-3

A user voted to close a this question citing

"The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center."

At chat the user removed comments between two users, then wrote their own comment in the discussion

It is fine to disagree about the validity of close votes/reasons, but assuming malicious intent is nothing more than a personal attack, and not the sort of conversations that we want (or are allowed) on this site. I am getting a little bit tired of it. Please stop doing that.

The two users' whose comments were removed could very well have diametrically opposing world views. Am not aware if the user who decided to delete the comments of the two users is a moderator or any of the comments posted by the two users were flagged for moderator attention.

From perspective here political questions and answers will inherently incur disagreement, given that individuals could have have vastly different political experience and, or training.

The user who voted to close the question citing "does not appear to be a good-faith effort" could be considered to have malicious intent against the user who posted the original question and by voting to close the question citing a baseless claim that cannot be objectively proven, demonstrating that the source of the vote to close is an expression of a personal attack against the OP of the question. Whether the user who deleted the comments is individually "getting a little bit tired of it", liking or not liking the discussion, is wholly irrelevant to the users engaged in the chat discussion concerning the original question.

Explain how the accusation of "It does not appear to be a good-faith effort" relevant to a user voting to close a political question is different from "assuming malicious intent" of the user who posted the original question.

  • 1
    I have always disliked the "good faith", and have asked for it to be changed, exactly because it can cause this sort of confusion. I think it's fair enough to point out some hypocrisy here, and still think it's a good idea to rename this. That being said, it is clarified, and not quite the same as your (frequent) claims that users are fraudulent and dishonest. – Martin Tournoij Oct 25 '18 at 20:31
  • @MartinTournoij Agree that "good-faith" is a very subjective term. Where does politics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3040/11249 clarify what "good faith" means relevant to a question? From perspective here there is no objective difference between "not appear to be a good-faith effort" and directly accusing a user of intentionally posting a question which another user might consider to be "not appear to be a good-faith effort". What in the original question lead you conclude the question was not a "good-faith effort"? Or does your vote cite "promote or discredit a specific political cause"? – guest271314 Oct 25 '18 at 20:45
  • @MartinTournoij Do not normally disclose a specific "vote" this user has made ("all time 0 down 169 up") however fyi cast the 1st "up" vote for the 1st answer to the question as had not considered the perspective and content posted at the answer - before the 1st comment made by the user after posting their answer - which was the 1st use of the language "primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort" at the question. – guest271314 Oct 25 '18 at 21:36
  • @MartinTournoij Can you reconcile the fact that this user was the 1st to cast an "up" vote for the 1st (most "up" voted) answer to the question with the cited reason for placing the question "on hold"? – guest271314 Oct 25 '18 at 22:15
  • 1
    I'm not going to get drawn in to a discussion about your question and whether or not is should have been closed. That has been discussed already on the question's comments, and I'm not interested in repeating that. – Martin Tournoij Oct 25 '18 at 22:26
  • @MartinTournoij "That has been discussed already on the question's comments" No, it has not. None of the users who voted to close the question posted any comments, save for your comment in chat. – guest271314 Oct 25 '18 at 22:28
  • 3
    Various users posted comments; I agree with pretty much all of them. I see no need to repeat it. – Martin Tournoij Oct 25 '18 at 22:29
  • 1
    @MartinTournoij Again, the 1st up vote for the answer which received the most "up" votes was cast by this user. There was no "malicious intent" in either the question or comments made at the question. Would the accusation then be that that "up" vote was not cast in "good-faith" or assumed "malicious intent"? – guest271314 Oct 25 '18 at 22:30
  • 2
    I don't even get what your point is here. Are you trying to say that "fanatics who voted to close this question under a fraudulent pretext" is not assuming malicious intent? Fairly sure that "fraud" is rarely committed with good intentions. – Martin Tournoij Oct 25 '18 at 22:50
  • 1
    @MartinTournoij The point is that the fraudulent pretext provided as reason for closing the question is evidence of assuming malicious intent by the OP of the question under the label "The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center." proven fraudulent by the fact that the most up voted answer received the 1st "up" vote from this user. There was no malicious intent by this user. – guest271314 Oct 25 '18 at 22:57
  • 3
    To note: I did not vote to close the question this meta-question references, though I did downvote it and explained my reasoning why. After more comments reflected the same, I attempted an edit to remove the portions of the question I saw as unnecessary to defining its scope. After the edit was rolled back, I became disinterested in the question, past retaining the premise and body. – Drunk Cynic Oct 29 '18 at 20:51
  • @DrunkCynic Normally do not disclose what questions or answers have voted at. Made an exception in this case to repudiate the baseless claim cited by those users who did vote to close the question. Did have two points that wanted to clarify at your answer, setting aside whether agree or not with the conclusions drawn; yet you too made a wild accusation at comment regarding "promote or discredit a specific political cause" consistent with the wild accusation cited by users who cast "close" votes before could ask for clarity as to those points. The original question did not require editing. – guest271314 Oct 30 '18 at 13:36
9

I flagged the comments because of phrases such as:

  • "The votes to close this question are simply fraudulent in nature and substance."
  • "you edit the question for reasons that exist only in your own mind"
  • "the fanatics who voted to close this question under a fraudulent pretext"
  • "Do not expect "honest dealing" here from the users at Politics SE"
  • "You did not make the question "better". Perhaps in your own mind."

I flagged them because I consider them to be excessively hostile and inappropriate for respectful discourse, and would have flagged them on the main site as well. Because I am a moderator on another SE site chat flags are binding and will delete the comments.

I deleted (not flagged) Drunk Cynic's comments as they were a reply to your (now deleted) accusations and I didn't see any value in keeping them. I figured I might as well freeze the room since this discussion was clearly going nowhere.


As for the "good faith" close reason, I have always disliked the phrasing since the moment it was introduced, and have asked for it to be reworded, exactly because it can cause this sort of confusion.

I think it's fair enough to point out some hypocrisy here, and this meta question has only strengthened my opinion that it should be rephrased to remove the "good faith" accusation. I hope the moderators will take this opportunity to discus this among themselves and change the phrasing; especially considering the recent efforts to make the SE network a more welcoming and less hostile place. I don't see how anything will be lost by removing "good faith" from the close reason, as the really important bit is in "primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician".

That being said, we do have a definition of what is intended with "good faith", and even if we wouldn't saying "this question isn't asked in good faith" is still a lot "less bad" than your claims that users are fraudulent, dishonest, and delusional, as you did in the deleted comments (as well as in other places over the span over several months).

  • 2
    "we do have a definition of it" What language at which answer are you referring to? The comments were not "hostile" in the least bit. – guest271314 Oct 25 '18 at 22:25
  • 1
    Agree wholly with Martin's decisions and the reason behind them. Using language like "Perhaps in your own mind" and intentionally insulting users by referring to them as "the fanatics" is not helpful to anyone here. Thanks for being a positive force for the community Martin. – LearnWorkLearn Nov 28 '18 at 5:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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