Migration paths are set up only between graduated sites. We've completed our end of this bargain, but until Biblical Hermeneutics graduates we will not be able to have a migration path to or from them.
I already do delete answers to pastor advice questions (and comments that attempt to address the issue rather than redirect to real counsel) on sight. But I don't see everything, no even do all the mods put together.
If you run across these, feel free to flag answers on such questions with a quick custom reason such as "flush answers on pastoral advice ...
That's an old problem and you've got a good point. It happens as we get more users, and older users that should know better (me included) forget the rules.
As for the debate in comments based on personal belief - About the only thing I've found effective is to be very careful in how the questions and answers are phrased, and including disclaimers. I ...
At the moment, I'm speaking only for myself, but I believe this is true of the other mods too.
In general, it doesn't matter. Usually, I look at the whole comment chain, and if there are other comments worthy of deletion, then we'll delete those too. This goes for unconstructive and chatty comments too.
My comment on the question seems to be not quite right
Instead there is this Meta.SE post about why a flag can be marked as declined but the comment or post is still deleted/edited/closed:
Why does flag marking as helpful/declined not always correlate with moderator action?
A number of things can happen:
A mod might not agree with a close flag but 5 ...
We already have a strict policy that even your comments on the post cannot give advice: But can't I just say one thing? The site's official response to every pastoral advice question is "You should speak to a pastor, priest, spiritual counselor, etc. about such personal matters."
Comments that do give advice typically end up deleted. Why should an ...
I'll see if I can cover your bullets:
David's comment resolves this. This meta thread has the details, but the long and short is that a disputed flag is not the result of a moderator decision, but it's that a 10k user disagrees with your flag. 10 and 20k users have a limited flag queue available where they can pile on to flags, use their delete votes and do ...
Applying my criteria for evaluating migration paths:
There's an obvious overlap between Biblical Hermeneutics and Christianity. Both sites have clear topic spaces and Christianity is getting good question flow.
In the last 90 days, according to the stats, 17 questions were migrated from Christianity to BH and none were rejected. To me, this is right on the ...
meh, meh and maybe?
None of these are exactly spam in the traditional sense, they aren't really offensive they're just...off with respect to the tone we generally expect here.
With questions like these, generally all we need to see is close votes, and that's what we have with these two questions. No need for flags here.
With answers like the one your ...
Yes, you can see them on your your flag history page on the right hand side: it will show counts for disputed or declined flags if you had any.
See a snapshot of the flag history page. The decline stats are listed with the other stats on the right sidebar of the page.
Incidentally it's quite normal to have a few declined or disputed flags. If you do get ...
I'll echo this for a very important reason.
When we graduate privilege levels change. Close votes will then require 3000 reputation. Delete votes will be partially available at 10k but only fully available at 20k.
We have much fewer 3k (28) reputation users than we currently do 500(139) rep users. And we have very few 10kers (7) and no 20kers (at the time ...
Quite honestly, I feel like I need tutoring for this. I'd like to sit down next to someone who 'knows' and go through a load of questions and have them explain to me what they'd do.
For example, as I just commented here, the question doesn't seem like a good fit to me. But I'm not sure, so I do nothing (much).
In other places, as curiousdanni says about, ...
I think the approach I'd recommend is similar to yours, but perhaps my reasoning will be helpful to share.
In general, we have the same problems with new-user answers on off-topic questions as we do on on-topic ones. They come in three types:
Not an answer
Doesn't address the question
Doesn't attempt to represent the viewpoint requested
"Thank you" only
One important thing to keep in mind is the authors intent is the main thing to consider. Being blatantly wrong isn't a valid reason to delete according to the Stack Exchange model. for example, if someone asks for the Catholic perspective on original sin and someone answers "I heard it is blah blah" and doesn't cite any sources that is a poor answer in ...
As a conservative evangelical I have found it hard to dissasosiate my beliefs from my answering/commenting/voting.
I've started doing 2 things:
Make sure I read each answer with it's justification/evidence. I don't consider whether or not I agree with the answer, just if it does answer the question.
Answer the question from my own belief, making sure I can ...
I see these questions as trolling, not as spam. They aren't trying to sell anything, they aren't polluting our web site with links. People should cast down-votes, close-votes, and delete-votes as normal.
Not to be too obvious, but it's for when a comment is no longer needed, typically because the question or answer was edited.
For example, an answer that originally cited no references, if someone commented pointing this out, and the post was edited to fix, the comment would then be obsolete.
The same might go for a question that was off-topic. Someone ...
I use it for anything that's been taken care of with an edit. I don't flag obsolete comments very often but when I have I think they've all been accepted. Got any specific examples of what was declined?
I declined it because I followed the link in the answer, and the Catholic Encyclopedia linked to does, indeed, have to do with praying to dead saints
I agree that the quote that was copied into the answer doesn't address the question, but this portion of the linked article does:
Saint Jerome (347-420 AD) spoke of the practice with approval
If you read ...
I don't know how many users on this site I speak for, but part of the reason why I haven't done so is because my interpretation of this post on Meta Stack Exchange was that flagging would actually be the incorrect action. My understanding was that the proper course of action for such answers would be to downvote, possibly comment, and just move on.
If you find yourself needing a custom reason in addition to a canned flag reason you have one of two options.
You can leave a comment and go with a canned flag reason. This has the advantage of sending it to the 10k flag queue for review in addition to the mod queue.
You can just send a custom flag.
If your comments cannot be made public in some way, just ...
In this case, I'd prefer that the question was flagged and not necessarily the answer. I don't see the point in deleting every new users answer. People who answer questions are a bit more likely to register and become valuable contributors.
That's not to say no answers should be deleted, but if someone can reasonably interpret a broad question, or a ...