"I don't think it would be right for moderator to take that call to delete a comment" - why not? Don't mods close off-topic questions using their super vote? Why make an exception for comments?

@sv. true, in my opinion, moderator intervention in general should be only under exception cases even for closing off-topic questions. I'm always for letting the community drive such things, rather than the moderator interfering. Today, moderators can close off-topic questions using their super vote. But should they? I would say only under exceptional cases. Most of the time the community should be what drives it IMHO. However I understand that in hinduism meta, moderators may have to do lot more hand-holding until the community matures and actively participates.

'If more than three people vote to delete it then it should be deleted.' - right now users are mass upvoting answer-type comments (look at this post), you expect them to flag for deletion after upvoting a comment?

@sv. I think it should be treated similar to an off-topic question. A question may have lots of upvotes, but if five people think reasonably that it needs to be closed, then it gets closed. If five other people think reasonably that it needs to be opened, then it should be reopened. That way we as a community are driving the quality. So in the above case, if there are three people who believe that comment should be deleted, then it should be deleted. For comments I think three people should be enough, instead of five. That's what I think at least.

@iammilind Philosophical thinking too has to be backed up with sources.. we have the 6 philosophies in Hinduism.. Plus we have numerous man made philosophies.. When someone has asked a philosophical Q on this site it's already understood that he/she wants to know the Hinduism perspective on that.. so how can our own philosophical thinking be an answer?

@Sai I understand that some people do so with a good motive which is to help the OP.. but IMO we have to responsible here too.. what's the guaranty that the comment is actually correct? Without any sources backing our assertions up why will people believe in what we say? What value does such a comment carry?

so how can our own philosophical thinking be an answer? -- @Rickross, correct. That's why it's put as a comment. We can't find online sources to our own philosophy for obvious reasons.

@iammilind Even then it is not useful and is redundant.. coz OP is looking for an answer from the perspective of Hinduism.. He is obviously not looking for our personal views even if it is presented in the form of a comment.

@sv. If u see I've edited the post first but left that comment a lot later.. the reason is I was hesitating whether to post the comment or not.. But then I decided that I shd because the user is a new one.. we need to interact with them in a friendly manner and in a welcoming tone and also due the fact tht I felt she/he was upset with what has happened and required some solace.. Of course if that comment gets deleted then it does not bother me at all..

Mod can intervene and should intervene when they see some off-topic question or something wrong without waiting for a call. That is their job to intervene. Users here are lazy to close a question even when they know it is off-topic. That is why mod action is necessary all the time. They are also part of the community and not different. He is a mod because he knows how SE, flags work. So, mods should continue their job. If a comment gets 3 flags, it will be automatically deleted if it has 0 upvotes. If there are many upvotes, it needs more flags. So, it is a status-bydesign.

@iammilind yes agreed. Nice points

@Rickross You asked 'what is the value such a comment carries'. IMHO the value of that comment would be to make the OP to think a little deeper than the preconceived notions that one may have. It is not meant to make a conclusion. There are no references or there was no time to post references, however still the comment made me think, I would say it helped me in my spiritual progress. If I want to make a conclusive decision I would read the answers and then come to a conclusion on which view to take. But that is just me.

@Sarvabhouma I didnt realize that it was a status-bydesign, glad to know that, thank you. Regarding mod, I should clarify, that what I think is, mods can interfere, but ONLY DURING EXCEPTIONAL CASES (perhaps an offensive comment, or a comment that is bashing hinduism?). They should not be using their mod-priveleges every regular scenarios. They should use their regular user privileges only at that time. Yes mods are part of the community. But their role (in my opinion), is not that of a micro-manager, but rather that of a fail-safe in case of exceptional scenarios

@Sai Actually, it is a misconception in many users in this case. Mod's vote is binding. They use it when needed. They normally wait till community does its work. If there is a clear case of off-topic or unnecessary comments, using their tools is not wrong. When there is a offensive comment/spam posts, users are enough. Mod intervention is not required. In case of regular scenarios, mods should still carry out their function i.e., closing questions, deleting comments, mod role is needed because we users don't know how many flags a post or comment received. So, they should intervene.

Read Add a way for moderators to cast a normal, non binding close/open vote. Moderators are given privileges so that they will act when their role is needed. Exceptional cases are when they see unnecessary comments, closeable questions, answers which deserve deletions. Our users do not participate in reviews. If you want mods to participate less, users should lend their hand.

@Sarvabhouma I'm not sure if I fully understand your comments above. I'm saying moderators should only interfere when exceptional conditions arise. This is because moderators should be 'human exception handlers' See here - stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/18/a-theory-of-moderation. Are you saying that when an answer is posted as a comment, that qualifies as an exception case where moderator has to interfere? Or are you saying that our community has failed in the past to handle such scenarios and therefore moderators need to interfere?

In my opinion, there are no special exceptional cases. It is when there is something wrong. So, a moderator can interfere at any time. Our community only focuses on writing questions and answers and not improving them to a level or not even closing them if it is eligible for closure. I am saying the latter. A spam post took 1 hour to delete with a moderator intervention. I pinged many users in chat but no one responded. That is actually an exceptional case according to you. But was there participation from users? No. So, if even mods are less active, site will be worse.

@iammilind I feel like comments would be a middle ground between a thoroughly researched answer (which would increase the quality of the site) and a poorly-written answer (which would bring down the quality). By adding a comment, we may be providing some kind of a 'food for thought' to the OP and to others reading the content, so that they keep coming back.

@Sarvabhouma A spam post, to me is definitely an exceptional case where moderator intervention is required. But what about a regular comment which is answering the question, do you really feel that a moderator would need to come into picture there. I agree with you that if moderators become less active, then the site will be worse. However I think the real solution is to find a way to get community to participate more actively, not to have these patches and workarounds where moderators are constantly spoon feeding everything here.

You understood it totally wrong. For spam posts and abusive posts, moderator intervention is not at all required. Users are enough. For other cases like NAA off-topic questions, mods are required. If such post is taking a hour and a mod is required, it means, the situation is at worst. Yes, a moderator can act anytime it might be answering in comments, seeing off-topic question or chatty comments. We can talk about moderators spoon feeding when users can close off-topic questions within 1 hour without mod intervention, then we can talk about spoon feeding later.

@Sarvabhouma I think you're suggesting a short-term solution whereas I'm suggesting the long-term one. I guess both are equally important. Maybe we can have moderator play active role, but we have to make sure we focus on how to get community to involve more and more. Then we can slowly reduce the moderator intervention. You made some very valid points and I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. Edited my answer accordingly. Thank you!