I see a lot of questions asked by new users where:

  1. The question is put "on hold" for various reasons, but still has a few reopen votes (sometimes including mine), which show it is neither completely unrelated to politics nor completely subjective.

  2. The question is actually answered in comments by objective facts.

Since yesterday :

Is the homicide rate from police and criminals similar in all countries?

How can Iran threaten America so comfortably?

Both answers have comments that combined would make up a good answer, the first with statistics, the second with historical facts. These questions have not been edited apart from spelling errors. And they are related to politics, even if not within the scope of the site according to some.

What do we win in being so strict?

Would it be possible/desirable to change the site policy in order to avoid this?

The loss seems pretty obvious: new users and (according to me) interesting politics-related questions.

1 Answer 1


Just because a question can be answered does not necessarily mean it should be answered.

We are a site with a specific scope. We only answer questions about policies, processes, and personalities that comprise the political arena.

The first question is not about this. Sure, crime statistics are relevant for political decision making. But politics affect and are affected by practically every aspect of life. So if we say everything is on-topic which in some way influences political decisions then pretty much everything would be on-topic.

The second question is simply a troll many users are fed up with. There is a certain person who regularly registers a new account, asks a loaded question about the US/Iran relationship and abandons that account. The pattern is pretty obvious. This community is quite allergic to people who come here with an agenda to spread some kind of political cause or opinion.

You must log in to answer this question.

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