I think the intent is (broadly) good. I get what it's trying to do.

However, some of the specific phrasing seems to be setting us up for not being able to moderate effectively (whether as diamond moderators or ordinary users). For example consider this heading:

No discrimination of any kind.

(emphasis mine, because that's where the problems arise)

On this network of sites, we're dealing (almost entirely) with responses to text. The very function of the site is to discriminate between good answers and poor ones, and so we must be careful only to proscribe what we actually want to avoid, not to make it impossible for the site to function.

This kind of overly-broad prescription gives people who write poor answers every excuse to cry foul.

My suggestion is avoid 'dealing in absolutes' like that, because it gives people too much opportunity to point to the policy and turn the tables -- to make life very difficult for the people trying to keep the site functioning by constantly finding this or that objection to their crappy posts "discriminatory". It is discriminatory -- ultimately because their post is bad -- but that's not how it will be framed.

Please allow us to continue to discriminate in the ways we should -- against poor content -- rather than setting yourself up for compulsory defense of poor content on the grounds that someone may cite discrimination ("you're discriminating against me because I can't spell, cite a reference or express a coherent thought -- that's not fair, I am just differently-abled, I am offended and I demand the commenter be suspended according to the clear wording of the guidelines. At the very least their discriminatory comment should be removed and their discriminatory downvote reversed").

That we should be nice when we do discriminate against poor content, and avoid being (by some reasonable standard) personally offensive, sure.

I also think the document focuses too much on the action to be taken. This is akin to the usual objections to mandatory sentencing in judicial systems -- they reduce or remove the ability to consider mitigating circumstances. That such recommendations should exist somewhere (as guidelines for moderators) sure; I don't think their place is in a policy document.

I think the intent is (broadly) good. I get what it's trying to do.

However, some of the specific phrasing seems to be setting us up for not being able to moderate effectively (whether as diamond moderators or ordinary users). For example consider this heading:

No discrimination of any kind.

(emphasis mine, because that's where the problems arise)

On this network of sites, we're dealing (almost entirely) with responses to text. The very function of the site is to discriminate between good answers and poor ones, and so we must be careful only to proscribe what we actually want to avoid, not to make it impossible for the site to function.

This kind of overly-broad prescription gives people who write poor answers every excuse to cry foul.

My suggestion is avoid 'dealing in absolutes' like that, because it gives people too much opportunity to point to the policy and turn the tables -- to make life very difficult for the people trying to keep the site functioning by constantly finding this or that objection to their crappy posts "discriminatory". It is discriminatory -- ultimately because their post is bad.

Please allow us to continue to discriminate in the ways we should -- against poor content -- rather than setting yourself up for compulsory defense of poor content on the grounds that someone may cite discrimination ("you're discriminating against me because I can't spell, cite a reference or express a coherent thought -- that's not fair, I am just differently-abled, I am offended and I demand the commenter be suspended according to the clear wording of the guidelines. At the very least their discriminatory comment should be removed and their discriminatory downvote reversed").

[In actual cases, though it won't be framed quite so obviously, but rather more subtly.]

That we should be nice when we do discriminate against poor content, and avoid being (by some reasonable standard) personally offensive, sure, I agree with that -- we should focus on the content and not the attributes of the poster, but people's capacity to find any form of criticism personally objectionable is boundless.

I also think the document focuses too much on the action to be taken. This is akin to the usual objections to mandatory sentencing in judicial systems -- they reduce or remove the ability to consider mitigating circumstances. That such recommendations should exist somewhere (as guidelines for moderators) sure; I don't think their place is in a policy document.