My post seemed clear and appropriate to me, does group bias exist, and what are the agreed quantitative limits associated with calling a group biased. Borror didn't think it met the skeptic criteria, and posted a comment as such. I explained further, and invited them to clarify what they didn't understand. Instead, they told me that if the question needed to be explained, it should be reworded. I think the question is totally valid and answerable by someone with knowledge of polling and statistics. I didn't feel that the question needed to be explained, just explained to borro. At what point should moderators let questions through without interfering. Also, don't they have an obligation to help improve the question, if it really is unclear?
First and foremost, we don't currently have moderators. We'll probably get some by the end of the month, and their role will be of human exception handlers.
Most of the moderation is handled by the community itself. As an user earns more reputation, he or she earns more privileges such as the ability to vote to close questions and the ability to edit any post. In other words, I'm just an user like you; it's just that I am more trusted (i.e. I have higher reputation) so I have the ability to close questions. I don't have any obligation to improve your question.
In fact, it is frowned upon to completely rewrite a question. Those are your words and, while I could transform your question into a valid question, I would consider completely rewriting your question without your request an abuse of the editing privilege.
As to your question itself, and its many forms, there are many problems with it:
It's off-topic. As per the FAQ, this site is about applied skepticism. What are you being skeptical about here? I don't have the impression that you're questioning anything. It look like a pure sociology or psychology question. As such, it's off-topic.
It lacks context. If you're being skeptical about something you've heard, then cite the claim. First of all, it will avoid the misrepresentation of the point you're asking. Secondly, the position will be better argued than if you summarize it.
It's argumentative. You're talking about bias. It makes it sound like you're trying to make a point, asking whether a certain group isn't behaving rationally. We don't allow argumentative questions: we want questions asked in a neutral language. We uphold an high standard for our questions. We see that as a necessary step to high quality answers, which are the bread and butter of the site.
You might be using the wrong terms. Each time I read the question, I end up being confused. I wonder if you understand what bias mean. A bias means that you're systematically favoring some things over others. Is that really what you're asking? A strong disagreement between two clans isn't enough for a bias. It has to be systematic, erroneous. If that's not what you mean, I would suggest using a different term so to avoid confusion.
It's not a very good question. Humans can fall prey to confirmation bias. No group is immune. The question is thus, "Is this group's belief leading them biased in this instance?" While that can be investigated, it'd be far more interesting to question each group's arguments to see if their belief is solidly grounded in reality or if it's all wishful thinking.