The question As of 2019 has the U.S. Gov./CPB developed metrics for the ability to assess/measure the contribution of fencing to border security at the SW border? takes no position on the construction of border barriers.

No "POV" is presented, other than the rational evaluation that such a government project requires the development of metrics in order for the government (or any organization) to be accountable for its projects.

The question merely asks if the U.S. Government has developed metrics for the ability to assess and measure the contribution of a prospective border barrier - which the U.S. GAO and the U.S. CBP agree is important.

How is this question "off-topic" for Politics SE?

  • 1
    Looks like almost a duplicate of politics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3606/8912 which has an excellent answer. Note that the linked meta question has the same author.
    – Sjoerd
    Jan 9 '19 at 22:41
  • @Sjoerd What specific content in the question (which you cited as the reason for your close vote) "The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician."? Are you alleging that the U.S. GAO reports have the primary purpose of discrediting the U.S. Government? The reason cited for the vote to close the question are baffling to this user. What edits to the question do you suggest? Jan 9 '19 at 22:43
  • There seems to be a history for this poster, see e.g. politics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3507/8912 . I'll get out of this and leave it to the moderators. Any effort to help seems wasted on this poster.
    – Sjoerd
    Jan 9 '19 at 22:48
  • @Sjoerd You have thus far failed to provide a reason for your vote to close the question that this meta question is about. Again, what edits to the question do you suggest? Where have you tried to help? Suggest edits to the question. Or, does your vote to close the question simply reflect your own political support for the construction of additional barriers at the U.S. southwest border - without any metrics as to the contribution said project would have as to border security - which both the U.S. GAO and U.S. CBP agree is an important policy? Jan 9 '19 at 22:49
  • In my opinion, the question is unsalvable. To get my own potential biases out of the way, I'll leave it to the moderators.
    – Sjoerd
    Jan 9 '19 at 22:51
  • @Sjoerd That is not a reason. That is a personal opinion. What content are you citing to support the wild accusation that "The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician."? The moderators did not vote to close the question - you did. Simply cite the specific content that prompted you to vote to close the question. Why are you having difficulty doing that? "To get my own potential biases out of the way" That is an admission by you that your vote to close the question is biased, correct? What are you biased against? Jan 9 '19 at 22:52
  • I voted to close your question for the extensive editorializing to build a narrative within the question opposing the strategies of the Administration. I voted to delete your question because it follows the trend of stilted questions you present. Jan 9 '19 at 23:42
  • @DrunkCynic You are absolutely incorrect. Your assessment is flawed because it is based on a false premise. Have no opposition whatsoever to the strategies of the current Administration. Could not care less about whether a border barrier is constructed or not. Have no stake in that matter at all. The question is about the agreed upon policy decision - by the U.S. GAO and U.S. CBP - both U.S. Government agencies, to develop metrics for the contribution of a border barrier to the policy of objectives of border security: for government accountability. Jan 9 '19 at 23:55

I've saved an edit to your question, feel free to roll it back if you feel that it changes the question too substantially for your liking. The biggest change I made was to remove a lot of the content that doesn't seem absolutely necessary to get to the point, and simplified some of the language of the actual question you're asking. This change may or may not address some of the other community members concerns.

Questions do require framing in order to restrict the possible answers to the specific context you're asking about, but if you get too long winded and try to build around your actual question too much people may believe you're not asking the question in good faith. We're just screen names on the internet, after all, and only the words on the screen are what we each have to go off of in order to gauge a questioner's intent. This matters for a politics Q&A that doesn't wish to be a soap box, since it's easy to over-frame questions in order to discredit ideas and people.

Also, specifically for this question, the metrics have been reported to be due in January 2019 (it's still fairly early in January at time of this writing). I took a bit of care around the question not to sound as if it is expecting them to actually be out there since there is still plenty of time available for them to be published yet. This hopefully makes it a bit clearer that the questioner isn't attempting to be unrealistic.

You must log in to answer this question.

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