Please. In my mind, users fall into two groups:
Regulars. They visit Politics.SE regularly and are generally familiar with the SE model. There may be a significant variation in their knowledge of how these sites work, but they are all generally familiar.
Wayfarers. They don't know how things work here. Many of them may be brand-new, perhaps drawn in ...
No, because this would contradict the very nature of StackExchange.
We are here to learn. To learn from facts, not from someone's sharp tongue and a quick wit.
There are plenty of political-related chat boards and forums around, and humorous posts here would only dilute the valuable information.
Exceptioุุุุ้้้ns from this rule are very rare. :-)
If we're going to go this route, I would suggest a check inside the box. Something similar to this Font Awesome icon
It's a neutral symbol
It reminds us of voting (inherently political)
It's easy to do
First, What you're asking for changes to things that are the same throughout SE. Meta.StackExchange.com would be a better place to propose such changes. The mods here can't adjust how many points you lose when you downvote.
Second We don't really have a problem here with downvoting too much. If anything, the most common voting-related result of bias ...
This isn't in our power. The badge-system is the same for all Stackexchange sites. There are no site-specific badges as far as I know. So if you want a new badge, you need to lobby for it on the general meta-stackexchange.
But even if we could add such a badge, I don't think we should. The purpose of badges is to encourage people to participate ...
I was going to just leave a comment, but decided to expand this into an answer.
I'm skeptical that adding a 'notice' like this, is a valuable change. It might actually have negative value, if it's applied only to certain posts.
My fear would be that this only gets slapped onto questions as a way to further legitimize pruning unpopular answers/comments(...
That is a good example of a "Rant in Disguise" question.
In essence looks like a question that is not posted in good faith, and is intended to make some point(or in this case, I'd call it a "zinger" and not a "point")
I usually close these questions as "Unclear what you're asking", because that's what replaced the old "not a real question" close reason, ...
No, because exchanging opinions is not the purpose of this website.
Politics Stack Exchange is for objective questions about governments, policies and political processes.
It is not a place to advance opinions or debate, but rather for exchanging objective information about the policies, processes, and personalities that comprise the political arena. If you ...
The closest thing I know of on a Stack Exchange site is Mi Yodeya (Judaism) and their Purim Torah policy. As part of a cultural tradition, they have a few weeks out of the year where they can ask humorous questions, but only with strict guidelines about the nature of the humor (e.g. a misinterpretation of the Torah).
If we allow political humor, I think we ...
Not all "Why...?" questions are necessarily bad. Some of them can be answered in a useful way without having to resort to opinions and wild guessing.
But we have two close-reasons which can be used for those questions where this is not the case.
First, the good old "primarily opinion-based" reason:
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion ...
There is no point in arguing about this feature-request, because we can not fulfill it anyway. All stackexchange sites run on the same software. Stack Exchange Inc. generally does not develop individual features for individual sites, especially not when the site is still in beta.
If you want a change to the stackexchange software, you need to lobby for it ...
Is this planned?
The format actually supports this. Someone could post a question e.g.
Who should be President?
And provide answers like
However, if you try it, the question and/or answers are subject to being closed and deleted. This particular question ...
And it depends on how this is implemented:
Who decides that such a banner appears?
According to which criteria?
When, that is: how soon does this appear?
I guess that methodology and procedure will have to be written down and explained beforehand, at least here on meta, if implemented.
And if there is such a rule, I guess I'd like that to be ...
Ideally on this site people won't be making an argument, they'll be citing the arguments of politically influential figures. For Example:
Question: Why do Republicans oppose x?
Answer: Republicans oppose x because they think Democrats want to use x to do
horrible thing y. Donald Trump said "Democrats only care about x
because they want to use it ...
The refinement of the graduation process has been on hiatus for over a year now. I'm not sure whether there has been any more recent public staff comment on this.
It seems unlikely to me that any site will be graduated from beta until some general process is decided on. That said, I agree with you that this site exceeds the standards that have been used to ...
I don't think that this would be a good idea.
My impression is that most of the problem users on this website do not really care about their reputation score. They care about spreading their ideology. So increasing the penalty for moderating content would not be much of a deterrent for them.
It would, however, be a deterrent for the constructive ...
Guidelines like these can be useful in helping people developing more rigorous thoughts. Unfortunately, (in my experience) they are more often abused. I also suspect most of these can be implicitly covered by the "Be Nice" policy.
Studying fallacies can be helpful in learning to structure our arguments and helping to evaluate the arguments of others. ...
That's already possible, just go to a tweet on Twitter, then click the little arrow on the right and select 'Embed Tweet'. Copy the quote and you get the result below (I added a single >).
50,000 developers can't be wrong - except those who identify as "rockstars". https://t.co/0AULWSF9Zi #DevSurvey2016 pic.twitter.com/JH6rq5Xq04— ...
Basically you should ask this on meta.SE. I very much doubt an automated solution can be implemented just for politics.SE. But don't get your hopes up since the semi-official view is that
you don't need to be able to read a user name
The only restrictions to usernames is that they not be offensive.
Some users wish to remain anonymous ...
You can use the search operators defined in Advanced Search Tips:
For Politics SE, simply use this link - https://politics.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&q=closed%3a0%20duplicate%3a0%20migrated%3a0.
closed:0 [not closed]
duplicate:0 [not duplicate]
migrated:0 [not migrated]
sort by newest
Basically, comments are second-class citizens within the Stack Exchange network. They serve only a single goal: to make question/answer better.
Comments also can be deleted with no notice — no, not only when they break rules, but also when they become obsolete, or considered too chatty. Or simply because there are too many adjacent comments that clutter the ...
I agree that they should be synonyms, but wouldn't it be better the other way?
I've always though of "Judicial Branch" being specifically American, as a reference to the 3 branches of government. I've never heard it used for another country. Would you really talk about the Judicial Branch of the UK?
judiciary is definitely more common and is definitely the ...
I think custom badges could be a way to further distinguish the site from others in the network, as well as another step down the pathway to moving out of Beta. I suggest that the icon used could be a rosette similar to campaign rosettes worn in some countries.
I don't think this is a feasible request. Of course it's possible, but it seems like a lot of work (not for us but for Stack Exchange's developers) to resolve a relatively minor edge case.
To support this, let's take a look at how the flair is applied. According to Brian Nickel on main Meta:
This indicator is a bit that's added to posts when they are ...
I think that the opposite attitude is appropriate. There are no such things as dumb questions. There are questions that may be vague, have been previously asked and answered, may be in the wrong place, may not have any answer, or are as noted in another answer "a rant in disguise."
But, if someone is just "government illiterate", then a short, clear answer ...
Theoretically, lack of research is a basic reason to downvote questions (see the hover-over text on the question's DV button), and should be liberally employed (political puns intended) to enforce higher quality and well researched questions.
This is SE's intended mechanism, and works reasonably well on most objective-subject sites (with some major failures ...
I think this feature already exists. The question "Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution after Roe vs Wade?" is on topic and has an objective answer: Yes, according to the supreme court insert quotes from majority opinion in Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut.
The question "What are the arguments that the supreme court overstepped its ...
Sorry, that is not a usable solution (leaving aside a separate questions of whether the problem you stated was diagnosed correctly in the first place, OR, separately, even if it was, whether the proposed solution would address the problem).
It's trivially easy to earn rep on Politics. Combine political biases and bike-shedding, and posting a popular ...