Since Internet discussions, notoriously, can be acrimonious, and because we want to encourage discussion from the public at large but without wasting the time and energy of the experts who are mainly responsible for the creation of the bulk of our articles, we moderate open review comments from the general public. Among those whose comments are not moderated are the subject editor, the subject peer reviewers, the article's author, and the article's lead reviewer.
Moderators are selected according to subject; so, for example, there are Computers moderators who might not be Philosophy moderators. See our information about the role of moderators for more information.
The following rules constitute our general policies about which comments might be rejected by a moderator. They can be regarded as flexible.
The moderator's role is not to guide conversation (unless the list has decided that that will be your role). It is to make sure that comments that, for various reasons, should not be posted are not posted.
When in doubt, approve the post. Most posts are perfectly fine.
If the person is rude or makes offensive personal remarks, including but not limited to what would normally be regarded as "flaming," reject the post, explaining what needs to be changed before it can be posted. (Most rejected comments, in our experience, are "flames.") The system does not allow the moderator to make changes to anyone's post.
A message should not be rejected simply because it raises a difficult or thorny question--so long as it does so in a polite, non-inflammatory manner.
Innocent, lighthearted banter is not to be rejected, even if it gets a bit off-topic.
Otherwise clearly off-topic posts, including posts that should be made to general Nupedia mailing lists, should be rejected with an explanation.
If a message brings up a point that has already been discussed in great depth, with nothing new to add, it should be rejected with a note directing the person to read the discussion history. Post on an issue should be responsive to what's already been said on the issue. Please bear Rule #2 (above) in mind in making this determination; when in doubt on this point, post the post.
If it is absolutely clear to the moderator that a message has little value, because, e.g., it is both poorly written and completely confused or ill-informed, it can be rejected. The moderator should be tactful in making a explanation, if the post is rejected. For example: if someone posts an article evaluation that demonstrates that he simply doesn't know what he's talking about, and you're quite sure that all of the peer reviewers would find the post a complete waste of time, then (probably) reject the post. You should probably never reject posts from peer reviewers for this reason (unless, e.g., they were obviously drunk). Please bear Rule #2 (above) in mind in making this determination.
Messages that are obviously best sent only to the person addressed in a post (as opposed to everyone engaged in the discussion) should be rejected with an explanation. This should be obvious, if you decide to reject a post for this reason; some people simply have a style of addressing a post directly to another person, but they certainly do intend everyone in the discussion to see it.
As moderator, please do not feel obligated to post posts that are critical of you or of your moderating habits. Please direct any offended/-ing parties to the subject editor and/or editor-in-chief.