideology]". But these kind of answers are exactly those we don't want to have on this website.

Maybe the author feels that this impression the community had about their question was incorrect. Still they didn't feel the need to make proper changes to their question to make it more about what they claim it was about. Therefor, it was downvoted, closed and deleted.

Conclusion: The stackexchange system worked as intended.

| |
  • So what if clarification is added as a note? Maybe it was originally unclear, but it later became clear (in a note). You guys are unfair here. I'll never ask again in this place. Extremely disappointed. Conclusion: when mods don't know the answer, they think no one else knows, and claim things like "too broad" or "impossible to answer". I actually had the game theoretic answer, but you closed it before I attempted to answer my own question (it was a Q-A formatted answer). – caveman Aug 21 '16 at 15:16
  • @caveman Regarding your note: I've addressed this in point 1. Regarding your conclusion: The question was closed by consensus of five normal users, not mods, and deleted by a mod after two normal users voted to delete it. It also had plenty of downvotes which also came from normal users, not mods. It was the whole community which rejected your question, not a conspiracy of mods against you. – Philipp Aug 21 '16 at 15:46
  • I see. Then I really think the thresholds must be higher. A few troll users ruined the whole thing. – caveman Aug 21 '16 at 18:48
  • @Phillip, Suggested possibly more accurate rewordings to your 8/21/16 comment to @caveman, (in sed notation): s/the whole community/5 self-selected users with 500 points/, s/not a conspiracy/plus a concurrency/. – agc Feb 13 '17 at 4:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .