4

Community deleted this answer, in spite its value (11-6=5 at the time of writing this post).

Currently it is undeleted, but I wonder:

Why was it deleted in the first place?

5

The account which was used to post that answer was created by a person who was suspended for repeated misbehavior. The new account was created in order to avoid the suspension. The answer should not have been posted in the first place. I have deleted it again, because we must not enable suspension evasion. When you repeatedly violate the rules of this community, you lose the privilege to participate in it. A suspension means a complete suspension of all participation in the community, including constructive one (and this particular contribution wasn't even unanimously considered constructive, as indicated by the 6 downvotes). If we show any leniency towards suspension evasion we lose the only tool we have to keep repeated rule violators off the site.

  • 1
    if there is no objection from moderators, I would like to take the content of that answer and add it to mine (with vague attribution to "now-deleted separate answer") – user4012 Nov 28 '17 at 15:50
  • As a separate note, downvotes on something like that have nothing to do with constructiveness and are far more likely than not be an instance of this. Anything, no matter how factual and backed up, that disagrees with certain political views, gets at least some downvotes in my experience; especially on HNQ. – user4012 Nov 28 '17 at 15:54
  • 3
    @user4012 That meta-question is about upvotes. See this and this for why downvotes for opinions are useful for this website. tl;dr: if an answer contains views people might disagree with, it's not a good answer. – Philipp Nov 28 '17 at 15:57
  • @phillip - in that case, there's a large chunk of "not a good answers" on this site with a surprising # of upvotes. I be some of them are yours, though i don't track which user gives which answer that contains views I disagree with so could be wrong. The point is, that particular answer didn't even contain "views" as in "opinions" - it contained facts. – user4012 Nov 28 '17 at 17:14
  • 2
    @Philipp Again, no. Disagreeing with an answer does not make it a bad answer, though you may disagree with an answer that is bad. – Drunk Cynic Nov 28 '17 at 20:39
  • @Philipp - case in point, just ran into it: politics.stackexchange.com/q/15753/115. At least 2 highest voted answers have political opinions (not even backed up by cites) myself and I suspect many others would vehemently disagree with. Does that automatically make them bad answers? If so, why are they so highly upvoted? – user4012 Nov 28 '17 at 21:19
  • 1
    if an answer contains views people might disagree with, it's not a good answer : That is a little bit simplistic, I think. A question which asks "please explain the motivation for this viewpoint?" will get answers which explain that viewpoint. I have upvoted many such answers even when I disagreed with the viewpoint in question, because it is a good explanation of the viewpoint. There is a big grey area here – @user4012 last comment is a good example of that – and a simplistic IF might_disagree(someone, views) THEN disallow() doesn't really do justice to the "grey areas", I think. – user11249 Nov 28 '17 at 21:39
  • @Carpetsmoker - I'd go even further. this is social "sciences" here; so even many answers that aren't "explain motivation" would contain disagreement possibility despite being a quality answer. There's simply not enough proof of causality possible in politics, in sufficient breath, for it to be otherwise. – user4012 Nov 28 '17 at 21:41
  • 2
    @user4012 yes; it was by no means intended to be an exhaustive list of examples (comments are too limited), just the most common one. I think what Philip was trying to say is that answers should be explanatory, and not advocatory (is that a word? it is now!) This specific answer was mostly trying to advocate a viewpoint, and not explain it (again, there is a grey area). This is also what makes that specific answer not especially good and different from the example you cited two comments ago, where the answers try to explain a viewpoint and not advocate one (mine certainly was). – user11249 Nov 28 '17 at 21:53
  • @Carpetsmoker - Those answers most certainly were advocating viewpoints. Your own starts with a viewpoint you are advocating: "Communism isn't malicious". That's not stating a fact, nor is it even saying "well some people thinks that it isn't". That's directly and explicitly advocating that as a viewpoint. The fact that both you and Philipp agree with THAT viewpoint and disagree with the deleted answer's viewpoint appears to be the only explanation for why you perceive the difference where there isn't one. – user4012 Nov 29 '17 at 14:54
  • @user4012 Well, put like that, practically answer could be phrased as "advocating a viewpoint". My goal was to explain, not advocate anything (you'll just have to believe me on that), and I think my answer accurately answers the question. If you feel there are some comparatively small issues in the phrasing of it then I welcome you to edit it. Also note I am not saying that the answer this meta question is about should be deleted, it's not something I would have voted to delete, even though I think the phrasing is rather less-than-optimal (ban evasion, of course, is a different thing). – user11249 Dec 6 '17 at 10:36
  • @Carpetsmoker - that's precisely the point I was trying to make. Your goal was to explain; but you were explaining your viewpoint. Not some absolute truth. It is a problem inherent in the subject matter of the site - you can have math and proofs talking about Condorset method but not about morality/ethics, or usually politics, even often macroeconomics. My beef wasn't with your answer per se but that you think it's somehow qualitatively different and should be treated differently. – user4012 Dec 6 '17 at 13:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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