Hot answers tagged

14

I remember reading somewhere on Meta (not sure which site), that the question rate should (I know there may be exceptions) be steadily above a certain threshold (Area51 lists 10+). Basing myself on data from the site-analytics (5K+ rep), this year we had 34 days during which 10 or more questions were asked and 63 days with fewer than 10 questions asked. ...


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


14

If you wish your account removed, please use the "Delete Profile" option on your user profile: Please note that: User deletion is irreversible! By sending this request, your votes will be revoked, and all of your content will be made anonymous. You may find more information in the help center.


10

Presidential impeachment in the United States is currently a topic which receives a lot of public attention. So it is obvious that people have a lot of questions about it and come to this site to seek answers. But we do of course want to keep the site clean of political leanings and make it a neutral source of information. If you see any questions you ...


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

At present, it seems that graduation is broken There hasn't really been a comprehensive solution regarding how this would work juggling ~173 sites, much less deciding which sites would be eligible and when/how it actually gets done. So efforts to handle each request one site at a time have been caught up in indecision, confusion, and a growing back log… ...


10

This answer is more of a comment on Sam I Am's answer and their reasoning for deleting the answer, since I think it's safe to discount the idea that it's some sort of Monica-related retribution. I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I do think the answer raised an important and useful point; on the other hand I also think we need to be strict about shutting ...


9

I think you're conflating the Russian social media campaigns of 2016 with general speech. In the case of those ads The ads were not meant as political discourse They were deliberately inflammatory In this case we have something different. A user has put a political endorsement in their profile That is the political speech of that user Unprovable to be ...


9

Any question that is downvoted to -4 or worse is automatically hidden from the front page, with the assumption being that the question is low-quality and therefore should be hidden. This is an automated process and not something the moderators have any control over. I'm not going to go into why you may have been downvoted - having read through your ...


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

There's a daily rep cap of 200 per day. The only ways to go above it are to get the +15 bonus that comes when your answer is accepted or when you receive bounties. If the user downvoted an answer at some point during the day, there will be a point at which they'll be sitting at 199 rep for the day, hence the +1 for an upvote.


8

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

The comment provides valid criticism to the first part of the answer, about Bill Clinton's associate. That part is a bit speculative and does not answer the question. The question asks about presidents, specifically. If that wasn't the case, it would probably get closed as either too broad or primarily opinion-based. The comment may not provide explicit ...


7

That answer was flagged as rude/abusive by a user and I agreed, so I deleted it. I agreed that it was rude/abusive because it reads like a conspiratorial rant which paints a vaguely-defined group of people as some sort of cartoonish villainous force. That answer was flagged for undeletion twice, and 2 different moderators declined those flags. I do ...


7

It looks to me like your were using your "question" as a soapbox to declare to the world that the Women's March is Anti-Semitic. The fact that you technically formatted it in the form of a question looks like little more than a formality. Questions like that are totally fair game to be closed as "Unclear what you're asking", which is the close reason ...


6

It seems like the question was picked by an algorithm. However, we as moderators are able to manually override the selection of the algorithm by picking from one of its top picks. From those questions which the algorithm offered me, I have picked the question "Can a General Election be called by a new Prime Minister?" for now, because it is a typical ...


4

When we say “Why is [insert person here] such a jerk?” is not a good question, it's not because the question is biased. It's also not because the question is is misleading. It's because the essence of that "question" is not actually a question. It's really a statement that says “[insert person here] is such a jerk.” Essentially it's a push question. ...


4

I'm not terribly convinced that stopping unregistered accounts has helped much. The problem user is now posting from registered new accounts I think the same person was in control of an older registered account with 40 or so reputation, account which has now been deleted, asking "Will Fascism win in the end?" And a few more registered accounts I suspect ...


4

This meta question explains what's happening to you: The Complete Rate-Limiting Guide The relevant part for you is: Users with < 125 rep on the current site, 40 minutes since their last question anywhere on the network (This applies to the user's IP address, not their account. If the user shares that IP with other users, they can be limited by the ...


4

We have lots of Impeachment questions for the same reason we had a lot of Brexit questions a while back: because it's a big deal in politics and lots of people have questions about it. I don't think the flood of current-events related questions is necessarily a bad thing, in fact, I think it's good that big political happenings get people interested in ...


4

I don't really see the connection between remarks made in private by organisers of an event and the event itself. Endorsing an event does not mean you endorse everything its organisers have said. To blame the Democrats (see quote from your question below) for that is going a bit far and I agree that it looks as though it's not a good-faith effort. So, in ...


3

I didn't see any whitewashing of antisemitism in the comments. But there are a lot of comments (maybe some were also already deleted), so if you think that there is whitewashing, it would help if you could point out specific comments that you think are in violation of the policy, because those should indeed be addressed. If you haven't yet, I would also ...


3

Flag as "very low quality" or "not an answer". This is a flag which not just shows up for moderators but also puts the answer in the review queue where other users can vote whether or not to delete it.


2

I think this was part of a series of fake news tweets which have since been deleted from Twitter. Google still has them in their cache, the tweets can be found here. A quick screenshot of what the tweets looked like, should it eventually be removed from cache (hover over to see the screenshot):


2

I don't know about SE rules, but your suggestion that this is illegal seems to be wrong; see in particular the 3rd & 4th para from this Law & Crime 2018 article, penned by the American Bar Association Legal Fact Check team, based on an actual US court decision: Congress has wrestled with questions of foreign interference with the U.S. electoral ...


1

The question seems to be centered around electability. The question provides an argument questioning Trump's electability based on facts (e.g. his disapproval rating, midterm blue wave) and asks why Republicans seem to stick with Trump. Dethroning may seem charged, but it also has a definition that's not directly tied to monarchy, from the American Heritage ...


1

One option that LangLangC also suggested is to leave a comment to clarify the flag reason, then flag it to the low-quality queue. Whether you flag it NAA, LQ, or RA depends on the case. If the reason is so complicated that it cannot be solved by other users or it has passed the normal queues already but you still think action is needed, then you can use a ...


1

Neither. Enter a custom reason. If you pick anything else, the flag's reviewer will look at the merit of the answer and base their review on that only.


1

It's possible that that article "The Atlantic Monthly; July 1926; The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage; Volume 138, No. 1; page 108-114" actually exists. But so what? It's 2nd-hand smoke and belied by subsequent events. For example, the answer claimed that the 1926 article said, among other things that the Soviet plan was to Incite homosexuality, ...


1

I have flagged it as rude or abusive. The reason for that is that it is, as you say, a rant. Contrary to what LangLangC says in a comment, I don't think it is an answer. Strictly speaking, it does address the question by saying no, but then the rest of the answer is rant that is not based in fact. So, by allowing this to pass for an answer, we are ...


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