next-steps-a

Jack and Monica jointly propose the following path forward:

The results of this question have been somewhat inconclusive so far.  The most-voted 
answers have the following vote breakdowns (as of this writing):
 
- Avoid truth assertions (use qualified language): +12 / -7 (5)
- Bring your own framework: +10 / -6 (4)
- Good answers respect their questions: +8 / -4 (4)
- Specify your framework: +6 / -5 (1)
 
Using that data as input, we propose the following:


BH already has a "show your work" guideline and this still applies. In essence we propose 
to firm up this guideline and begin to enforce it more vigorously.
 
Writing descriptively -- "such-and-such source says X", 
as opposed to "X is true" -- dovetails nicely with "show your work".  If you do this you're most of the
way to showing your work.  We are not in general requiring this approach, but it's a helpful approach
and answers that use it are likely to fare well.  Specifying a framework explicitly in an answer can
help readers understand the internal logic, particularly for frameworks that 
are unusual in the context of previous posts on the site or that seem to go outside the bounds of
the question's context.

Answers should show sensitivity to other users of the site. This may include an extra
explanation when later texts are applied to earlier texts (e.g. ones that read Jesus into
the Hebrew Bible). **Claims that could reasonably be seen as controversial or offensive must
be supported from the text.**  "Supported" means an explicit link or citation of text. 
Sometimes the *text* will be offensive, which we have to accept.  The aim should be
**add no further offence to the the offence of the text**.

It's OK to a degree for an answer to include personal anecdotes and other tangents, where this
adds flavour and character, so long as the main line of an answer is supported, connecting the
dots starting from the text.  It's also ok to include opinions so long as they are relevant
and labelled as your opinion or belief.  Opinions and tangents should be garnishes, not the entire
meal.  If a post is essentially an opinion-based argument or testimony, it doesn't fit and will need
to be removed or edited.

Under this policy we should expect to see more editing, as it's better to fix a post (by adding a link
or adjusting the language) than to delete it.  (Of course edits must respect the author's voice.)
But posts that do not comply with this and cannot be edited to comply will be deleted.

We propose that posts that are already -2 or below, and have twice as many downvotes as 
upvotes, should be open for deletion at the discretion of a moderator.  We encourage users 
to flag posts in this state that are essentially opinion or show so little work as to be 
unsalvageable.