Question on what is meant by "discussion" in Terms and Rules

[Gorgon Zee]

Per the T&R page, this is the right forum to pose this question. It is related to a moderation decision, but honestly I just want general clarification; I am not challenging the moderation. So the sentence I have in mind from T&R is as follows:

And in this category I should mention the "no religion, no politics" rule -- please refrain from discussion of a religious or political nature.

Now, clearly, people do mention politics and religion regularly. Also it's obvious what the intent here is -- we don't want ongoing debate. It's really about the line between mentioning and discussion.

So, I assume that saying something like "I think Superman is a Christ-like figure" is fine. A set of back and forth posts about the character of JC and Christianity is going to be shut down -- that's clear. But what about a factual correction. Suppose someone posted something like this (this is a made-up example):

"Actually Pope Spandex IV, specifically disavowed this position. He ex cathedra stated that Superman has no relation to Christianity in an explicit response to this question".

Is that counted as banned discussion?

To be clear, I fully understand that the answer my well be "not really, but since religious / political debate is so toxic, we're going just going to shutdown any second post on this topic". It will be annoying, since it then essentially gives people a license to make false statements that cannot be challenged, but I can understand the reasoning.

 

[cranberry]

A lot of people state factually incorrect information on the Internet. You aren't obligated to correct them.

 

[Umbran]

And in this category I should mention the "no religion, no politics" rule -- please refrain from discussion of a religious or political nature.

Now, clearly, people do mention politics and religion regularly. Also it's obvious what the intent here is -- we don't want ongoing debate. It's really about the line between mentioning and discussion.

Not really.

The purpose of moderation is not "to enforce the rules for the sake of the rules". It is more to keep the peace, allow on-topic conversation flow, and folks feel generally safe hereabouts.

To that end, the line is less between mentioning/discussion and more between practical/impractical or effective/ineffective moderation.

We find that dropping the hammer on every minor infraction might be technically correct per the rules, but it is neither feasible, nor effective in reducing major infractions, or producing the desired atmosphere for the boards.

So, I assume that saying something like "I think Superman is a Christ-like figure" is fine.

Context matters, so maybe, maybe not.

As a purely practical matter, moderators are unlikely to know about the statement immediately. There are likely to have been exchanges making it into a discussion before we hear about it at all.

If we see it, and it has been hours and the conversation is three pages on and nobody's taken the bait, we are apt to leave it alone, as our moderation is apt to disrupt the peace more than the original statement.

But what about a factual correction. Suppose someone posted something like this (this is a made-up example):

"Actually Pope Spandex IV, specifically disavowed this position. He ex cathedra stated that Superman has no relation to Christianity in an explicit response to this question".

Is that counted as banned discussion?

1) Well, the thing is, it is unlikely to stop at your correction, now is it? The person you correct is apt to push back, and we will have an argument to deal with.

2) This puts the moderators in the seat of being Arbiters of Religious Correctness. Leaving aside how we don't want that job, do you want us to have that job?