I have been a moderator on this site for quite a while and am pretty active on the site myself. So I think I have quite a lot of experience with how the community reacts to certain questions.
Let me tell you what would have happened if I had left that question open.
Phase 1: The big Trump roast
The mostly Anti-Trump audience of the community would have ...
I agree with SamIAm that your question is too meta, and because of that seems to promote a specific cause, which is off-topic (I would disagree with Philipp, that a potentially on-topic question can/should be closed because it could cause additional off-topic commentary).
I would remove all that irrelevant meta commentary (which would basically leave you ...
I kicked the question from HNQ (after 10k views) because I don't think it's a good question to represent our community and attract the users we want on this site.
The question itself is one of those "XYZ sucks, am I right?" questions.
It attracted a lot of bad answers. 5 with negative score, three of them got deleted.
It also attracted a lot of bad ...
When it comes to suspected trolls, my policy is to follow Hanlon's Razor.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
So instead of assuming that the user has got to be a troll to post such an inappropriate question, try to assume that the user is just misguided about what kind of questions are and are not appropriate. ...
As I commented on the question: I think that ridiculing politicians, their views and/or their actions is detrimental to this site because it breeds hostile sentiments between people with different opinions. So we should not do that.
It is also detrimental to an objective discourse about politics in general.
Whether or not Theresa May is an "international ...
The edit has description:
Use non breaking spaces in monarchs' names
This non-breaking space is a very minor typesetting cosmetic improvement but people like me will notice when it’s missing at the wrong place. The idea is that the numeral belonging to a monarch’s name (as in King Henry VIII) should not be in a different line than the name itself; i.e. ...
Even though you can always change your accepted answer at any time, most people read an "accepted answer" as a signal that you're satisfied with that answer and aren't really looking for anything else. Therefore, people are generally less likely to take the time to write an answer to a question that already has an accepted answer.
By accepting an answer ...
We should not engage in ridicule.
This is a question and answer site. Not a site based on ridicule. It is my opinion that May has been a National Joke for a long time. But good questions and answers are based on a reasonably objective baseline.
Ask and answer in a neutral way or get edited or deleted.
"Assume good faith" is not one of those decisions where either option is fine as long as everyone agrees to stick to it. It's a basic rule of politeness, very similar to the golden rule - if you assume bad faith and act accordingly, people will readily see bad faith in your actions too.
For instance, if I write a post complaining that busing is bad for the ...
The answer was flagged:
This answer is being deliberately provocative by using a neo-pronoun ("xyrself") where none is called for.
I don't know about deliberately provocative, but I agree that the use of the neo-pronoun in the answer is unnecessary and would probably prove to be a distraction. The edit may look minor, but I think it's a helpful one and ...
Questions on the HNQ is often the first impression people will get about our site. Ideally, only the best of our content should appear on that list.
Your question, while not bad, shows zero prior research effort. A quick look at the relevant Wikipedia article is enough to answer it. In fact, that's all the accepted answer does, point you to Wikipedia.
It's obviously inappropriate, and the user in question should be forced to remove the reference at minimum. Aside from being obviously offensive given the implication that the user is awaiting her death with glee, it's likely designed simply to troll democrats on the site.
In my opinion, these questions are probably good for the site, so long as they don't take over.
They serve the purpose of answering questions on politics (which is not the same as answering political questions!). In turn, that may make people more engaged with their political system, which is always a good thing.
I'd propose the summary-request tag for ...
I think Brythan's (non-)answer put it best:
Really though, if you want the answer to this, we're the wrong place to ask.
The real problem is the question, which, by asking for the internal motivations of a broad group of people, almost guarantees that any answer will be uselessly incomplete and/or offensive to a broad group. It should be closed and ...
If one claims that a source is untrustworthy, they need to provide some reason for that. Just calling them "fake news" is an ad-hominem argument and therefore of little weight.
If someone uses a source you consider untrustworthy (in general or when it comes to a specific area of expertise), then you might want to use this as an opportunity to find a more ...
Politics is a bit on the chatty side, compared to other Stack Exchange sites. You will often stumble upon idle discussion in comments. However, we do follow the same general guidelines. If a comment doesn't do much to clarify or otherwise improve a post, it doesn't really belong here.
If people wish to challenge the veracity of a source, they are ...
If someone flagged an answer like that for deletion, I would decline that flag almost 100% of the time.
As long as your answer looks like it's trying to help the OP solve his underlying problem(on politics.SE, it's usually to understand an issue) then you should be fine.
As for whether I would be inclined upvote or downvote that answer, however, is a ...
The question was "Why did people still chant “Lock her up” at Trump rallies in 2019?", and he answer appears to make an honest attempt to answer that question.
The answer does try to divine the motivations of others, but that's what this particular question is asking for. You can't really answer this question without guessing the motives of others.
I disagree that the basic problem with the question is that it wanted to know what people thought. The basic problem is that it wanted to promote an agenda. The poster wanted to say that people were hypocritical for criticizing Japan for whaling while eating other forms of meat.
People gave reasons why whaling is treated differently:
Whales overall ...
It think it's a poor answer worth downvoting and I agree with the comment that said
(+38) Downvoted. Literally everyone I've ever talked with on this subject complained about two reasons: 1. whales are endangered and 2. whales are incredibly intelligent mammals. These are objective facts, not some cultural relativism – Davor Jul 4 at 14:30
And also with
I checked the tag. Five of six questions used DNC correctly to refer to the committee organization. I edited the tag out of the sixth (and democratic-party would not have made sense there). It was a Barack Obama administration question, not a party question.
Anyway, those five questions are actually about the party committee rather than the party ...
There are two possible solutions, but in my experience, all roads lead to Meta.
Solution 1 is to raise a Meta question, like this one, asking whether the answer should be deleted or not. This can spark further partisan arguments, but there will eventually come some sort of consensus on whether the community at large wants that answer or not - in the case of ...
Comments lack the facilities to support proper answers. There are significant size and formatting constraints, no (public) revision history, and, quite importantly, comments cannot be downvoted.
Partial answers, on the other hand, are okay. I don't see why we should use comments for them, just post them as regular answers.
I think we should rename the tag:
It makes the tag more accurate,
It brings us more in line with the tagging used on other sites
There's no reason not to make the change.
People will still find it if they start typing lgbt by @JJJ
@JJJ also points out that we should make lgbt a synonym of lgbtq+ to keep it from being recreated
Probably lgbtq+ is the best ...
I'm going to go ahead and post some of my thoughts on the question in question, specifically, where it might have problems.
The majority of your question is a meta-commentary about other questions. This meta-commentary is mostly dead weight, and should be drastically reduced if not outright removed from your question.
Your question cited a Professor and ...
The problem, in general
This is called Edit war (What to do about a dispute within edits?), which quite often occurs in the form of Rollback war
What you can do
What are my options for forcing another member […]
You cannot "force" someone because we are equal here (except the Mods who are granted with extra privileges to be able to resolve conflicts);