I hope I am acting in accordance with relevant regulations by submitting a post here as one of the posters to which this complaint directly pertains.
I submit here my arguments for no-action. These arguments are made on two levels: the procedure level (whether this is actionable), and the policy level (whether this should be actionable).
ProcedureProcedurally, there is currently no rules accessible by users regarding the suitability of using any particular language. The collection of rules available for perusal by an average user (
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044) does not include such an item.
Sound moderation practices require that actions are taken when and only when there is evidence of non-conformance to a documented policy; in this case, such a documented policy does not exist. Therefore, the appropriate actions would be to trigger a discussion (amongst moderators and/or other relevant parties) for the purpose of understanding how best to modify (or not modify) existing policies, prior to actually enforcing this (currently non-existent) policy.
PolicyThe primary overarching objective of the moderation team is to safeguard the website from potential legal, operational, or other critical threats; the secondary objective is to nurture an environment that is consistent with the goal(s) of the primary stakeholder (traffic, for example).
I believe multilingualism is fully consistent with these objectives. By allowing open discourse, we expand the scope of the receptive audience for the website, increase user participation and retention, and can potentially decrease the risk of harmful actions against the website.
Finally, as a personal opinion (i.e. neither policy nor procedure):
I think it would be silly if people with the most experience about China are in practice discouraged from participating in threads about China, or if Christians are discouraged from participating in threads about Christianity, or if women are discouraged from participating in threads about women.