-4

I initially posted a question on Politics Stack Exchange regarding political rhetoric and incitement, seeking to refine it based on feedback from moderators and community members. Despite making several iterative improvements while the question was open, it received four votes for closure. Consequently, I reverted to the original version before deciding to delete it and create a new question with the necessary final fixes.

However, shortly after posting the new question, which can be found here (https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/88315/political-rhetoric-stirring-the-pot-and-ducking-responsibility), it received two downvotes and a commenter informed me that this approach violated site rules, advising me to edit the original question instead.

To comply with the rules, I acknowledged this feedback and stated my intention to delete both questions. My concern is regarding the fairness and feasibility of making significant improvements within a short timeframe, especially when facing multiple close votes over a period of just 1.5 hours. Despite actively working on edits to resolve the issues, there seemed to be limited opportunity to address concerns and refine the question adequately.

It's also my belief that comments from highly reputable users or moderators carry significant influence on others' voting behaviors, regardless of how much the content has been revised in attempts to correct it—much like a preemptive strike.enter image description here

The transparency in the edit history should allow others to see the efforts being made to rectify the question.

Ultimately, I seek clarity on how such situations can be managed more effectively to ensure fair consideration of efforts to improve questions amid community feedback.

Original Question

enter image description here

Final reopening and edit of original

Note: By the time it was adequately fixed, previous closure votes had already been submitted, and one additional vote quickly closed it entirely, leaving little opportunity for me to address the issue or receive benefit of the doubt.

14
  • 3
    Just because a question gets closed doesn't mean it can't be reopened after it is improved.
    – Joe W
    Commented Jul 14 at 19:50
  • Lessen learned, less is better—and keep it simple! If you really fixed it, then it might get re-opened, just gotta wait to see. Keep other correlated questions to yourself and get each question answered one-by-one if there is a dependency or an applicable precedent of order.
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Jul 15 at 2:01
  • 1
    Looking at the Q, which was very short, I also want to point out that 3 out of 4 "supporting links" had titles which were Trump-critical and had to do with Jan 6th incitement. So, right after he almost got shot dead, looks like you were posting a lets-blame-the-victim oriented question. Bad taste to say the least and not likely to calm anyone down. Not a fan of Trump, but still a thing to consider in how people reacted to this Q.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Jul 15 at 18:05
  • Current events usually spark my interest in using the Politics SE site/community. I cited two instances involving Trump, two with accusations and demonization, & two related to Democrats/Biden along with the rhetoric & propaganda shared there. Then I posed the question "How does political rhetoric, accusations of incitement, & charged language in campaigns impact political behavior, especially their potential role in contributing to acts of violence?" But now, just because these examples & current events triggered my political question, suddenly I'm accused of stirring the pot. What a joke!
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Jul 15 at 18:34
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Are you implying that I shouldn't have asked the question so quickly, which is why it received initial criticism? Or do you believe I should reframe the question to address the nuances of blame, accountability, oversight, strategy, or tactics more effectively? What question per that question and any clarity now (including above comment ^^) should I be asking if I'm not being malicious and trying to stir some pot but stay sensitive to these things at the same time? A better clear and concise way without providing example links?
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Jul 15 at 18:42
  • 1
    All ItalianPhilosophers4Monica said was it's something for you to consider. You're not making it a nice experience for people who've tried to give you the feedback you've asked for
    – Jen
    Commented Jul 15 at 19:12
  • I assume I should have deleted that question but I am so confused honestly if deleting the question is the right thing to do. Given the negative feedback, it feels like I did something wrong even if it was not my intention. At least you are telling me what you think the problem is from this sort of perspective where others just assume malicious, vote, and move on. I'd really like to understand what question in another way I should really be asking and if it's acceptable once I figure that out as a new question. I apologize if I've been perceived as rude, not my intention... sorry about that!
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Jul 15 at 19:14
  • @Jen .... It's a delicate balance, the perspective of an accused but well-meaning questioner versus the perception of someone assuming malicious intent and feeling offended. When writing vaguely or tersely, feedback intended to assist the questioner may inadvertently come across as accusing them of having malicious intentions. I only see this on Politics SE community personally.
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Jul 15 at 19:33
  • 1
    @The'BernieSanders'Party Well, let's take a related hypotethical question: "has social media made people readier to support violence for political purposes"? How would one go about answering that objectively, in an academic setting? It seems to me it would be very tricky, even given years to do so. Which is why - even though it is normal to have lots of questions about political norms and boundaries after the Trump event - such a question unlikely to result in much more than at most informed opinions. That's true 24 hours later, but that will also be true for a long while.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Jul 15 at 20:25
  • 1
    I don't mind getting push back about the victim blaming, as I only worked from the titles. Let's look at them: Saving democracy is central to Biden’s campaign messaging/ Trump incited Jan. 6 attack after 'unhinged' White House meeting, panel told/ REMINDER: Donald “Dictator on ‘Day One’” Trump Is an Existential Threat To Our Democracy/ Read Trump's Jan. 6 Speech, A Key Part Of Impeachment Trial The most neutral one seems "saving democracy" and that sounds like Biden fighting the good fight. I don't know what the articles consisted of, but the titles mostly could be seen as critical.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Jul 15 at 20:31
  • Biden's campaign spreads propaganda, Trump faces accusations for Jan. 6th and impeachment. This news circulates alongside political violence post a failed assassination attempt. My intent wasn't solely negative about Trump but highlighting public discourse. Should've asked about legal and ethical factors, ensuring messages don't incite violence... You only work from titles, then my post was titled "Politics: Stirring the Rhetorical Pot and Evading Responsibility" @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica .... Why not focus on just that title then, that's what I'm after. I get your point, be sensitive!
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Jul 15 at 20:58
  • And be strategic with the questions you want to ask. I'll go back to the drawing board and figure out how I might be able to tackle this in another sense so it's not opinion based and can be answered objectively. I've always had trouble with articulating in conformed adherence on Politics SE.... I'll keep digging and try to stay out of the principal's office.
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Jul 15 at 21:04
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica I think this person just wants to talk.
    – Jen
    Commented Jul 15 at 21:07
  • @Jen I think that's a bit unfair. The shooting was a momentous political event and it is normal for people to have questions about it. Not all of those questions will be good fit for this site, but it is normal for people to have lots of questions at times of stress and providing feedback is what meta is about.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Jul 15 at 21:11

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5

It's true, close votes can come quickly, and close voters often do not return to reconsider their votes. So an author should as much as possible strive to ask a single, focused, in-scope question in the first version of the question.

But even when question is closed, it can be re-opened when improved (assuming there is a path to an in-scope question — sometimes there isn't).

If I recall correctly, one issue with your question was the lack of focus. It would have been improved by asking a single question instead of multiple. Often, saying less is better. Even in the latest edit (shown in your screenshot), you're asking at least two separate questions.

As for fairness, I have no idea "how is that fair." As far as I can tell, this process is set up to let a question be closed so that it doesn't distract and attract poor answers. It's not about fairness to the question author, at least not primarily. Perhaps you can find fairness in the path to having it re-opened, but that is a matter of opinion.

0

You must log in to answer this question.

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