@fredsbend Yeah. Since this now gets indeed away from the 'comment purges': I moved here. But this really bugs me. The last line of Jamie's A is exactly right. "all that squabbling". Here it's simply an age-old agreed-upon policy, that this particular one has problematic content. And is against policy.

This then generates tons of votes and would need to be edited. And not just significantly.

So you want the answer deleted now? Or asap?

I didn't really read it, so I have no opinion.

For that a slew of comments would be needed, typically, for newbie posters. But since it's HNQ, we see a cacophony from Offtopicstan below. This creates work for mods that would simply not have been there if the old rules were applied (as much as I'd like to criticise formalistic approaches).

@fredsbend The simple razor for that here is: lots of argument, parsimony in refs, but 'popular'. That's a distortion visible without reading one line. When reading I also disagree with the argument. But refrained from commenting at all since rule1 was already violated. Now it's earned gold-badge with policy violation?

Posts like these should be deleted asap as long as HNQ. Those windfalls in votes are absolutely destroying 'the model', in "best answer raises to the top". 3 days to gather 200 undeserved UVs, despite coming with a post notice on top, and 'a fix' promised as 'in the pipeline', while those votes stay, whatever comes along or stays missing. The accusation then of 'bad faith' is in my book an abusive chat-message, indicative of emotional 'reasoning' & ignorance of site culture (to say the weakest).

@LаngLаngС If odd deletes it, the rep and badge are undone. I think it's only kept if it's been a while, like 30 days.

@LаngLаngС I favor prevention. My current thought is that major political topics are prevented from ever going hot.

But you bring up a good point. If it's gone hot, heavy moderation is a necessity.

The "bad faith" accusation is from a long time user, but a particularly engaged user. Maybe only a few steps above lurker.

@fredsbend Just saw that there are 2 accusations in the other room. It bugs me here that we as site pushed that up the HNQ, then we as site fail to remove it, fail to improve it. And now we see at least regulars who say 'bad faith' despite only quoting old rules that should have helped in this case really to avoid some trouble.

I wouldn't read any site culture into that one instance.

I'm talking about @jamesqf . Who is the other?

'Site culture' is stated as 'we don't care about your political opinion'; we see virtuous signalling, bad analogy and naked assertions. 'Site culture' is 'answers need to provide refs', as *re-*stated in bold in that chat now. // In that chat I count "abuse" as synonymous with "bad faith", giving me 2 names.

Only other name that stands out is Paul Draper, but he's not accused bad faith.

By stand out, I mean a regular.

For me, not to campaign here since I am running, I do intend to be aggressive on political topics and hot questions. You have illuminated for me that I need to give answers there a similar treatment, as I was originally comment oriented.

Gtg 4 now.

Probably some other name between two of Odd's comments: 'abuse of moderation because of content disagreement' while it is exactly not that but a watch-out for basic quality assurance. // CU

I saw this question last night and thought that it seems in your wheelhouse. @LаngLаngС

Now going.