This question is timely, relevant, concise, clear and well-referenced.

It has received six upvotes, six downvotes and two close votes.

It's not even partisan - it simply repeats information from the linked sources.

If the presented facts or assumptions are wrong, the answers can correct them.

What can be done to correct this abuse of the voting and question-closing system?

enter image description here

  • 7
    Didn't it attract down votes after you added the rant? It seems it only got one down vote without the rant, after you edited it out. At least that's what I gather from the timeline with vote summaries.
    – JJJ Mod
    Jan 17 '20 at 17:08
  • 1
    @JJforTransparencyandMonica No. It accrued downvotes and close votes before the "rant". Some were added after - and those certainly weren't removed when I removed the "rant".
    – 52d6c6af
    Jan 17 '20 at 17:17
  • 1
    After reading the selected answer I chose to downvote the question because I think Philipp is right. Since it's my vote to give and mine alone, it seems the system is working as intended. Is there an actual problem here? Jan 17 '20 at 19:13
  • 1
    @Ben Sure, everyone is biased, including myself, yourself, everyone. How do you suggest we structure the rules to make it "illegal" to vote the way someone chooses to vote? Are you suggesting that we force users to vote the way you would like them to? If the question you intended to ask wasn't posed in a way that conveyed the meaning you intended it to, is that a fault of those doing the voting, or the one posing the question? Jan 17 '20 at 19:39
  • 2
    I am not trying to eliminate bias. Like you say: everyone is biased. But voting on questions, answers and closing should be based on the quality of the question/answer, not whether you have a partisan dislike for it. I'm sure such a nudge could be gamified into the site with a bit of thought, but the question here is more about highlighting the issue. One of the mods indicated a possible reason for the downvoting was the selection of an answer with a negative score - when the people downvoting the answer were likely the very same people who subsequently brigaded the question with downvotes.
    – 52d6c6af
    Jan 17 '20 at 23:21

Re: "It's not even partisan - it simply repeats information from the linked sources."

Yeah, right... Your repeat information from highly biased sources (such as Trump's impeachment defense lawyer--Dershowitz) to form a downright silly narrative.

Just from the high-level outline of your "question": you state there are thousands of man-hours of IAEA inspections performed in Iran, but then conclude (using the incorrect information from one of those highly biased sources) that the only verification mechanism is Iran's "self-certification".

FYI, Dershowitz has been repeatedly saying for over a decade that the real solution would be for Israel to bomb the Iranian sites. You'll probably also want to read this story on Dershowitz' claims on Iraq. I'll quote this part I find funny (which also happens to touch on rhetorical questions):

we get to the point of the article, which lies in the final sentence:

“The real question is, would it be worse to err on the side of action that turns out to be unnecessary, or of inaction that exposes us to preventable devastation?”

Camouflaged as a question (albeit a near-rhetorical one), this final statement of the problem offers us a choice between two risks: the risk of finding our action to have been unnecessary, and the risk of devastation. Unnecessary action, or devastation. Devastation, or unnecessary action. You choose. But hurry!

  • 1
    It’s a question. It makes no conclusions.
    – 52d6c6af
    Jan 19 '20 at 9:41

You must log in to answer this question.

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