23

Yes. 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 ...


12

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. :-)


9

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, ...


9

This problem is as old as Stack Exchange, I guess. In the end the question author has sole authority to decide which answer to accept. We can not override their decision, except by removing the answer altogether. What you can do is: Post a comment on the question where you express your concerns about their choice of accepted answer. Hope they reconsider. ...


9

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 ...


9

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


8

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 ...


7

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 ...


7

No, once you earn the Edit Questions And Answers privilege, you may no longer suggest edits. When I'm attempting edits that I'm not entirely sure are in line with the OP's intent, I try to post a comment with a link to the revision history and a short explanation of how the edit can be reversed. I think this is a good enough solution.


7

No, so far as I know, there is no way to search by the person who deleted a question. As of 2015, though, there is a way to limited way to get a list of deleted questions using SEDE. This meta answer explains in more detail: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/331577/388335 In short, if you got to https://data.stackexchange.com/politics, you can compose a SQL ...


6

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 ...


6

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 ...


6

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(...


5

Is this planned? No. The format actually supports this. Someone could post a question e.g. Who should be President? And provide answers like Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump. Gary Johnson. Jill Stein. Evan McMullin. However, if you try it, the question and/or answers are subject to being closed and deleted. This particular question ...


5

That seems reasonable. I've done it.


5

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.


4

Those comments are removed manually (and the notice posted) when I see the problem taking shape. Typically, well-established sites are able take care of these activities through vigilant community self-moderation. But the Community Team is still considering candidates for your provisional Moderators. The bigger problem is that, often, it's not actually the ...


4

The mission statement of Stackexchange, as formulated by co-founder Joel Spolsky, is this: Make the Internet a better place to get expert answers to your questions. Source: various, f.e. here It is worth reading Spolsky's reasoning for he goes into depth why expert answers and only expert answers are required.


4

Personally, I wouldn't be opposed. We focus on: personalities processes policies In practice the objective discussion of politics requires focusing on the mechanics- hence how governments work are almost always a necessary part of a good answer. As to changing the URL - politics and government might be a mouthful - I doing that would happen, but I ...


4

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 ...


4

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 ...


4

I have a problem with this specific meta question because it seems to suggest that there are people who are not biased or viewpoints which are not biased. I don't think such people or viewpoints can exist for political questions. I think what you really mean are people who are asking rhetorical questions because they already know the answer. Those people ...


4

There's actually a gold badge for this: Populist, where your question gets way more upvotes than the accepted answer. You're not going to get away from it, sadly. Accepted answers are, by definition, solely within the purview of the OP, and indicate the approval of the OP as answering their question, biases and all. An accepted answer does not necessarily ...


4

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 ...


4

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 and The only restrictions to usernames is that they not be offensive. Finally: Some users wish to remain anonymous ...


4

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. ...


4

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 ...


4

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 ...


3

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 ...


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