There was recently a discussion about an answer not being "Buddhist", here in the commentary: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/44281/8527
I said that under the current policy moderators should not judge what is and isn't Buddhism.
Andrei cared to provide his take on this and as i understood his comments, he appealed to "common sense":
The side that thinks that posting any answer is okay as long as it's well-intended should try and provide at least some connections to a teaching of any mainstream school of Buddhism.
That might look good but what constitutes "some connection to any mainstream school of Buddhism"?
As far as i can see, in practice, any alleged connection qualifies as "some connection" here atp.
Currently moderators might ask for substantiation and delete an answer if no substantiation is given. There are, afaik, no requirements which a substantiation has to meet.
This is how it works out in practice:
There is a user here who basically holds that half of the earliest texts is fake and the other half is mistranslated.
This person is definitely not aligned with any school.
However because this person can dig up a verse or a line of verse & offer his subjective interpretation/tanslation of said verse and on that basis he is allowed to post.
Basically a moderator might ask for substantiation but has no authority to rule on the validity of provided evidence.
Therefore i suggest that the duly elected moderators should be allowed & required to make these judgement calls.
If not then then i suggest they stop asking for substantiations. Just let people post whatever because the current policy disfranchises new users who aren't familiar & savvy enough to fend off the moderator's bluff and that whilst giving a free pass to anybody savvy enough (doesn't take much obviously) to post whatever nonsense they want eg:
- rebirth is superstition
- killing is a trifling deed
- loose women are hungry ghosts
- devas & gods are aristocrats
- nirodha means process
- digha nikaya is mostly fake