20

I don't think you can every prove good faith – no matter what rules or advice we give, there will be concern trolls who are happy to abuse them. I think the best thing you can do is interact with the people reacting to your question and work hard to address their concerns. Generally, it's a matter of switching to a neutral-point-of-view, removing leading ...


9

Welcome to Politics Stack Exchange. Please note that the purpose of this website is to teach and learn about politics and political processes. We are not here to convince others of our political views or spread awareness for political issues. For that reason we generally try to write questions and answers on this website which stay neutral and do not take ...


9

This behaviour is explained on this Meta.SE question: If you vote to close your own question as a duplicate of something else... and refresh the page, you'll see the "your question may already have an answer here" banner. Clicking the "that solved my problem!" button on that banner results in Community instantly closing your question as ...


7

I think it is fine to ask about arguments in favor of the (proposed) legalization of certain narcotics. In your example, the question contains some of the author's opinion which in turn attracted down and close votes. That's fine, and it is up to members of the community to cast such votes. Another option might be to edit out some of the opinionated parts. ...


6

Yes, it does. We do not want political propaganda on this website. That means we don't want questions which are primarily designed to make the government of one country look good and/or another country look bad. When you have questions about specific governments and their actions, please try to phrase them from a neutral point of view. Avoid prejudice, ...


6

I voted to delete your answer as a high reputation user. In a comment under this question, you point to a paragraph in your answer, the one starting with "But you asked why.". While it seems like you're turning to the actual question at that point, I don't think you do. That paragraph tries to convince us why (direct quote): Politicians and ...


4

(1) This topic seems clearly about the subject matter “politics”, so it seems to belong on this forum. I dispute this, and lament that more people seem to share your view than mine (and thus such questions remain open). Politics.SE defines "on-topic" here, and the only section that is close to applicable to your question is: Conflicting Egos: ...


3

Yes it is because what you may consider acceptable free speech someone else may consider unacceptable. Asking people on how to classify what is and isn't acceptable is going to get many different opinions on what should be allowed or not. A good example of this would be the debate with speakers on college campuses and how some of them are not allowed to ...


2

I also do not see why this question was closed, for the reasons outlined: it would be a useful resource, unlikely to promote any great conflict or debate, and clearly on-topic for the site. I have some suspicions, though, which are worth raising for consideration by the community. I know the following to be true: There is a pervasive bias against political ...


2

The title of the question is opinion-based. What is the decisive point for classifying a certain speech as unacceptable? The fact that there are very different laws and regulation around the world about what is and is not acceptable speech and that even in those countries the court rulings are all over the place should tell you that this is a question ...


2

Ignoring the actual question itself, it's still obvious why the question is inappropriate. Asking "Why do … ?" is soliciting opinions. Compare that form of question with "Have … given any explanation for why they … ?", which asks for reported facts, not opinions. So yes, "asking about the motivations of large groups" is inappropriate. But asking about ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible