@mods any further explanation for how a declined NAA flag on this - christianity.stackexchange.com/a/33302/10486 is because "flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer"? I don't get it sorry

@bruisedreed The answer is wrong, but being wrong is not a criteria that we delete posts on. Ignoring the site's scoping rules and answering outside the scope of a question (i.e. giving a Mormon answer on a question about JWs) would be Not An Answer and deleted as a moderator action. In that sense moderators enforce the site guidelines.

On the other hand we are not gatekeepers of right or wrong answers — we don't moderate on the quality of the content itself. In this case the author claims to be answering within the scope of the question and seems to genuinely believe their post answers the question.

hmm - so if you answered a completely different question but from the requested perspective, it wouldn't count as NAA?

it seems to me that it is both wrong and not answering the question asked

Per my comment there (we both commented just seconds apart!) I think the answer is totally wrong and misleading, but that's a matter for a DV and/or comment (I did both) not a cause for moderator action (such as deletion).

@bruisedreed It's only not answering the question asked because the OP is wrong in his understanding. It's not an answer to a different question nor does it propose to answer it from Eastern Orthodox viewpoint or something like that.

In other words it's a very poor attempt at an answer an even factually wrong, but a legitimate attempt to answer the question.

do you think Geremia actually thinks that Kant and freemasonry are representative of Reformation leaders? I think it more likely he is just ignoring the actual question

@bruisedreed Yes, I do. I've observed before and think this is another case of him having very confused understanding of things outside his own theological tradition. He even sometimes mixes up his own tradition's views because he doesn't have a clear picture of the boundaries between it and other frameworks.

I don't see how that post proves your point - it seems to me to rather argue against it. How is Geremia's answer more fairly represented by the last picture as opposed to picture 2?

@Caleb ok, well I can't really argue with that then - thanks for your further clarifications. I appreciate you taking the time.

@bruisedreed @Caleb For the record, I voted to delete because neither Kant nor the Freemasons are "Reformation leaders" "(Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc.)," which is what the question asks for.

@LeeWoofenden Also for the record, I'm more than okay with a community delete if ya'll can make it happen. I just didn't think I could justify a moderator intervention. If the OP called be out on meta I don't think I could defend it being an enforcement of community guidelines rather than my personal judgment about the (lack of) correctness of the content.

This is giving the OP the benefit of the doubt –I'm assuming their motives are good and the poor answer is a result of miss-handling history and theology rather than actually understanding and deliberately forwarding an agenda– but that's something I feel like with a moderator hat on I have to extend.

@Caleb I do like the principle of giving the OP the benefit of the doubt - I'll endeavour to bear that even more in mind in the future

The matter of motives didn't come up with respect to this point (#6) on my meta question on the NAA topic, though perhaps it should have.

@Nathaniel In terms of those meta criteria, to my mind, the answer in question does fail on #1 - if the OP explicitly claimed that Kant and freemasonry were representative of reformation leaders, then I can see that as definitely being an in-scope, albeit wrong, answer; but the fact that reformation leaders aren't referenced at all is why I flagged and thought it was right to do so

Yes, I can see #1 being a better category here. Same issue applies there though; to what extent do we attempt to regard motives?

To my mind, motive has nothing to do with it. The answer simply doesn't answer the question asked.

If we start assessing people's motives, we'll throw ourselves into a major morass from which there is no graceful way of extricating ourselves.

I actually agree with Caleb's approach at assuming the best motive - I'm less sure about how applicable that really is in this instance

ahh, ThaddeusB - sadly missed - you were here for such a short time

@LeeWoofenden What do you think of this answer? Assume that it attempts to represent Calvinism and is wrong, or is it NAA? This one was also flagged as NAA awhile back, and got resolved as "disputed".

heh - I think that one got me too

@bruisedreed I know :(. I just answered one of his old questions and it made me sad that he wouldn't see it.

@bruisedreed I think me getting a flag declined on something similar was the motivation behind that meta post, so I know the feeling...

@Nathaniel Looks like NAA to me.

I've had a lot of my flags declined lately--so much so that the site took away my flagging privileges briefly, restored them, took them away again, and then restored them.

@LeeWoofenden Yikes, that's not good; I know I rely a lot on your eye to find the stuff that needs moderator attention

We could use some more people who flag on a daily or near-daily basis; not good to lose one of them, even temporarily.

@Nathaniel It was rather annoying. I think of a flag as saying, "This needs to be looked at," not, "This has to be closed/deleted." If I flag something and it doesn't get closed/deleted, I don't consider that "bad." Just the community moderation doing its job. (Even if I sometimes disagree with it.)