Good Faith involves the following
Be Serious - As Sam I Am noted, there was a recent unserious answer that was upvoted and defended. People liked the snarkyness and the political jabs. A serious question can contain jabs, but it needs to have a real point. Good Faith means that you're not solely playing (or pandering) to an audience.
Defensible viewpoints - ...
"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 ...
How to be partisan on Politics.stackexchange
Here's a typical partisan answer:
Barack Obama is corrupt and gives money to his union cronies. It happened [ here ] (partisanSite). This is bad bad bad. Barack Obama and unions are bad.
ObamaFan1138:No way Barack Obama is the best! Unions are good you're opinion is wrong
OP: No your wrong
I don't see this as an attack. In fact, I tend to see this as a course correction for the questioner. Because we're Politics, we have to be prepared for the skewed questions trying to masquerade as serious. As we've seen, people will gladly upvote and even defend bad faith things that fit their political view.
We need something stronger than
Please don't ...
Good Faith according to Dictionary.com:
accordance with standards of honesty, trust, sincerity, etc. (usually preceded by in)
The purpose of asking a question is to get an answer. In order for a question to be in "Good Faith", it's purpose needs to be to be to obtain an answer. Rhetorical questions are not in good faith. Push Polling ...
The key here is to be shrewd about what the author is trying to do. Let me illustrate this by using spam.
We allow users to post links to SO/SE. There are good and bad reasons to post links, but there's also a grey area. On other sites a question like this would be permitted
I have some code not working
Some code here
You can see it ...
How to deal with Dog Whistles
Are you sure it's a "dog whistle?"
If there's not an easily understood charitable explanation, it's just bigotry and violates the code of conduct. If it's not a real dog whistle, don't call it a dog whistle.
Be nice, assume good intent on the part of the other person.
This is a bigoted dog whistle. I'm ...
In this day and age, you can reasonably assume good faith on every Stack Exchange except this one. I agree with divibisan that "unintentional bigotry is just as hurtful as intentional bigotry". But I disagree with the idea that we should always seek to fix such posts, because doing so means that bad faith users may end up getting upvotes. If that happens ...
I think this doesn't just apply to this particular close reason but to all close reasons.
Never assume malice when incompetence is a proper explanation. When a user makes unconstructive contributions, then our goal should not be to drive them off the site. Our goal should be to teach them how to use the website in a more constructive manner.
I take the current wording of the close reason as being for situations where someone posted a question which isn't actually intended to ask a question, but rather to express some political view. In that case, I think it's perfectly fair to say that it's not a question asked as a good-faith learning effort, but rather an attempt to abuse the Q/A system as a ...
Disclaimer: I'm not a moderator. I can't understand a mind of someone who's willing to do such an onerous job. So I can't speak for one :)
However, I noticed one answer (Dodd-Frank one I was reading today) deleted with such a wording; ironically right before I saw the link to this Meta question.
In that case; I happen to fully agree that it was indeed an ...