Please review the following question for being closed without good reason What safeguards has the DNC added to prevent a situation like what they did to Bernie Sanders in the last election?. This question is very clear and concise with only verified facts included, but yet certain moderators choose to believe the facts are "tin foil hat conspiracies".

There are two sides in politics after all.

| |
  • Just a point of terminology, moderators are users with a diamond by their name eg politics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3135/philipp they have powers to close and delete questions on their own. 5 high rep users can also close a question with votes, that's what happened here; no moderators were involved. – lazarusL Feb 21 '19 at 14:15
  • Philipp was the initial moderator to try to edit the meaning out of the question like he has so many times before with other questions, so your comment is not really relevant. – MultiMike Feb 21 '19 at 14:21
  • 6
    I understand you are frustrated, but do you think you could a) be a bit more specific and b) be a lot less emotional. I don't see how we can get any kind of productive discussion from this. Please consider updating your post to simply ask the community to review the question's edits and closure. Everything else you've written here is just... noise. – yannis Feb 21 '19 at 14:26
  • The argument "There are two sides in politics after all." is a poor argument based on bothsidesism (2) (it's also a false-choice, as why would only 2 sides be possible?). It's the kinds of argument someone make when their side is more-than-half at-fault, but only wishes to accept half of the blame. – Batman Feb 22 '19 at 4:15

I honestly think the question was fine.

  • The controversy over that election was big enough news that it can hardly be considered a a fringe theory.
  • You you didn't devote an unreasonable amount of the question to trying to convince us that it was unfair.
  • Since the 2016 DNC controversy is the essence of your question, there really is no magic phrasing that is going to make it less biased.

Honestly, I don't think the question should ever have been edited in the first place. The typical push question tends to be mostly an essay trying to convince us of a topic(in this case, it would be that the election was unfair) This question doesn't do that. It just makes a passing reference to it.

| |
  • @MultiMike Locking a post is part of the procedure when it comes to edit wars and content disputes. In retrospect it might not have been necessary here. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Feb 22 '19 at 2:26

Let's review the revision list for a moment

We start off with this as your question (emphasis mine)

Have there been any safeguards or special rule changes within the DNC to prevent a rigged or unfair primary process as with what happened to Bernie Sanders in the last election cycle?

This isn't a good faith question because you're asserting that the process was rigged or unfair. Now, it might not have seemed fair to Mr Sanders and his following (and indeed, it's been revealed that there was bias behind the scenes), but those were the DNC rules at the time. So it's not good faith to assert that it was rigged or unfair, because Mr. Sanders himself agreed to run underneath them (as opposed to a third party bid). You're basically asking a "Does your mother know you're stupid?" type of question (where there is no good answer).

We then get into a rollback war with grovkin, who made an inappropriate edit by adding all sorts of supporting points to the bad faith assertion about the process.

The current question still asserts it's unfair, and you'll note that the answers have descended into defending or decrying the assertion that it was "rigged" or "unfair". The accepted answer, for instance, spends 3/4 of its length defending the "rigged" assertion. Only the last paragraph attempts to answer the "what has changed?" question (which is on-topic). Attempting a rework now would invalidate the answers, and I'm of the opinion that it should be deleted and re-asked without the "rigged" assertion. Contrast your question with this one that merely asks why the DNC was biased. It avoids assertions entirely and simply seeks to understand the email dump.

| |
  • 1
    Wrong. The premise of the question itself is built on the fact that there were unfair practices in the DNC primary. The "unfair" part has been well established by fact. To leave out the indication of being unfair would void the meaning of the question. – MultiMike Feb 21 '19 at 15:43
  • 8
    @MultiMike It's clearly NOT been established or you wouldn't have answers arguing the point. What you seem to have missed is that your insistence on having this opinionated part has ruined any chance of having the DNC rule changes from being discussed in a serious manner – Machavity Feb 21 '19 at 15:45
  • 1
    Merely having claims or implications as part of a question doesn't make it not in good faith. A question is not a good-faith question when the asker isn't actually interested in receiving an answer. I don't think this question qualifies. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Feb 21 '19 at 22:05
  • @Machavity And their insistence on keeping that part is how we know it really wasn't asked in good faith. – CrackpotCrocodile Feb 22 '19 at 6:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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