Hot answers tagged

10

No. If that question were so important, someone else would ask it. Also, you aren't "banned from Politics Stack Exchange". You were automatically blocked from asking questions because you asked too many questions in a short amount of time which were downvoted, closed and/or deleted. For more information on the automatic question block and how to ...


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

As an European I might not really "get" what happens in that one country in the middle of North America. But what I do see is that there appears to be a political faction in that country who wants to do everything to spread the name of a civil servant who has no other political relevance except that he dared to be involved in causing problems to their ...


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

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 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 ...


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 ...


7

The wording is confusing, but reopen votes and the reopen review queue are actually 2 separate things. A question gets reopened when it gets sufficient reopen votes. To enable improved or improperly closed questions to get reopened, certain actions get the question put into the reopen queue to get additional attention. In the queue, people can review the ...


7

Done. I don't know what else to write to satisfy the 30 character limit.


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 ...


6

I for one don't understand how the whistleblower's name is of political relevance. I would be more inclined to give leeway to a question that asked about his political record (one was allowed on Skeptics), but I'm presently having trouble seeing how a good answer can be given even to that given the partial media blackout on the issue. A more direct question ...


6

Yes, this is a deliberate change. See New Post Notices rollout on Stack Overflow which quotes from this blog post (emphasis mine): For people who ask questions today, if your question is closed, feedback that is directed toward you privately is shared publicly with anyone who views your question. Plus, the names of people who voted to close the question are ...


6

Using a secondary account to evade any kind of block is indeed an abuse of the system. However, it's also something that we tend to tolerate - at least until the secondary account becomes disruptive. Most times we do this to collect more data points and handle the case a bit more effectively. There's also a small chance the user has learned their lesson. ...


5

I never saw this 'reopen' question appear in my review queue That's because you already voted to reopen it. This started the review task, which is to be performed by others, as all review tasks in the system do. Three 'Leave Closed' reviews complete a Reopen Votes review queue task (just like three 'Leave Open' reviews complete a Close Votes review queue ...


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

The post author deleted the post himself - the downvotes and close votes were probably received because the post was poorly written, with typos in the title and a question body that lacks details. If the post was undeleted, it should probably also be closed as a duplicate of this question.


3

What does 'via Vote' mean in the timeline of a deleted post? This meta question explains what "Via Vote" means here. This message is an automated comment that tells you that the question accumulated enough votes to be deleted. It may come up if the answer gets 3 delete votes from users, but it also comes up when a mod deletes a question ...


3

It might be worthwhile to make a new tag here. slogan seems appropriate


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 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 basically ...


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 ...


2

(Up and down) Voting is subjective. Different people have different standards, and everyone is free to interpret the guidance in the tooltip in their own way.


1

This was asked on Meta.SO and the list of bad things to use sockpuppets for includes using multiple accounts to circumvent system-imposed restrictions. using alternative accounts to circumvent suspension by a moderator.


1

After 2 different users brought this answer to my attention through flags ("rude or abusive" and a custom flag calling the answer "smears against a political figure"), I read it carefully and decided that the answer did two things which shouldn't have a place on Politics Stack Exchange: It accused the senators of one specific party of "abolishing or ...


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,...


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