jackdouglas/next-steps-a

## next-steps-a
BH already has a "show your work" guideline and this still applies. In essence we<sup><sup>1</sup></sup>
propose to firm up this guideline and begin to enforce it more vigorously. The other answers here
illustrated a division in the community and we hope to be able to move forward together by focussing on
what we agree on.

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,
or clear logical reasoning starting from a cited 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.

<hr>

*<sub><sup>1</sup>Jack and Monica worked on this post together.</sub>*
	BH already has a "show your work" guideline and this still applies. In essence we<sup><sup>1</sup></sup>
	propose to firm up this guideline and begin to enforce it more vigorously. The other answers here
	illustrated a division in the community and we hope to be able to move forward together by focussing on
	what we agree on.

	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,
	or clear logical reasoning starting from a cited 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.

	<hr>

	<sub><sup>1</sup>Jack and Monica worked on this post together.</sub>