13

Welcome to Politics Stack Exchange. We handle "Primarily Opinion-Based" very strictly here, maybe even stricter than on most other Stack Exchange sites. The reason is that we do not want to be a platform for ideas, opinions and political activism. Our idea of a politics Q&A site is a place where we can learn and teach how politics and political ...


8

Perhaps the rejection reason isn't 100% accurate, but it looks like you're trying to post a new answer. You can't, since the question is closed, but that is no reason to edit an existing answer and trying to put your words in the author's mouth. When you edit a post, there's this widget which says "clarify meaning without changing it". It is also ...


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. ...


8

I suggest that we hold questioners and answerers to a high standard of verifiable facts. Specifically, many questioners will make assertions about something (e.g. "Hillary Clinton is currently under investigation by the FBI") and we should require that they provide a citation from a reputable source. Likewise, any factual statements in answers need to be ...


5

Triage In StackOverflow, which has far more activity than this site and a constant influx of new, uneducated users ("I want a program that does X"), questions by users that are new to the site are not automatically sent to the question list, but put on a "triage" queue. This serves two purposes: If salvageable, the question usually gets a more "delicate" ...


5

First of all, you need to keep in mind that our community consists of people, and people don't always act consistently. With borderline questions it can often be a matter of luck which questions the community lets open and which it closes. Everyone's personal decision if they vote to close or not can be influenced by appearance of the question, current mood, ...


4

You proposed a huge edit to a question that's (at least for me) essentially a separate answer.


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

It may be the case that the question is soliciting a list, but Hillary Clinton definitely did have a reputation of being dishonest, and she had that reputation before the emails thing blew up, and before most of things that people like to point at nowadays to justify her reputation as being dishonest. Despite the OP's intent, I believe that a question ...


3

I would like to expand on Sam I am answer with many additional reminders: OPs should ask non-opinionated questions. This should be a must in first place, but is not always the case unfortunately. People and mods should be specially wary these days regarding tags like donald-trump, to even close crap questions. OPs should not ask futurology. They can ask ...


2

Asking Why a person did something is far more likely to be opinion based than asking what they did. What they did is asking about facts. You can even ask what they have said, but just because they said something does not make it true. But this site is about facts not opinions so while asking what they said is not asking about the truth of why they did ...


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

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