It was a mistake to reject this post. This seems like a case where both the rule that was applied is a mis-rule, as well as that it was applied inaccurately—which makes the rejection even harder to justify. It is also not easy to determine which “prior discussion” is being referred to by the rejection reasons.
It doesn’t seem like the post was political...at all? Let alone “overly political” which I think is perhaps kind of mind-killy be applied frequently as a reason for rejection. It also is about a subject that is fairly interesting to me, at least: Sentiment drift on Wikipedia.
It seems the author is a 17-year old girl, by the way.
This isn’t just about standards being too harsh, but about whether they are even being applied correctly to begin with.
It’s a priori very unlikely that any post that’s clearly made up of English sentences actually does not even try to communicate anything.
My point is that basically, you could have posted this as a comment on the post instead of it being rejected.
Whenever there is room to disagree about what mistakes have been made and how bad those mistakes are, it becomes more of a problem to apply an exclusion rule like this.
There’s a lot of questions here: how far along the axis to apply the rule, which axis or axes are being considered, and how harsh the application of the rule actually is.
It should always be smooth gradients, never sudden discontinuities. Smooth gradients allow the person you’re applying them to to update. Sudden discontinuities hurt, which they will remember, and if they come back at all they will still remember it.
It was a mistake to reject this post. This seems like a case where both the rule that was applied is a mis-rule, as well as that it was applied inaccurately—which makes the rejection even harder to justify. It is also not easy to determine which “prior discussion” is being referred to by the rejection reasons.
It doesn’t seem like the post was political...at all? Let alone “overly political” which I think is perhaps kind of mind-killy be applied frequently as a reason for rejection. It also is about a subject that is fairly interesting to me, at least: Sentiment drift on Wikipedia.
It seems the author is a 17-year old girl, by the way.
This isn’t just about standards being too harsh, but about whether they are even being applied correctly to begin with.
I have read that post, and here are my thoughts:
The essence of the post is only in one section of seven: “Exploring Nuances: Case Studies of Evolving Portrayals”.
Related work descriptions could be fit into one sentence for each work, to make reading the report easier.
Sentences about relevance of work, being pivotal step in something, etc don’t carry much meaning.
The report doesn’t state what to anticipate; what [social] observations can one predict better after reading it.
Overall, the post doesn’t look like it tries to communicate anything, and it’s adapted to formal vague style.
It’s a priori very unlikely that any post that’s clearly made up of English sentences actually does not even try to communicate anything.
My point is that basically, you could have posted this as a comment on the post instead of it being rejected.
Whenever there is room to disagree about what mistakes have been made and how bad those mistakes are, it becomes more of a problem to apply an exclusion rule like this.
There’s a lot of questions here: how far along the axis to apply the rule, which axis or axes are being considered, and how harsh the application of the rule actually is.
It should always be smooth gradients, never sudden discontinuities. Smooth gradients allow the person you’re applying them to to update. Sudden discontinuities hurt, which they will remember, and if they come back at all they will still remember it.