22

I am not a member of this community, but I did comment on the question, so I thought I'd expand on my comment here. (In a broader sense, I am active on the Stack Exchange network in general and so what I say is based on that.) To me, asking a question to make a point doesn't seem right. The Help Center for all sites says: You should only ask practical, ...


21

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 - ...


17

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. I ...


16

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. Comments: ObamaFan1138:No way Barack Obama is the best! Unions are good you're opinion is wrong OP: No your wrong Partisan ...


16

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 ...


15

For anyone already familiar with the Stack Exchange format, This one should be really easy. A Stack Exchange-style Q&A generally forgoes questions that are overly subjective, argumentative, require extended discussion, or polling the community. While questions about political processes can raise a lot of controversy, this is not a discussion board or a ...


14

The answer has received 6 upvotes and 9 downvotes. Each upvote earned you 10 reputation points, which means you gained a total of 60 points. Each downvote cost you 2 points, which means you lost a total of 18 points. 60 - 18 = 42


12

A reason for asking a question is 100% irrelevant. Only its quality is. What's relevant is, is it a good question? Both in terms of general SE framework (answerable, non-subjective, not too broad, and hopefully well-researched) and in terms of an individual site (within the scope, and abiding by site rules as elaborated on Help Center and meta). If the ...


11

The term opinionated just adds an accusational tone to what we generally call "bad subjective." If you're somewhat familiar with our history, you've probably already seen this blog post: Good Subjective, Bad Subjective It outlines quite concisely what type of questions — even those that have some element of opinion and subjectivity — that are ...


11

Explicitly Say That You Are Interested in Theory Questions about political philosophy should be tagged political-theory. The body of the question should also indicate that you are asking for an answer based in theory, rather than reality. There are two reasons for this: It's a best practice across most of SE. Tags are used for browsing questions, not for ...


11

No. Looking at the politics.SE stats, the site isn't doing so well on "questions per day", so incentivizing asking questions seems like a good thing. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will help us get out of beta status, but I think more high quality questions can help the community in general. The "answer ratio" is also not that great here, and more ...


10

Good Faith according to Dictionary.com: accordance with standards of honesty, trust, sincerity, etc. (usually preceded by in) Questions: 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 ...


10

Unless this takes a lot of work on the part of the moderators, I'd leave it as is. While in beta we have many users that can vote to close. Furthermore, once a troll is known it seems a few down votes does the trick when the question is asked by a known troll, at least I think that's what happened here. As of yet, I don't think banning questions from ...


10

To the specific question in the body: probably not. There aren’t many questions here, so there aren’t many ways to keep certain people from reading your question. As for your bigger question: politically motivated votes are an unavoidable fact of life here. You can try to minimize it by trying as hard as you can to ask your question in good faith – that is: ...


10

One way would be to post a bounty on them. One of the standard reasons is exactly for these cases: Current answers are outdated The current answer(s) are out-of-date and require revision given recent changes. If you can (suggest an) edit the question to significantly improve it, that will bump the question and maybe draw some extra attention. But you ...


9

I'll stick my neck out a bit here and say that questions such as this could be good provided that answers could theoretically be supported with citations, history and other facts. Just as Programmers SE asks that people post answers backed up by their experience, answers to this type of question should be able to be validated beyond the strength of one's ...


9

years ago, back in 2012, there use to be this close reason called "too localized" which was for questions exactly like yours. "Too Localized" questions were questions which needed answers tailored specifically to one asker, and are therefore not likely to help future visitors. The problem with the "too localized" close reason was that many people didn't ...


9

Establish Boundaries Political theory questions are often at-risk of being closed for being either too broad or opinion-based. To avoid this, it is sometimes helpful to establish some boundaries to the kinds of theories you are willing to entertain. For example, this question might attract some close votes for being too broad: Who should be able to ...


9

I've done this temporarily. What that means depends on how long it takes. I'll probably re-enable anonymous participation when I'm confident that we've got this situation under control.


8

The answer by sumelic already explains it very well. But I would like to add that due to the nature of the site, Politics.SE has a far lower tolerance towards users trying to use this website to convince people of their opinion. We are here to promote knowledge about the policies, processes, and personalities that comprise the political arena. This can only ...


8

Stackexchange is a Question & Answer website. Question titles should generally be questions. Phrasing the question title as a question also helps to make more clear what the question is about. This helps to improve the searchability of the website, both for machines and for humans. The original title "Philippines: President Duterte's war on drugs" ...


8

TL;DR: In my opinion, it is usually better to post your own question. The reason for this is that if you post your own question, you can determine what you do and do not want to know and what is acceptable as an answer. If you hard edit the asker's question, it is not at all strange for the asker to be annoyed and revert your changes. Because they ...


8

Yes, but we should be careful about two things: Only close questions if they're actually asking if something is an impeachable offense if committed by the US president. There may be other similar questions and we should check if the dupe target actually answers the question. If there are subquestions that are not covered by the dupe target then we should ...


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 ...


7

Law.SE is about "What is the law?", Politics.SE is about "Why is this the law?" Law Stack Exchange is good for questions about what the legal situation in a specific situation is. Politics Stack Exchange, on the other hand, is about political processes which result in laws. So when you want to know "according to law X, is it illegal ...


7

"Can we do anything" - Yes. If the question is asking the same thing that was already answered in another question, close it as a duplicate (if you don't have required reputation to VTC, comment and flag for closing) For extra credit, expand the duplicate target with a new answer or an edit to existing good answer, to turn it into what SE considers "...


7

Often these "why" questions are an attempt to promote a particular cause. The questioner who asks "Why isn't there a law against guns?" is often really saying "I think that there should be a law against guns, and here is why...". When this is clearly the case the question can be closed with the appropriate "off topic" reason. An example of this is when a ...


7

No No. Answers should be accepted if, in the OP's opinion, it is the best answer to their question. Comments are not a part of an answer. They are transitory elements that might eventually be deleted if they are no longer useful. If you accept an answer based on its comments, then what will you do once those comments are no longer available? Comments are ...


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