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 ...


11

The difference is that in the questions that were well received, the group in question is a political party with an ideology, policy positions, and ample targeted polling. In your question, you’re asking about the motivations of individuals, which is the definition of the close reason. Look at those 4 questions you used as examples: in 2-4, the group is ...


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 ...


8

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 ...


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 ...


3

Some users here disagree that asking questions to be answered from a certain point-of-view (POV) should be on-topic at all. E.g. they think that "What is X's position on Y" is an off-topic question. Leaving that aside, which presently doesn't seem to be a majority opinion of users on this site, asking such questions obviously entails retelling the ...


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 ...


1

Narcissism The well received questions you cited are all broadly about the left-right divide in the United States. Questions about that provide those answering the opportunity to indulge in discussing their own political identity as well as the identity of people they don't agree with. That also creates a bandwagoning effect where those answering who don't ...


1

Given how strongly they went with marijuana = dangerous, I'd say that was a push/loaded question... to rephrase for emphasis, it was something like: how could they possibly legalize something so dangerous? There were some clear signs of that in the q like this kind of alarmism: It may undermine the nation's gene pool. There's a more specific close reason ...


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