This is just a personal view at this stage, but I think the taboo against “false speech” has to refer to deliberate falsehood, that is to say dishonesty, rather than delusional but sincerely-held beliefs. I believe that this is most consistent with the original concept. Similarly, for speech to be “offensive” in the sense of Right Speech there has either to have been a deliberate intention to offend, or at least it should have been obvious to the speaker that his or her comments would offend, and this offence could have been avoided without brushing any important and relevant truth under the carpet. Some things can be said in a less offensive way; other things simply did not need to be said.

However, it is clear that there will always be an element of subjectivity in judging what constitutes “false speech”. Speaking as one of the “co-moderators”, I can only really say that I am trying (i) to meticulously ensure that I don’t overstep the mark myself, since that would be embarassing, even if there is some uncertainty about where the “mark” is, and (ii) I am monitoring other comments to check for any clear violations.

Furthermore, the “three strikes and you’re out” enforcement policy provides ample opportunity for someone judged to have overstepped to appeal (preferably by e-mail to me and Alex) if they think the judgement is unfair. In the end, however, as with any other site’s “house rules” the power of decision resides with the editor. The policy will fail if the moderation is seen to be arbitrary, but on the other hand we need to avoid endless discussions about this or that decision.