Protect constructive disagreement.
Moderation exists to help conversation become useful—not to manufacture agreement, shield authority from criticism, or outsource consequential judgment to AI.
A valuable contribution is generally
- relevant to the stated question and directed toward ideas rather than personalities;
- understandable, offered in good faith, and grounded in reasoning, evidence, theology, or experience;
- free from harassment and dehumanization; and
- capable of moving understanding or action forward.
Disagreement is not a violation.
Criticism of Empty Jars, church leadership, independent ministries, tithe practices, decentralization, institutional structures, or AI must not by itself be grounds for removal or demotion.
Human moderators may feature, connect, request context, include an item in the unified feed, hold for verification, reject with a reason, or escalate for review. Consequential actions preserve a reason and audit event. AI may flag, rank, or summarize; it must not be the final authority on theological alignment, standing, removal, or sanctions.
Ranking is not endorsement.
Relevance and quality signals help people discover substantial contributions across native and external sources. They do not declare that a contribution is true, representative, or endorsed by Empty Jars.
Reasons and review
Where practical, a contributor affected by a consequential decision should receive the applicable standard, a concise reason, and a route to request human review. Conflicts of interest should be disclosed and alternate reviewers used when available.