-4

Virtually none of them are actual requests to provide more information about how governments work.

They are all (or virtually all) responses to people trying to voice their loyalties in the current fervor. This has turned the site into a forum... almost exclusively.

If the moderators don't stop this, for the sake of the precious few questions which people do ask in an effort to learn more about the procedure (which they can research themselves and all of which are answered by people who look this up on the Google rather than by any kind of experts), this will be all this site is.

Nip it in the bud, or you are encouraging and promoting this behavior.

I look forward to the downvotes on this request by everyone who wants to continue treating this site as a bathroom wall.

Edit: Yannis, this is a support request for moderators. If you want to tag it "discussion", then, please, add that tag rather than remove the support tag.

  • 8
    This isn't a "support request", it's a statement. Or worse, a work order. That's not a constructive use of Meta. – yannis Oct 10 at 23:05
  • 4
    @yannis any support request can be construed as a work order. This is a request. – grovkin Oct 10 at 23:07
  • 8
    Ok then. Request denied. – yannis Oct 10 at 23:08
  • 3
    As far as I am aware, support is intended for FAQ-type or how-do-I-do-X-type meta questions. This is not one of those. – Jan Oct 15 at 15:13
  • Can you add some examples of these bad questions to your post? Maybe link some examples of questions about impeachment that are good too. – bobsburner 2 days ago
10

Presidential impeachment in the United States is currently a topic which receives a lot of public attention. So it is obvious that people have a lot of questions about it and come to this site to seek answers. But we do of course want to keep the site clean of political leanings and make it a neutral source of information.

If you see any questions you consider counter-productive for that purpose, please use the tools you have available:

  • If you believe that the question doesn't add anything to the site which isn't already covered by a different question, vote to close it as a duplicate.
  • If you think that the question was mostly posted to make a point and not to actually add useful information to the site, close it as "Promotes or discredits a political cause".
  • If the question is useful but written with unnecessary political slant, edit it to be more neutral and inform the author about our neutrality requirements using a comment.
  • If you think the question is very obviously and unquestionably destructive, flag it for moderator attention.

But we are not going to issue a blanket restriction on any and all questions about a specific topic.

  • 3
    The "Promote or discredits a political cause" frequently are reopened faster than they are closed. Self-governance doesn't work when there are 5+ people reopening anything anti-Trump. – Sjoerd Oct 14 at 18:36
  • 4
    @Sjoerd That seems to be a fundamental flaw with dealing with anything political under the StackExchange format. Hell, they even had that kind of problem on StackOverflow in the past with jQuery evangelists. The only thing I can think of, short of shutting the site down, is to edit the question to remove anti-Trump sentiment (which I try to do often) or to post a comment aimed directly at reopen voters. I think there are far fewer unrepentant partisans here than you think, and many of us would respond well to polite, reasoned arguments against reopening/closure – divibisan Oct 15 at 21:58
4

We have lots of Impeachment questions for the same reason we had a lot of Brexit questions a while back: because it's a big deal in politics and lots of people have questions about it.

I don't think the flood of current-events related questions is necessarily a bad thing, in fact, I think it's good that big political happenings get people interested in politics. But they do tend to attract bad questions and answers. I wouldn't be adverse to starting a discussion about limiting current-events questions, but we can't simply start picking specific topics to make off-limits.

  • That's actually not a bad rule. Like a cool-off period. No questions about events which have not completed within the last 5 years. – grovkin Oct 10 at 23:44
  • 1
    Skeptics.SE has a similar rule in which questions about ongoing events are off-topic, though the definition of "ongoing event" is somewhat nebulous. – F1Krazy Oct 11 at 8:47
  • 1
    @F1Krazy Skeptics is essentially unique in the SE network and operates in a much different fashion than other sites. While Politics is also rather unlike the typical SE site, I don't think it rises to the level of Skeptics in its need for unique, draconian regulations. Grovkin's suggestion of 5 years, in particular, is incredibly excessive. Indeed, any "cool-off" on current events as proposed in this answer is ridiculous in my opinion. – zibadawa timmy Oct 11 at 20:36
  • 1
    @zibadawatimmy Just want to clarify that I'm not in favor of a "cool off period" or something like that. That was my suggestion of what would have to happen to stop the kind of "problem" that grovkin was talking about – divibisan Oct 11 at 20:58
  • Clear examples: "Did Trump make any concessions in his 'Phase 1' trade deal with China today?", "Has Russia said anything about helping Syria fight Turkey, now that the SDF has allowed Assad's army to move north?" And that's just today's catch. – Sjoerd Oct 14 at 18:33
  • @Sjoerd That first one is ok, I think, since it's asking about a discrete political event with a definite answer (or the simple answer "we don't know yet"). I think the problem is when the situation is constantly changing, of which the 2nd one is a pretty good example. – divibisan Oct 14 at 18:35
  • @divibisan The accepted answer doesn't even try to answer "Did Trump make any concessions in his 'Phase 1' trade deal with China today?" And what's the value of the question and its answer in say a year? – Sjoerd Oct 14 at 18:41
  • 1
    @Sjoerd Eh, I feel like the goal of this site has become more about creating a resource to "help understand and interpret political events" rather than some sort of objective library of political questions, like on SO. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but, personally, I think it might be pretty much necessary if this site is going to exist at all. – divibisan Oct 14 at 18:45
  • 1
    @divibisan If that is ever made official, this site will become just another echo chamber, and disappear even quicker as a result. – Sjoerd Oct 14 at 18:52
  • 1
    @divibisan the two aren't mutually exclusive. Both are related to politics (as defined in the help center, yada yada yada) and I think both can be useful, now and in the future. It's like history, but on a much finer time scale and with plenty more resources (because more resources are available now about the present day than are still available about the recent past). – JJ for Transparency and Monica Oct 16 at 11:03

You must log in to answer this question.

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