• Now, how do we authenticate whether these predictions are believable?
Let me, refresh your memory. It has time and again been mentioned that material presented on ISC cannot be verified. And, it is up to the reader to check the authenticity of the details, even though, some of the content is paid for and goes through the scrutiny of the editorial team. The forum, on the other hand, is more relaxed. So, what authentication of predictions do you seek? Can it not be left to the readers' discretion? Let's not forget, much serious stuff was left to the discretion of readers, fairly recently.
• Giving a reason for her action
This was the first time, perhaps, that a message was given to the member that ISC does not wish to encourage astrological predictions. Don't you think that locking the thread along with the message would have sufficed? Why did the member have to be penalised for it? He was not a repeat offender. He would not have known that you did not wish to encourage astrological predictions.
• It may also be noted that there is no policy change regarding the point in question in the thread under reference here.
I see a policy decision on so-called predictions, which is why the thread was locked and the member was given zero points. It is why I raised this thread.
• Should we encourage such predictions which may be based on some astrological calendars or books?
What could be more authentic than astrological calendars and books? Let's not forget that astrology is part of Hinduism – Jyotish Shashtra. It stems from a religious belief and dates back to Vedic times. There is a whole science behind it. There are many who swear by such so-called predictions. There was a contest conducted recently, based on 'predictions' of a different kind. Members were encouraged to make wild guesses (nevertheless, they were so-called predictions) – am I right!
• Active members are generally aware of policy changes
Does ISC run only for active members? What of the newbies that you keep citing in your posts. Do they not need clear-cut guidelines to go by?
Comparing your actions with the 'human shield' incident is in bad taste. I did not realise that moderating the forum was so simple, that you went by your gut feeling. I thought more intelligence would be required, to weigh the pros and cons of every action.
Finally, you guys are just beating around the bush, explaining your explanations. I can read the message that was put in the thread under discussion. By all means, choose what to allow and what to not. Lock threads you think are unsuitable. But, have a decent way of addressing the issue. So, the point here is not so much about what is allowed and what is not. I'll once again, address the issues I raised.
1. Deducting points for something, which was perhaps, instinctively decided as improper
2. Absence of a source where members can find policies listed
These are very legitimate queries. Do you think it is proper to penalise members for posting something which is not listed as 'not allowed'? Think about it.
"A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak." -Michael Garrett Marino