Your question is a fair one, and I'm glad you asked. Lee Woofenden pretty much covers what I'd have said about the site guidelines being different than they were back when you posted your answer.
As the mod who deleted it, I can tell you that I saw where you were going with the question, but the question wasn't "why wasn't incest bad in the beginning" (which your question answers succinctly). It was "did they commit incest".
When it comes to how we should handle good answers that answer something other than the actual question asked, we have a guideline defined here.
For the record, there are times when I really don't want to delete answers. When I ran for the moderator position, one of the questions that was asked was:
As a moderator, your actions now represent the community, so you will
be held to a higher standard of behavior. You are an ambassador of
trust, with the same sorts of rights that the official development
team and community coordinators have. Sometimes the policies that the
community has agreed upon in meta are at odds with our own personal
standards. If that's the case for you, which policies do you disagree
with and how would you go about changing them? If you agree with all
of the policies, what would you do if another moderator set out to
change one of the site's accepted standards?
My answer was:
Honestly, if I thought for a moment the site standards were going to
be at odds with my own personal standards, I wouldn't have thrown my
name in the hat. Should some standard come around that I have a hard
time with, I'd most likely make my best possible argument, backed with
post after post for precedent, to try to make my case. Such a standard
would have to be one that I honestly think would be harmful to the
site, not one in conflict with my religious views.
If site standards changed enough that I really had a hard time with
them, I'd probably keep my mouth shut while letting the other mods
handle those questions, and eventually step down. I simply don't want
the diamond bad enough to compromise what I think is right.
In this case, it's not a situation where site policy is conflicting with my own religious beliefs/convictions. It's just that I don't like deleting posts that have earned people significant reputation points, particularly when the question and answer were on-topic at the time, but are off-topic/not within guidelines today. I just don't like it. But since I took the position as a moderator, my job is to adhere to site guidelines. All of them. Not just the ones I like.
With that knowledge, if you feel it's worth the effort, can I suggest you create another Meta post to address the question of what we should do about posts that were fine at one time, but are off/topic/not within current standards? You can use this as an example of such a situation.
In the meantime, I took the liberty of making a very slight change to your answer, to make it an actual answer to the question asked, and un-deleted it.
Added based on comments and new answers:
I think some of you are operating under the false assumption that I acted unilaterally. In both cases, the answers were flagged as "not an answer" by other members of the community. That alone means that I didn't act alone. I didn't seek out these answers, decide I didn't like them. Someone else, possibly several others, flagged them because they also recognized that these fall afoul of the site guidelines.
One of my assigned duties as a moderator is to evaluate flags and take the appropriate actions, not based on my personal beliefs. Rather, my only allowable criteria is to determine whether or not the flags are valid according to site guidelines. Those guidelines, again, were set by the community.
If someone flags as NAA, and it falls within the definition of NAA defined by the community, then I have to act. To not take action would be to show bias.
Granted, I'm far from perfect. I've made mistakes. Clearly the community felt I had done so here. Feel free to call me out when I do.
As user27239 points out, I deleted two answers on the opposite end of the spectrum on the same question. Theologically, I agree with the points made in one of the two answers, and disagree with the points made in the other. Yet I deleted them both. Why?
Because both answers ran afoul of the site guidelines on what the community, not me personally, decided as far as that particular guideline goes.
For the record, here are the meta posts that address this point. Take a look and then look at the question and your answer. maybe if you take the time to read the guidelines, you can at least see where I'm coming from. Maybe not, and maybe even if you do, you still won't like it.
Answer the question
Read the question carefully. What, specifically, is the question
asking for? Make sure your answer provides that – or a viable
alternative. The answer can be “don’t do that”, but it should also
include “try this instead”. Any answer that gets the asker going in
the right direction is helpful, but do try to mention any limitations,
assumptions or simplifications in your answer. Brevity is acceptable,
but fuller explanations are better.
In this case,. I go back to my original statement above:
As the mod who deleted it, I can tell you that I saw where you were
going with the question, but the question wasn't "why wasn't incest
bad in the beginning" (which your question answers succinctly). It was
"did they commit incest".
I didn't delete the answer because I'm biased against it. I deleted it for exactly what I said. It did not answer the question. The shame in this is that in order to change it to be an actual answer, all I had to do was add one word. "Yes". That's the answer to "did they commit incest?". Or "no" might be the answer. But the answer to "did they commit incest?" is not several paragraphs explaining why it wasn't bad.
Likewise, for user27239, an explanation of the biology involved is not an answer to a "yes or no" question.
Again, I deleted two answers from the opposite end of the spectrum. If that screams "bias" to you, then I'm not sure I know how to help you.
I've also bent over backward here to explain the rule, to provide links to the meta posts that define the guideline.
If you don't like the guideline, work to eliminate it. Attack the guideline, show why it's bad, provide a better alternative, and garner community support. Don't go around accusing moderators of being biased for following the guidelines that were set by the community.
Nothing would make me happier than to spend less time deleting content that others have worked hard on. It's the one thing I hate most about this gig. But until the community settles on a different guideline, I would be shirking my duties not to enforce the guidelines in place.
