text:
Best way to ask a question that may founded on incorrect assumptions
The way that Buddhist traditions and ideas have filtered into Western popular culture are sometime completely erroneous, oversimplified, or embellished. I have certain questions about Buddhist practices but I fear that my questions may be founded on such incorrect assumptions about Buddhism in the first place.
The obvious answer to this is to research Buddhism online or through books but even then I run into issues distinguishing popular websites/books from ones that are more true to source material. The ones that are more true to source material often lead to a complex investigation of topics and I find myself learning about Buddhism in a very scholarly way - something I would like to do one day but cannot commit myself to right now. This issue is part of the larger problem that since I do not know what I don't know it is very difficult for me to know when a question I have is legitimate or not. If I were to use Buddhism.SE I would have to ask a lot of questions in the form of: "Is it true that Buddhism entails X" which seems inefficient.
Previously, I gave a disclaimer at the top of my question indicating my potential ignorance. However, with my new question I am afraid it may be quite controversial and I fear asking it if I'm incorrect about some of my underlying assumptions. What would be the best way to ask such a question? Is this kind of a question inappropriate for this StackExchange site?
If you would like to know my question or more information please let me know. I just wasn't sure if it was appropriate to post my question directly on the meta.

Yes it's appropriate to ask about how to ask or to phrase a question, on Meta, and/or to ask whether any specific question is on-topic. Answers on Meta should focus on explaining whether it's an answerable question and/or how to rephrase the question, so that you can then re-post the question on the main site (answers on Meta should refrain from actually answering the question).

I fear that my questions may be founded on such incorrect assumptions about Buddhism in the first place.

Simply state your assumptions with the question so someone can validate them. Also if you get diverse answers you can use this as food for thought.

... The ones that are more true to source material often lead to a complex investigation of topics ...

Also always do your research by taking the answer as a lead and also validating what you have learned is true through meditation as this site does have a lot of answers which are doctrinally wrong as many who answers not really experts but enthusiastic amateurs even from the perspective of the traditions they have alliance with. Just don't take the answers you find here at face value to be true or right or from an expert in the topic or inline with the doctrine, always use them as food for thought and direction for further research and study on your own.
Also I have noted that some of the answers are becoming better and aligned with the Right View as some of the posters again in dept understanding. Hence keep posting your question as with time the answers will become better. And also since multiple answers are possible is one answer is off you you might get a better answers later on by someone else.
Also be vary on what you read online as some of them may have personal opinions which are not right and also maybe written by people who have grasped the Dhamma the wrong way.

... I gave a disclaimer at the top of my question indicating my potential ignorance ...

You ask due to:

Not knowing about the topic
You are unsure of what you know and want to validate your knowledge
See if you can gain by getting a different perspective of the topic than what you already know perhaps from another tradition

Hence a disclaimer is not needed.

If you would like to know my question or more information please let me know. I just wasn't sure if it was appropriate to post my question directly on the meta.

Post it in the main site with your assumptions.

It's like a visit to the doctor, where you know you have a complaint but don't know what the cure is.
Similarly you have a question but you don't know what the answer is.
The question is inevitably going to be based on something you know (e.g. that you've read) and/or that you don't know (don't understand), some combination.
So state the question, explain the assumptions, and don't assume you know the answer in advance (if you do know the answer in advance then it's not an appropriate questions).
An example of a question stating assumptions (mentioned in Suminda's answer) was this question.

This issue is part of the larger problem that since I do not know what I don't know it is very difficult for me to know when a question I have is legitimate or not.

It's a little difficult for other people too.
In theory it's on-topic if it's about Buddhism (if it's anything to do with Buddhism) and doesn't duplicate a question that's already been asked.
I think you're saying that's difficult because you're not sure what Buddhism is.
It's difficult for other people because there may be more than one form (one school) of Buddhism. Part of stating the "assumption" in a question might be explaining which school (which teaching) you're asking about.

issues distinguishing popular websites/books from ones that are more true to source material

One form of question then might be, "The popular book whose title is X says Y. Where can I find more about Y, is Y described in source materials Z?"
Many of my questions come from reading English-language translations of source materials, and then asking for some explanations of specific foreign (Pali) words and corresponding 'Buddhist' concepts.


text:
Buddha or Buddhism?
In several answers I can see people interpreting Buddha and giving references about masters other than Buddha. Is this forum about Buddha or Buddhism? Buddhism like Hinduism, Christianity and other religions is corrupted. For ex Buddha never prayed but lots of buddhist pray.

Is there a forum exclusively for Buddha?If not I would love to start one. I want to meet people who have benefitted from Buddha and can share experiences rather than just suttas or theology.

There is "area51" at stackexchange where one can create any new community.

This site welcomes questions and answers about Buddhism: including all forms/schools of Buddhism.
On this site, it would also be also on-topic to ask about Buddhist history, culture, art, and so on -- but most questions are about theory and/or practice.
You can use various tags to limit the scope of your own questions. For example, some people regard Theravada as the school mostly closely based on the original (earliest) form of Buddhism, and if you add the theravada tag to your question, that means you want to limit replies to answers that come from a Theravada perspective.
There's also a the-buddha tag, which is for, "questions about the Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) as a person - his life, sayings, actions, etc.".
On the other hand in this answer you refer to obtaining a best answer by "asking a living Buddha".

I want to meet people who have benefitted from Buddha and can share experiences rather than just suttas or theology.
I encourage users to consider these guidelines:

The folks ... owned up to the subjective issue and came up with a set of principles to create useful subjective discussions ...: the Back It Up! Principle. Back It Up! means that your answers must be based on either:

Something that happened to you personally
Something you can back up with a reference

So, answers shouldn't be based on a complete guess or lack of knowledge -- but this site does allow both, answers based on personal experience, and answers which give references (e.g. to suttas).

Living Buddhas are best source if you can find one. If you cant then scriptures are the best source but they are corrupted more often than not. Intelligence of a common man is quite less and therefore middlemen come in to explain Suttas. Simplification of Suttas for general public leads to corruption of Suttas. For example three percenpts or eight percepts or ten percepts are not Buddha's making but few who think that they understood Buddha. Buddha's path is that of intelligence and therefore meant for a small part of humanity. Unfortunately it was sold to everyone by good marketers.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Is the Noble Eifghtfold Path a path of celibacy?
I saw on the internet a internet moderator edit a post to remove the words: "the Noble Eifghtfold Path a path of celibacy".
Is the Noble Eifghtfold Path a path of celibacy?

I won't dispute whether the monastic life is compatible with the N8P -- why would you question that? But I deleted that sentence of yours there -- and more especially another one in the same paragraph -- as irrelevant to the question and potentially unwelcoming to the OP.

And what is right action?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammākammanto?
Avoiding killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual activity.
Yā kho, bhikkhave, pāṇātipātā veramaṇī, adinnādānā veramaṇī,
  abrahmacariyā veramaṇī—
https://suttacentral.net/sn45.8/en/sujato

Abrahmacariyā = celibacy

Concise Pali English Dictionary brahmacariyā feminine religious life;
  complete chastity.
https://suttacentral.net/define/brahmacariy%C4%81

When the OP asks on this site, "Is it permissible for a Buddhist lay follower to discuss...?" -- in a question about something harmless like the Vinaya and making fruit allowable -- then I don't think that is the right time to reply, "The NEP is a path of celibacy and not for white feminists". Your arguing that your statement is true does not justify it as being beneficial, agreeable to others, and said at the proper time.

In context those phrases contradicted all five of the categories of "Unacceptable Behavior" as defined in the Code of Conduct -- starting with "subtle put-downs", and ending with "harassment". And new users especially shouldn't have to tolerate that -- it would be wrong of me not to edit at least that much. Perhaps other comments too about "feminists" were also off-topic in that answer -- but as I said the OP's private life and person especially are not for you to comment on (speculate about, insinuate) in this context.

Very fertile imagination there Chris. I think this forum is for learning about Buddhism. As I posted, the Vinaya is for monks. It is not for laypeople.

ChrisW. Your edit "only relatively few laypeople follow the Noble Eightfold Path, and especially the Vinaya." shows you might need a holiday. Lay people do not follow the Vinaya.

ChrisW. My answer was approved by at least 1 member, probably more. Its a good answer. You should learn from it.

Yes I noticed that when you posted your previous comment, and have edited. It was late last night. I still think it was inappropriate to reply with remarks about sex and gender to that question of the OP's, on this site.

ChrisW. It appears Buddhism may not be suitable for you because the Buddha gave many many different teachings relating to different genders.

I'm talking about the context, which might be perceived as hostile to the OP -- like, "You're a woman, you're white, you're probably not celibate, and so ... no -- you're not allowed to ask." I decided that was unacceptable.

Sorry Chris but the poster called herself a "white woman", which gave the impression she was not Asian and thus not familiar with monkish culture. You seem to be spirally down the abyss of Cultural Marxism.

Indeed. And though I might understand or tolerate what you were saying, I didn't think she should be expected to. The site's CoC says, "Focus on the content, not the person" -- all aspect of her person are off-topic. Speaking of which perhaps you ought to stop making some insinuations/accusations/speculations about other users too.

For me, the poster who called herself "some American white lady" appeared quite fixed or firm in her views. Personally, I imagine she is well-educated and assertive. However, you appear to be treating her as a weakling victim. To me, your attitude appears very sexist & belittling. Myself, I treated her as an intellectual equal.

She was here to ask a question. And you are required to "be nice" and "welcoming" and so on -- and implying "no you can't ask" and "because of gender" was unacceptable IMO. I fear I'm already too tolerant of some of what you post e.g. that other users find your answers and comments difficult to tolerate -- I think that this case and with a new user was something which I had to edit -- that if I didn't edit that then this site would be no 'better' than unmoderated. Would you accept that, or shall we ask for a second opinion?

Again, you appear to be imagining things. You appear to not believe in equality. My post was nice. My post answered the questions in a similar manner or tone in which the questions were asked. Thats it.

To end, Chris. You are definitely wrong here. The questioner even referred to ""Twitter feminism"" in her question yet you say I was sexist for referring to "feminism" in my answer; even though my reply was directly about her question, using the same terminology as her question.. Sorry Chris but your judgment here is seriously wrong in my opinion. The suttas are clear about the destination of puthujjana that revile Noble Ones. Take care friend. If you need someone to talk to, you are always welcome to Skype me. I am a Buddhist. I have compassion. Best wishes

My belief is that the "person" asking is off-topic on this site (except to whatever extent they ask about that). We're invited to explain a subject (e.g. the Vinaya) and not to criticise the person asking, not to say they cannot ask -- and not to even comment unasked on their gender (nor their race, religion, or even age and marital status),  which could risk being taken as at least a "subtle put-down" and possibly worse.

Your more recent edit makes more sense in context, IMO -- more gradual and step-by-step, and focused on the subject -- easier to read (and accept), I hope.

@Dhammadhatu even though you were factually correct about celibacy, the answer's tone was rather judgemental and inflammatory, borderlining on scandal-seeking. ChrisW was right, and within his permissions as moderator, to edit those parts away to moderate the conversation.

Even though you were factually correct about celibacy, the answer's tone was rather judgemental and inflammatory, borderlining on scandal-seeking. ChrisW was right, and within his permissions as moderator, to edit those parts away to moderate the conversation.

You're talking about this edit.
I decided I had to delete this which you wrote in that paragraph:

The Vinaya is for monks & nuns rather than for white & semitic feminists

I thought that could be misunderstood, and considered racist, and unwelcoming to the OP, and was not a necessary part of answering their question.
The post-edit version was kinder and clearer IMO. In any case the Help says ...

No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language
No name-calling or personal attacks. Focus on the content, not the person.
Be nice

... and so on. So I edited (and as little as I could, but what I felt I was required to).
Your answer was already commenting kind of rudely about "women" and "nuns". In that context, and while I was editing the above, I decided to delete what you were saying about "celibacy" as well:

Because that isn't relevant to the OP's question
Because the OP's private life is not for you to speculate about or comment on !
Because the OP might misunderstand your message as, "the Buddha Dhamma isn't for you, and neither is this this Buddhism.SE site a place where you are allowed to ask a novice question"

Yes I'm pretty sure it risks being experienced as racism. And I try to avoid labelling people, am I right? I felt it was my duty to delete that text-fragment, a) off-topic b) personal and therefore off-topic c) easy to misunderstand at best, even if we assume "good faith" d) unfortunate in that specific context (as a immediate reply to that part of the OP's question) e) an inappropriate way to say that to someone who's a new user and a self-professed novice.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Why he can do, but I can not?
I understand that buddha taught: "The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without hurting myself or others.'", but don't forget that buddha taught "for it is thus that the Blessed One's following is nurtured: through mutual admonition, through mutual rehabilitation.", too, right?
@dhammadhatu wrote:

It is one of the **greatest errors & corruptions** to regard "sankhara" (2nd condition) as "kamma" because sankhara (in SN 12.2) is defined (per MN 44) as the in & out breathing (kaya sankhara); initial & discursive thought (vaci sankhara); and perception & feeling (citta sankhara). Bhikkhu Thanissaro explains this very well in the meditative examples in his book The Shape of Suffering.

I describe his error here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/24307/10100
Then @Andrei Volkov told me:

Please avoid directly disputing other answers like you did here ("error like @dhammadhatu done"). This has a danger of leading to a flamewar. Instead, imagine that you are writing an encyclopedia article - you would not debate with other books if you were writing an encyclopedia, right? Just stay neutral and objective in your tone&style, and this will lead to better reception by other users and will avoid debates. I just took liberty and removed all references to dhammadhatu in your answer, I hope this did not damage your answer too much.

Why no one still not notice, what I letting you see?
Why he can do, but I can not?
Why no one advise him?
Why you all look like "debating with the tipitaka-distorter is
worst, but tipitaka's fact-distorting is no problem, like
encycropedia analysis?
"We use the same word "error", right?
And he did it first before I did, right?
We still see his "error" word, there, right?
And the pāli that I quote to you is not the same as he wrote, right?
It is his error, not tipitaka's error, right?
My evidences from tipitaka are not proper enough?
His evidences from tipitaka are proper enough?

I don't know your culture, but in Thailand and Burma, tipitaka distorting is the worst one action in buddhist society.

Also, you wrote, "I describe his error here". An answer shouldn't focus on proving another answer wrong; instead your answer should focus on answering the OP, the original question.

Some of the policies on this site are intended to:

Allow everyone (any user) to post an answer
Without arguments between two users
Without arguments between different sects

Therefore:

You're welcome to post a correct answer
You're welcome to explain why your answer is correct
You should, please, avoid criticising other users by name

For example, imagine the following question on a travel site:

Question: How far is it from Paris to London?

And imagine (for example) that you see that someone has answered this already, as follows:

It's 30 km. The easiest way to go is just to walk.
-- John

The following new answer wouldn't be permitted, because it's not only useless but it breaks the rule against criticising other users:

John's answer is wrong.

The following is worse (because it criticises John himself and not just John's answer):

John is mistaken.

The following answer is better (because it answers the OP's question), but it still wouldn't be permitted or needs more editing (because it names John):

John's answer is wrong. It's 500 km, about 2 hours by train or one hour flying time.

The following is better, good enough -- it doesn't criticise, and it's useful (it answers the question):

It's 500 km, about 2 hours by train or one hour flying time.

If you want to correct misinformation in John's answer, you can do that but without mentioning John by name:

It's 500 km, about 2 hours by train or one hour flying time. Or if you're driving you can catch a ferry e.g. from Calais. You can't just walk it though, not just because it's far but also because of the English Channel.

Even better if you add references so that readers can verify whether your answer is reliable:

It's nearly 500 km by road and ferry, about 2 hours by train or one hour flying time.

In summary I think you can correct misinformation if you see it; but please do that without criticising other users.
The rules about "mutual admonition" which you quoted aren't applicable on this site.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Advocation: all Theravada answers use Pali whilst Mahayana use Sanskrit Terminologies
In order to give the un-bias, un-misleading answers to the questioners in this forum, I advocate the captioned.
For example, this questioner asked "nirvana", but the 1st answerer gives his version of Theravadin/Pali opinion which is completely contradictory to the Mahayana view, he either should state it's Theravadin view, or, at least use the Pali terminologies.

Thank you. This question I do not intend seeking an answer. From your answer (@Thiago Silva) and the response of this forum I just confirmed that "This is a Conventional Theravada site camouflaged under the Buddhism banner". So is the Wikipedia Buddhist entries now are overtaken by the conventional Theravada to insert them majestically to represent the whole of Buddhism. It is sad. The Buddha has already foretold the destruction of his Dharma, rottening from inside, by the so-called followers. Anyone practicipate in this scheme, consciously or unconsciously, is forever bearing this gravel grim fruit in his making. All the best.

If you're interested in this topic please review the comments underneath this answer -- excluding the comments about jhana, but including comments at the start and the end about "it is incredibly important that these questions be answered with an explicit mention of the tradition on which the answer is based."
I think the summary on that topic is:

It's been discussed
Some people agree it's a good idea
Not enough users on Meta have voted in favour of a specific suggestion, to make it official policy
There's push-back (i.e. counter-arguments) from some users (e.g. Suminda)
As moderator I'm not sure that any such policy would be practically enforceable: e.g. if someone does or doesn't want to state that they and/or their answer is Theravada, I'd be "on thin ice" if I tried to contradict them

Furthermore I don't think that Pali versus Sanskrit is the best way to signal the difference between schools.
In the question you referenced there's no evidence that the OP (laser2302) knows any difference between Theravada or Mahayana, or any difference between Pali or Sanskrit.
If the OP wanted the be specific they should have used a tag for that purpose e.g. theravada or mahayana or  pali-canon or similar.
In the absence of such a tag the question is open to answers from any school or any person.

I recommend that one thing you can do, in this situation, is to post another answer: which could start by mentioning that you think the other answer is Theravada (without disparaging that), and then adding what you think is a (contrasting) Mahayana answer on that subject.
I'd like to see that answer.

See also What language should our tags be in? ... I think it was decided that tags be in Sanskrit (because the Sankrit may be better-known) ... the (less-well-known) Pali terms may be used, but might also be considered as a synonym of the Sanskrit.


text:
My apology to people I offended
I just want to say that I have recently been rude and an ass on this website, anger and ego got the better of me and I said some harsh rude things to people and I'm sorry. I don't want to be like that and I'm trying really hard to be aware but sometimes I allow negative afflictive emotions to control what I say and do. I hope I haven't caused anyone any suffering because really it's the last thing I want to do. I really struggle with differing opinions sometimes. It's hard to accept that other people have such different opinions to my own but this is life. I hope those affected by my insensitivity can accept my apology and I will try my hardest to not slip again.

Congratulations on your achievement!  It goes against the grain of human nature to seek awareness of our mistakes and shortcomings.  It's so nice to see people having moments of clarity, they are not always easy to come by.

For all worldlings these kind of situation arise. More so if one has a hateful temperament:

Greedy: the ten foulness meditations; or, body contemplation.
Hating: the four brahma-viharas; or, the four color kasinas.
Deluded: mindfulness of breath.
Faithful: the first six recollections.
Intelligent: recollection of marana or Nibbana; the perception of disgust of food; or, the analysis of the four elements.
Speculative: mindfulness of breath.

Kammaṭṭhāna
Also I have seen Forgiveness Meditation book through not read it: Guide to Forgiveness Meditation: An Effective Method to Dissolve the Blocks to Loving-Kindness, and Living Life Fully by Ven. Bhante Vimalaramsi
Also the person on the receiving end also should try to practice equanimity and if anger arises Metta. More on this see Vitakka Saṇṭhāna Sutta. And also forgive because getting angry on this leads to suffering, this again is easy said than done, but with practice one should become better at forgiving also.


text:
How can I be a good critic?
How can I be good critic.Sometimes I get little afraid to answered after some question because I can't know about owners attitude towards my answer.

To make this question clearer, can you link to an example of something you would like to answer?


text:
Not possible to get notifications?
Seems that this site does not offer notifications when there is a new answer to your question or a topic that one is following. Is that really so?

I think you can't "follow" a topic, can you? Is there a UI element which lets you do that?

But you will get a notification:

When someone answers a question you posted
When someone comments, underneath anything (question or answer) that you posted
When someone edits anything (question or answer) that you posted
When someone replies to a previous comment you made, by including @OPL in their comment

Notifications appear in the toolbar at the top of the page, when you next visit any page of the network:

That notification icon ("inbox") becomes highlighted (i.e. a different color), and if you click on it you see a list of all recent notifications.

I think you can see a history of all notifications (from all sites) here (but each user can only see their own notifications, so that link will only work for you).

You can also get these notifications sent to you by email -- to enable that, edit your user profile:

Edit Profile & Settings ...
... Edit Email Settings ...
... Inbox: Answers to your questions, comments, chat notifications, and more

So, as well as via your StackExchange "inbox", your notifications can be delivered via email: weekly, daily, or every three hours.

Perhaps by "following a topic" you meant 'marking it as a "favorite"'.
I think maybe there's some "notification" when a favorite topic changes, but not the same kind of notification (and maybe no email notification) -- see:

How do favorite questions work?
Feature Request: Providing Notification for favorite questions
When Do I get favorite notification?
and more generally results found containing favorite notification

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Are these comments inappropriate debate or reasonable questions?
I'm new here, and hoping to better understand the cultural and participation norms.
In short order, I've managed to make comments that were declared by an experienced user as "debate" inappropriate for the site.  At first I rejected this, responding my "debate" was acceptable, because I thought the comments were not especially unusual or inconsistent with SE practices on I've seen for years on other sites.
I ask for your counsel after later realizing "debate" seems to have a special meaning here. At the very least, it seems it is in fact disallowed in terms of preaching, attempting to prove an opinion correct, or trying to ask or answer an unanswerable question.  Moving on to the content in this case:
On one hand, I see my comments as merely simple questions seeking understanding or clarification.
On the other hand, who am I?  I just arrived here in a new place and cannot really afford to make any assumptions.  At a minimum, I've learned debate is the wrong word to describe what is or is not acceptable.  Aside from that point, I would still appreciate your feedback as to appropriateness, if it's possible to imagine without the loaded d word.
So, any thoughts on the comments in this answer, inappropriate or reasonable?
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/21497/11701

Welcome to the site, and thanks for asking.

First, as you probably know, the intent of Stack Exchange is to be a Q&A site. The Tour says,

This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat.
Just questions...
  ...and answers.

Another official topic about comments is here: Help Center > Privileges > Comment Everywhere

Some people in the past have found that there was too much debate on the site; for example,

But when I look at it today, I don't see the site I was interested in helping grow over a year ago, or even six months ago.
Personally, I haven't the time for or interest in debating Buddhism on the Internet - forums abound where one may do so elsewhere; I didn't think that would be the purpose of this site. [...]
What I was looking for here was a place where I could answer specific questions about topics on which I was somewhat of an expert, under the assumption that I (or anyone) could provide the single right answer to the question as a resource for Buddhists searching for answers online, without having to deal with (much) controversy or opinion. I don't think that is the nature of this site today, and I think it is (and has been for some time) moving further away from this format in general.

As moderator I'm sensitive to the idea that people want to post answers without being disparaged.
Users who post answers may feel quite sure of what they're saying. If they have to "deal with controversy" whenever they post, then that I see that as a failure of the site, and ineffective moderation (by the moderators and by the community).
Did you know, there are several schools of Buddhism (or different backgrounds of people who answer), including for example Theravada, Mahayana, secular, academic. There are different views on many subjects: different views from different schools, different views from different people.
Theoretically, any time anyone posted any answer, someone else could comment saying, "That's wrong!" and try to debate that answer.
People have had experience of something like that happening on other sites; for example

So if one asks a question about, say, mudras and the answer is "That's superstition, you should read the earlist pali texts"
Or if I ask a question about, say, mindfulness in noisy environment and the comment is "Meditational practices aren't effect, you need to chant Myo-ho-renge-kyo" or "Mindfulness is a ineffective materialist muddle you need to find a suitable lama and start ngondro"
Or if I ask a question about, If you see Amitabha and his Pure Land just before you die and the answer is "Only Christ and God can save your soul from Damnation" or alternatively "The Amitabha doesn't exist, he's a story to distract the working class from their current plight"
Do you see the pattern here? Do we want to leave open answers and comments that do nothing to answer the question, but instead are a sectarian attack on the beliefs implicit in the question?
I know from my experience on other Buddhist forums on the internet that these sort of discussions go nowhere good-- at best it becomes a battle between warring straw men, each side ascribing inaccurrate ideas to the other because neither side really is very familiar with the other's school of thought.
I would suggest that these sort of comments and answers be dealt with aggressively.

The above is about answers to questions, but I think the same is true about comments to answers.

There are several meta-topics about comments (which you've probably already read).

Comments aren't always bad but they shouldn't be over-used nor abused.
To be more specific let me critique the specific comments you linked to.
Do you have any basis for this other than off the cuff opinion? I'm worried this is tragically incorrect, and could prevent someone from preserving to a positive outcome. How much time did you invest in metta practice before coming to your opinion?
"Do you have any basis for this" doesn't start well. I tend to assume that everything people say does have a basis, I just don't know what it is. So rather than asking whether there's a basis, I'd ask, what is the basis.
"...off the cuff opinion" sounds a bit dismissive. I'm not sure that Dhammadhatu is always serious but I get the impression that he has some years of experience including of teaching; I wouldn't like to imply that his answers is baseless or off-the-cuff, nor that his opinion is worthless. This site is setup so that references are not required, partly so that people can post their more-or-less expert opinions as answers (and post questions which can't easily be answered using only references).
Further to that subject (the subject of posting opinions as answers) I recommend the article titled Good Subjective, Bad Subjective. A summary of it is that "good answers" should be based on:

Something that happened to you personally
Something you can back up with a reference

Even if Dhammadhatu's answer were only based on his experiences rather than on references, the answer would be on-topic.
I'm worried this is tragically incorrect, and could prevent someone from preserving to a positive outcome.
Isn't it kind of ironic that you post that, as a criticism of an answer which recommends equanimity?
Imagine if this were a cooking forum; that the question was that "cooking is hard" and that OP "tends to burn the food"; that the answer was that they should "turn the heat down, cook at a lower heat"; and you posted that same comment.
How much time did you invest in metta practice before coming to your opinion
This isn't good. The main problem is that you've changed the subject, instead of commenting on the answer you're now commenting about the user. I think it helps to avoid conflict if you talk about the answer and never try to question whether the user is worthy.
There's no good answer to this question too. You seem to be asking him to boast about how much experience he has, or to confess how little he has. You might be mistaking quantity for quality. And it seems to be binary thinking, e.g., "This is answer is wrong, and the user is wrong, and the user's practice is wrong."
I don't intend to criticize or offend you. I would simply like to ask if there is any basis in the teachings for. 1). Metta is for monks. 2). It's best to focus on equanimity rather than metta.
I think this is a better comment, but could be improved slightly by asking "what is the basis" instead of "is there any basis". For example, maybe something like, "I haven't heard that 'metta is for monks' before. Are there references which recommend equanimity instead of metta?"

Starting with "I haven't heard" makes it an I-message. Incidentally it could be a polite way to also signal to other users that this answer seems unorthodox in your experience (since you worry that they may tragically misunderstand it).
Asking "Are there references" is politer than asking whether he has "invested" enough time in metta practice
Mentioning "equanimity instead of metta" might be an example of "active listening" i.e. it demonstrates that you heard the gist of the answer. Your comments as phrased don't mention "equanimity" as all, as if the only thing you heard was "not metta".

Sorry, I will not stop commenting, and you are incorrect, polite debate is acceptable here.
"You are incorrect" is probably never worth saying (sorry that my answer is dragging on for so long). You might feel "that view is incorrect" or "I don't understand that statement" but it's probably never worth criticizing the person.
Also "debate", whether polite or otherwise, isn't generally acceptable on this site. Polite questions (e.g. "I don't understand X?"), or suggestions to improve or clarify the answer, are tolerated in comments. Debate may be tolerated in a Chat room (but users on this site tend not to use chat). If users are using the comments for polite debate then, depending on how long the debate is, a moderator might move those comments (i.e. move that debate) to a chat room.
After the other user has written, "Please stop commenting. This is not a debate forum. Please post your own answer. Thanks & regards" (which was in a now-deleted comment which your comment was replying to) then anything more you post is no longer a debate at all, let alone a polite debate.
I think I recommend people preserve the following attitudes, when they comment on someone else's answer:

It's acceptable to post a question (e.g. "I don't understand X?"), or a suggestion to improve or clarify the answer
Avoid, if possible, posting a criticism of the answer (e.g. "X is wrong!"). If you must, you may be able to rephrase criticism as a question (e.g. "Is there a reference for X?" or "How is X compatible with Y?").
Avoid posting a criticism of the user (e.g. "You are wrong!"), the user's practice, the user's school.
Assume the user posted an answer because they wanted to help the OP and/or future readers, and not because they wanted to debate the answer with you.

Commenting on someone else's answer is like being an uninvited or unexpected guest in their house:

Be polite, straightforward, easy to support, not too demanding
My visit is over when tell me it's over: don't overstay my welcome.

Generally I think that the other user (whose answer it is) should be allowed the last word. For example if I post a comment to ask a question, and they post a comment to answer, then that's it: end of "discussion". Sometimes I might have a follow-up question, but in general I'm hoping for a satisfactory reply.
Part of hoping for a satisfactory reply is not posting comments like, "you are wrong", because it's hard to imagine any satisfactory response to that comment.
Part of a moderator's job is to moderate inter-user interactions. I think it's easier and better for everyone when each user moderates their own interactions, so that moderators don't intervene.
It's worth highlighting something else, i.e. "Please post your own answer". Instead of telling someone that their answer is wrong, you can post your own answer which you think is more "correct". There being several distinct answers to the same question is the main way in which "debate" is meant to be expressed on the site. I think it's also valuable to have several answers, instead of thinking that only one is correct and that the rest are not (see also the Elephant parable).

Thank you Chris.  A lot of these suggestions are helpful for any conversation in life, not just comments here, I see improvements I could have made and will learn from it.  One part that I still don't understand, is why there should be no distinction between types of "wrong"?  No doubt a persons belief system should not be declared wrong.  Even an inconsequential opinion, I clearly see it as counter productive to declare someone wrong.  But objective facts are different.  If someone denies the Holocaust, how are we not ethically bound to call this out as wrong?

con't...That's extreme of course, this is not Nuremberg.  However I have noticed one real example that is ethically troubling.  Feminists are offended by Buddhism.  With no qualification, this is not opinion, it's objectively false.  When declared as a blanket statement, it can actually harm others.  A young girl maybe chooses a different life path. A person on edge is nudged toward bad behavior.  In other words, calling something wrong cannot all be the same.  Kindness and acceptance should not conflict with moral imperative.

I reposted that as a new question.


text:
What is the simplest way to think of and give expression to Dhamma for practical purposes for meditation?
What is the simplest way to think of and give expression to Dhamma for practical purposes for meditators? What exactly is Dukkha?


text:
I propose the tag [film-analysis]
There are several questions asking for interpretations of a movie. For example:

In the movie Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring, why does the master cry?
Are the movie Fight Club, and Project Mayhem in it, buddhist?
What are the Tibetan sketches in the movie Samsara called?
And many more if you search for movie

I propose two synonym tags for this: movie and film-analysis. The description of the tag can include this Wikipedia page: Film analysis


text:
What should be the tag for problems arisen from communication with fellow Buddhists?
I'm looking for a tag that better describes these questions:

Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?
I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?
How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?

Maybe doctrine-clinging? I hope someone who understand Buddhism and more fluent in English can help me.

Would you like a tag which describes problems -- any and all communication problems? Would topics like "How can I explain Buddhism to my mother?" and "How can I persuade my parents to let me ordain?" be included in that tag? Or are you looking for a tag which describes the activity of discussing/analysing doctrine -- which, is not necessarily/always a problem?

Thanks for your suggestions. I'm looking for a tag describing the problems arising during discussing doctrines

@Erik you mean "doctrine-discussion"?

@Erik that would be a good point. I was too focused on running them together because I am having this enough, but for other people, they may feel it's not a big problem. You may want to make it as an answer

How about intellectualism or rationalism?

In this new question, When will a Buddhist accept doing analysis?, I use these tags: discussion and anti-thought. I think anti-thought is a big topic in Buddhism and deserve a tag for it.

I don't like anti-thought because its your description of someone else's view. Instead I'd prefer your description of your view (e.g. pro-thought or whatever it is).

If you add a tag please add a description too of what it's used for, i.e. when/whether to use it for a given topic.


text:
Should incorrect information be edited?
Information requested on Buddhist monks self-immolation mental technique
This question has an incorrect piece of information:

Thích Quảng Đức was a monk who immolated himself to protest against the repression by the Viet Cong in 1963.

As a Vietnamese and have read some information about him, I think I know the history better. Should I edit it? The bit is unimportant anyway.

Generally you can edit anything to make it clearer.
See also these Help topics ...

Why can people edit my posts? How does editing work?
Edit Questions And Answers

... perhaps especially, What is the etiquette for modifying posts?
The main restriction is, I think, is that you should avoid making edits which contradict what the author wants to say (this is sometimes called "a hostile edit").

For example if I post that the moon is 38000 km away then that's probably a typo and I'd like you to edit to correct that, i.e. I'd agree that the correction would improve the quality of my post.
Or (I can't think of a good example but) if I say that the moon is made of cheese then perhaps that's my actual opinion and/or what I really intend to post, and I wouldn't welcome your editing it. In that case maybe a comment might be better than contradicting the OP -- like, "I don't think it's made of cheese", or perhaps better a question, "why did you say that?", or, "isn't it iron-rich rock, like the Earth is?"

Generally though if it's a minor edit then that's welcome.
If it's an answer then another option is to post another (less misleading) answer of your own.
If it's a question then another option is to say "I don't understand this question".
Sometimes too it's because they misunderstood something that the author posted a question, and in that case the appropriate response might be to answer the question instead of editing it (but beware Answers vs Advice i.e. don't post an answer like, "that's the wrong question" without answering it, and also maybe avoid posting a comment which answers the question).


text:
The ways of leading (community) penalties?
Althought very unpopular in modern world, to speak about and to make penalties puplic has a huge impact and support when based on good rules.
As it is usual in this community as well, to set penalties, like to suspend someone, it would be good if:

There is a clear processes
A defined group of elders (not only those involved.
A chance for "public" (or withing the committee of "elders") statement, confession and/or rejecting by the accused.
An information for others to know about the case: not only to be informed, but also to learn, if right, to avoid similar deeds.

Place for reflections and answers in regard of this "opinion" might be given here with it.
[This gift of Dhamma, not for commercial purpose, trade, stakes or exchange for gains of ordinary wordily gain, which should be deleted in the case the place and owner does not allow or give such dedication, might be good if brought to meta, if not seeing this point as a general question to think about, for a released heart and good community conduct everywhere]

I'll move this topic to Meta presently. I've left it here temporary in case you want reply/participate, since for some reason (I don't know what) you're unable or unwilling to register your account and therefore cannot participate on Meta.

There is a clear processes
I think there's a clear process.
All SE sites have different content (i.e. different topics, e.g. the topic this one is "Buddhism"), and different communities (i.e. different users), but the sites have some things in common -- not only the software (which defines the format and appearance of the site), but also the guidelines about how the site is governed -- all SE sites have some 'rules' in common, for example:

More Q&A, less discussion and chat
If a question is intended to question or discuss the site, use the site's Meta instead
How the site is moderated

A defined group of elders (not only those involved).
If "those involved" means ...

A user, whose misbehaviour may need to be 'moderated'
A moderator, whose job is to assess or implement that

... then I suppose that there are three other kinds of "elders":

Other site moderators -- for example anything I do as moderator is visible to the other moderators, i.e. Lanka and Andrei. Sometimes too we may discuss something privately before one of us acts on it.

Other users of the site (i.e. community members) -- who know enough and care enough to post on Meta if they have a question or concern

SE employees -- if any user disagrees with a moderator decision, or thinks that a moderator is abusing their role, then the user can complain to Stack Exchange.
Beware though that, I think that, these complaints are rarely successful, that SE tends to side with the moderator (perhaps because moderators tend to understand what the SE rules and conventions are).

A chance for "public" (or withing the committee of "elders") statement, confession and/or rejecting by the accused.
If behaviour is disruptive I don't need a formal confession -- I just want the bad behaviour to stop.
Generally what happens is:

User: bad behaviour in public (for example, being hostile as described in the Code of Conduct)
Moderator: posts a comment in public, "please don't do that, the rules for this site say X and Y"

If the bad behaviour stops then no more need be said about it. If the bad behaviour continues then a moderator might contact the user privately, "Look, I'm telling you, the rules are X and Y, and these posts of yours i.e. A and B aren't doing that. So please, stop." And if they don't stop voluntarily then the next private message includes a temporary suspension. The duration of the suspension gets longer (a day, a week, a month, etc.) if a user is suspended more than once (e.g. because they continue to misbehave after a first or second suspension).
SE has talked about whether and how much this kind of decision-making should be public -- see e.g.:

Suspension Reasons
Avoid the Streisand Effect - be clear about the reason when suspending an account

There are approximately 280 other Questions tagged [account-suspension] too.
I think the policy they chose is a kind of middling compromise.

It's semi-public, e.g. you (other users) can see that some user has been suspended, and for how long
It's semi-private, i.e. only the user involved, the moderators, and SE can see the "private moderator messages" and so on.

I'm not sure what the reasoning is -- perhaps it's to minimise scandal and gossip ("Ooh, that user was bad!"), perhaps it's to make rehabilitation easier (don't criticise a user in public and therefore give them a bad reputation), perhaps it's because any focus on user behaviour is a distraction from the purpose of the site (e.g. the purpose of this site is to answer question about Buddhism, not to discuss whether users obey site rules nor even to discuss whether various users are good Buddhists -- in that way it's perhaps, I don't know, unlike the purpose of the Vinaya rules for example).
Anyway the current SE policies for moderation are what they are -- you can begin to review them here.
I'm pretty sure that anything that I (as moderator) am able to read and that other users cannot, because I am moderator, is considered private and/or confidential -- and so for example I am not allowed to ...

Publish the content of a "private moderator message" to a user
Tell you the number of times a user has been suspended in the past
Complain in public about deleted comments (which moderators can see but other users can't)
Say who has "flagged" any post for moderation attention

... and so on -- and so I'm unable to change the predefined SE-specific "process" (though of course moderators are expected to determine how and when to implement it in practice).
Conversely any affected user is allowed to publish or complain about moderation. If I send you a "private moderator message", for example, I cannot publish it but I think that probably you are allowed to, if you want to -- e.g. you could post on Meta to discuss it with other users (though you might have to wait until after a temporary account suspension), or reply to it (your reply can be seen by all the site moderator), or complain to SE about it.
If I do write a "private moderator message" to someone I think I probably almost always link to and/or quote (i.e. identify) some specific posts of theirs, so that it's clear what I'm talking about (so that any criticism is specific and not unsubstantiated -- also it's to criticise that content and not to criticise the user).
An information for others to know about the case: not only to be informed, but also to learn, if right, to avoid similar deeds.
If you read the site regularly you might notice something of some "cases" if they happen, but (unless you're a moderator, or you're the user in question, or the user in question chooses to publish the case on meta) then you won't see all details of every case -- and, previous cases are not listed somewhere publicly.
Even without that information, though, I'm thankful that the users of this site tend to be polite and moderate and kind, not inclined to misbehave, and are focused on the topic at hand (i.e. focused on specific Questions and Answers, not on criticising other users), and can do without perusing past examples of what was considered to be misbehaviour by other people.

Good so far, like most, from personal perception, involved perception, Nyom ChrisW. How about a step out of ones box, a step to view the matter even in Dhamma-Vinaya aspects? (althought the tendency is to pull issues touching involved issues into meta) What about metta? Don't one think my person is really interested in SE-policy on a level to addopt it...

I don't understand what question you're asking -- maybe you're not asking a precise question. How about a step out? What Dhamma-Vinaya aspects and what about them? And what about metta? If you're only saying that this site isn't using all the same rules and practices and the Vinaya, then yes: that is so. I've tried to explain what rules the site moderators do follow, how moderators' actions can be reviewed and by whom -- which is of course in various ways unlike all the Vinaya rules, which I assume you probably already know.

Good, and how do they if having faith and being informed about Dhamma-Vinaya (Buddhas Religion, usually called Buddhism?) ...since you stick to SE rules my person wouldn't be allowed to answer a "own" question... (ironical) One could assume simply a personal commercial playground using a certain lable and others resources in trust. So how to bring this, if wishing so,matter in any consistent frame?

I think moderators (and users) are supposed to obey or implement two types of policy: 1) defined by SE (e.g. the Code of Conduct); 2) defined by the "user community" (i.e. the users of the site), who decide (by voting on Meta) what kind of content (questions and answers) they want on the site.

No possibility to point Chris into the right direction... simple meaningless.


text:
To protect the integrity of Buddhism, does BSE take any measures to prevent AI bots here?
Could be totally off base but due to quite peculiar syntax it seems some of the responses here could be derived via Artificial Intelligence. Even if this is not the case, to protect the integrity of Buddhism, would BSE consider taking any measures to prevent AI bots here?

This sounds like a topic for BSE Meta and not BSE, right? If yes, the moderators can migrate it there.

If you have specific examples, please provide it here in the question.

I believe you're talking about the unconventional grammar and overuse of Buddhist jargon shared by a lot of new accounts. That's just Samana Johann. He's peculiar indeed, but not a bot.

I tried to post an answer, but without your posting example of the type of "responses with peculiar syntax" that you're asking about, it's very possible that I didn't understand your question.

I think @viptrongproz98 is right, i.e. that you're probably referring to these questions -- here and here. They were posted by Samana Johann (i.e. not an AI bot at all). These questions didn't get good (i.e. upvoted) answers so they were recently "bumped" to the top of the Active view by the so-called Community user.

Perhaps this type of question might not be welcome, or might be moderated -- if it can't be understood at all, if it's "preaching", if there are too many of them -- but not because they are AI (they are not). Samana Johann's answers can also be difficult to read sometimes, and he does use several accounts (because he won't "register" an account and so the system frequently assigns a new account); I think his answers are often good answers, sometimes the best.

I'll note that there are a couple of users who use stylized language for sectarian reasons (which may seem peculiar to outsiders). If you're thinking about the user who answered your last question while referring to you as 'good householder', he's not a bot. In his beliefs, it is important to make the distinction between monastics and lay practitioners, and to studiously avoid certain language structures that promote self-identity. It makes his posts a little hard to read, but it's inoffensive.

Wow, was not expecting the compartmentalization or porting of this question and such a flurry of responses on this. And don't know if this is or could be related or not but was wondering about the amount of users with names like user0000 and their origins (although obviously don't answer that because of privacy)

One of the more obvious ways -- to me the only obvious way -- in which "Artificial Intelligence" might be used for creating posts on this site, is someone using a translation tool (like Google Translate or others).
I expect people might do this when they don't write English themselves.
And I think that doing so is unobjectionable, that in general we want to welcome users, and not discriminate against or discourage those for whom English isn't their first or even one of their second languages.
You might, similarly, find some "quite peculiar syntax" from people who are themselves translating into English without a translation tool -- some simple examples that I know of, Russian doesn't have articles ("the" and "a"), German sentences sometimes have a different word order (with a verb at the end), and so on.
Even "correct" English sounds unusual if you refer to everyone including yourself in the third person, or use anything archaic, which some people do when they try to write formally (i.e. in the so-called static register), especially if they don't do it well (because their English isn't fluent).
Note that we are all welcome or even encouraged to improve the language -- grammar, syntax, spelling -- of any post, to make it more easily understandable. I do that sometimes, my reasoning being that as I'm a fairly expert user of English I might be able to understand badly-written or non-standard English that another user might not. My experience is also that automated translation tools fail to translate a word that's mis-spelled, so again, correcting the spelling and so on of a post make it easier for people to translate if they want to.

That said, another type of "bot" on the internet is the type that's used for spamming, i.e. for posting an advertisement on 100s of sites including this one. That kind of post is not tolerated, and is deleted. The deletion is remarkably quick, often within minutes, so you might see spam sometimes but not often and not for long.

More generally the users of this site do prefer "sincere" questions, i.e. a question for which an actual human wants an answer -- see this answer for example:

Personally, I find seeded questions irksome.

It's hard to create and enforce a rule about the intent of people who post, but we do sometimes.

Also there is more-or-less a rule against posting the same answer more than once to multiple questions -- we'd expect that different questions would get different answers, and if you post the same answer to all questions then it's not a good answer.
A repeated post might possibly be good advice, without being a good answer -- see Answers vs Advice

Yes, it seems bots and ai would have to be investigated forensically on the technical side because it seems some of them are so good now many humans can't discern them. All depends on the intent of their creators and/or their intent if/when becoming autonomous

Stack Exchange's own bots are pretty harmless, and generally do clean-up activities like mass-correcting linked URLs. They also bring up some old questions to the top of the feed to encourage activity.
But what if there are external bots which are writing questions and answers?
Well, Stack Exchange also monitors for unusual activities like spamming, vandalism, mass upvoting or mass downvoting. For e.g. sock puppet accounts can be detected by the system.
And beyond that, users can flag posts, and moderators can take action. We've had commercial spammers, religious missionary spammers and vandals posting gibberish or inappropriate content in the past, and we have almost always swiftly deleted their posts.

Great, then it would be no big deal to draft protocol -- if not already existing -- for any and all interested (independent) 3rd parties to audit Buddhism.stackexchange.com and other "areas" needed to complete such auditing, right?


text:
Bug in meta badges
When I visit my profile in this meta site, the badge area notifies me that I should take the tour to earn my first badge (as normal on all SE sites). However, taking the tour neither grants the badge nor removes the notice.
Pressing the "See New Questions" button at the end of the tour takes me to the main site, not the Meta site.
This seems to be some sort of bug specific to this Beta site or to Beta sites in general.

Dupe on uber meta: The new profile shouldn't mistakenly imply that you can earn the Informed badge on a meta site (since 2015)

@AndrewT. Yes. Still a bug. However, I did not see that in EESE, which suggests to me that it’s only in beta sites.


text:
What's (and where) the different between spam and giving?
...from a Dhammic view (one that leads to liberation).
To quote an example:

I removed my forum as it was just a magnet for spammers, and no one was making use of it. I don’t find it productive to visit Buddhist forums any longer. If you want to learn about Buddhism, visit a teacher and talk to them face to face. If you’re fairly new to Buddhism, it might help to read the FAQS and FIBS below before delving deeper into the teachings on this website and elsewhere.

Then, next a "sex-issue" in another forum.
Since modern Buddhists have really strange problems with being given and defend it with "spam":
What's the underlying problem with giving or the underlying problem in being given with a feeling of "being harmful given"? Fear of having no or not wished coupling? Ie. get even free from it?
Another "try to avoid, deny" debts issue? Either to avoid it or to think "I can take"?
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, intercourse which bind but for liberation sake only)

In a comment, you tried to write, "Johann: Is it possible that Nyom Chris removes his meta-Budddhism issue "spam stuff" and tries to simply stay on topic? Surely wished when he would answer his own questions, reflections and reasoning, in the meta section. What does Nyom Chris think? Possible, or strongly believing a certain "movie" is present for all? He can, my person knows him also relaxed."

I understood the question (see the title) as asking about "when is something called 'spam' as opposed to 'giving' on an internet site"? I think we're ideally supposed to answer based on references (to scripture) or based on personal experience -- and this site is the only site I have much experience with (hence my answer being about this site).

If nobody else answer I might move this to the meta-site later; or if someone else posts a more an-topic answer I might might delete my answer which is, as you say, a meta-topic.

What and where is the different between 'spam' and 'giving'?
The narrow (original, antique) definition of "spam" is "unsolicited commercial email" -- for example if I send you an email without your asking me to, and my email is to say to you, "Buy my stuff!"
A relaxed (colloquial) definition is:

Not necessarily email -- it may be posting on a site instead
Not necessarily "commercial" -- it may be pushing a view instead

I think the chief characteristic of spam is that it's unsolicited -- i.e. no-one asked for it.
So, loosely speaking, "spam" is "unsolicited electronic communication".

Questions
On this site people are invited to post questions about Buddhism -- so questions which are on-topic (i.e. about Buddhism), and which meet the Moderation policies for Questions, are not "unsolicited" (instead, they're invited) and therefore not "spam".
That policy includes this:

"Seeded questions": the standard Stack Exchange Help says,

You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.

Also this topic includes the following popular answers:

I find seeded questions irksome

And:

I do not mind beginners asking beginner questions. I do not mind experienced people asking beginner questions because they have a gap in their training or education.

But, questions which may be intended to teach other people a lesson are less popular. If a question is to benefit you then please ask it; but not if you ask it only to teach other people.
This is similar to other policies, about answering questions and minimizing controversy:

Don't preach
Don't assume a teacher's mantle
Don't ask questions in order to self-answer them (i.e. questions posted to benefit others)

That policy is meant to avoid people asking questions in order to push views. So questions like ...

Do you want to buy my stuff?
Why don't you buy my stuff?

... aren't welcome. Or, to do with views ...

Why is school Y so wrong, compared with school X which is right?
What harm will come to you if you don't agree with my view?

... are considered as uninvited, unwelcome -- and maybe like spam because they're intended to push a view, not to ask a question.

Answers
Similarly, answers to questions are not considered spam -- they're not unsolicited because the question invites answers.
Answers should answer the question though (and answer which says, "that's the wrong question" might be not-an-answer).
And (as mentioned above) you generally shouldn't be answering your own questions.

So that's the policy on his site.
Generally, if you want to try to "give" you can do that by trying to answer questions which other people ask. That makes the communication cooperative.
Perhaps it's slightly analogous to "don't take what's not given" -- i.e. "don't give what's not asked for".
Yes that narrows the scope/usefulness of this site -- perhaps there are good things you can't say because nobody is asking.
But this is intended as a "question and answer" site, not a "forum" -- maybe its being strict about the format and content helps to make it useful, tolerable, productive, used.
What's the underlying problem with giving or the underlying problem in being given with a feeling of "being harmful given"? Fear of having no or not wished coupling?
I think you're asking, "Why do people dislike what they call 'spam'? If something is given, why call it 'spam' and dislike it, what's the problem with it, what's the harm?"
Perhaps you'e also asking, "Is it something to do with sex, i.e. coupling? Or with wanting to take rather than being given, to avoid feeling indebted?"


text:
2020 Moderator Election - Results
Buddhism's Election has come to a close! The new moderator is:

They'll be joining the existing crew shortly — please thank them for volunteering, and share your assistance and advice with them as they learn the ropes!
There was no voting for this election as we just had one candidate.

Thank you Cesar M.
I accept the election results and consent to join as a moderator of Buddhism.SE, in close cooperation with the existing moderators of Buddhism.SE.
I will just repeat my nomination text below:

I would like to volunteer myself (ruben2020) to be a moderator of
Buddhism.SE, as I wish to see this site maintained and sustained.
Growth is nice to have, but at the very least, we should maintain what
we already have, which is a reasonably active community producing good
quality Buddhism Q&A, in a manner that conforms to the Code of Conduct
and guidelines of this community.
The advantage of Buddhism.SE compared to similar sites, is that we
accept the balanced participation of all Buddhist traditions here. I
would like to see this continued.
I have been a member of Buddhism.SE for the past 6 years, and have
been actively participating in recent years.
In terms of moderation, I accept the policy of A Theory of Moderation,
that moderators are "human exception handlers", who should do as
little as possible, intervening only when necessary.

Congratulations, I trust that your efforts will help this universe! :D

Congratulations to @ruben2020 , to the other moderators and to us all, with keeping this useful site benefitting sentient beings!


text:
SE does not award Vox Populi badge, even if I use 40 votes per day
This is regarding the Buddhism SE, not its Meta.
This happened both today and yesterday. I am new to this site and I went through a lot of questions yesterday and today, and upvoted a lot. Because of that, yesterday I got the Suffrage badge for using 30 votes per day, but did not get the Vox Populi for using 40 per day, which I did yesterday. I tried the same thing today, but same result. When I viewed the progress of the badge both times after using 40 votes (I got the notification Daily vote limit reached, vote again in x hours), it showed 39 out of 40.
Is this a bug in this site only? Because I have tried this on other sites and I had no issues getting the Vox Populi there.

Perhaps this is a frequently-asked question in the main Meta site --
https://meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=vox+populi+39
And perhaps it's related to something you voted on being deleted.

I tried this again today, and this time I was careful not to vote on answers from delete users. But my current daily vote count is shown as 31 out of 40 in the badges section, and when I click the Upvote button 2 more times, I get the warning saying "5 votes left", meaning SE thinks 33 (33+2+5=40) votes has been cast for today and not 31(31+2+5=38). Then I checked the list of votes in my profile, and it shows 31 entries. So I wonder, where those additional 2 votes are?

I'm unable to see how you voted, and have no previous experience with this phenomenon. You might get a better answer on the main meta.stackexchange.com site.

Okay thank you.


text:
Where (what other forums) should I ask questions that don't quite meet the scope of Buddhism Stack Exchange?
A new contributor asked a great question a few days ago here:
How to develop fortitude?
The moderators closed the thread claiming it was not within the scope of this forum as defined by help center:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/help
I vehemently disagree with that, but regardless, we need an updated and better referral source than what help-center suggests. Only the forums dhammawheel and DHARMAwheel were suggested.
We should include a more comprehensive list of Buddhist forums.
On reddit, there is:
r/Meditation
r/Buddhism
r/Theravada
and even a couple of forums for exactly the types of question the new contributor got shut down for here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/EarlyBuddhismMeditati/
https://www.reddit.com/r/BuddhismUnlimited/

In a comment there I linked to 3 other Stack Exchange Sites -- not Buddhism -- where aspects of the question might be answered.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. If it's for a list of other online discussion or question-and-answer sites related to Buddhism, I think that might have been asked and answered on the main site?

@ChrisW: I think this question wants to get at something else: if this stack is going to hold a narrow scope on allowable questions, then what do we do when a comparative newcomer asks an ill-conceived question that falls in an unanticipated gray area? It doesn''t seem right to just brush them off.

@chrisw for one thing, exactly what I said in the OP, the help center should have a more comprehensive list of BUDDHIST forums where his question would be welcome. The suggestions you had as I recall were not buddhist stackexchange that were too general and unlikely to get Buddhists to answer.

Another issue is just with moderators sometimes being too heavy handed and lacking imagination. The question that was shut down that I linked in the OP, with slight modification, would conform to BSE, IMO. I've also had some of my comments and answers deleted in the past  supposedly for not conforming to BSE. I disagreed, but just didn't care enough to spend the time to argue my case or slightly edit the answer to meet.

The discussion that got shut down in OP, was one of the juiciest questions I've seen in a long time, dealing with racism, pandemic fear, Asian Parenting, etc., and it deserves to be referred to a place that welcomes important practical questions a buddhist meditator is seeking. I sometimes wonder if half of the forums on the internet I visit are moderated by AI that follow the rules exactly but not quite advanced enough to grok the spirit of the rules.

You, I, and Andrei all answered the original version of the question -- clearly we thought that was on-topic.

With the personal details added, Andrei closed it. Perhaps moderators worried that people would answer from personal experience or personal opinion, in a way that's not really related to Buddhism -- that's why I posted links to other sites, which might be better able to do that (if that might be the kind of answer that the OP wanted, it's hard to know).

Whoever has eyes, let them see :)

The edited question was rather broad and detailed ("in the weeds") at the same time, as well as showing virtually zero connection with B. I was concerned the combination of these qualities would prompt opinion-based answers and, quite simply, rambling.
I understand an opinion that perhaps such questions could be acceptable if we moderate answers tightly but I remain unconvinced.

First, you are being needlessly aggressive to me personally. We are not discussing my answers here. Second, our policies are already very liberal and I don't think making them more permissive will be for a long term benefit of this site. Third, in the absence of community moderation (when did you last see five votes to close a question?) moderators including myself have to make calls using their judgment. I did what I thought was right, subject to discussion and revision. Please don't get worked up just yet :)

I beg you pardon? I thought the topic was, should that and similar questions be allowed. What do you think is the topic?

Alright, I hear you. Let's see what the others say.

Me too actually, but the line must be drawn somewhere. How far off topic is too far?

After reading Andrei's comments on this thread I can understand where he's coming from for a moderation point of view. I don't have a problem with that, but I think if moderators are going to be on the non permissive side, we should have a better referral (or at least more comprehensive) referral than what's currently available. Also, there's no private messaging on stack exchange, I don't even know how to contact that new user to let him know there are other forums he can ask that on, with more permissive moderation.

@frankk I added your message to the OP as a comment to the original question. The OP should be able to see it. Please don't vandalize the question. Please write in the comments to the question. Even without a user tag, the OP should be triggered if he used a registered account.


text:
Question locked since 2020?
It seems this question about lay (householder) practice got locked and forgotten about, but it's still getting bumped by the community bot. That seems odd. Should it be unlocked, revised, or just deleted?

Thank you, I unlocked it.
Normally I shouldn't delete a question unless it's downvoted.


text:
Questions like "what do buddhists think of x?"
I posted this question, which got put on hold by an admin with the statement

At the moment this reads as "DMT is cool, what do Buddhists think?" which is not enough to pass as a valid question.

I dont see a problem with this kind of question, because it has the intend to be inspiring. Effectively, the admin is blocking the introduction of a new topic into this community (not just DMT). Since I cannot find anything about DMT on this site, I have to start with a post like that, introducing the reader to it.

It isnt mentioned at all, which i found very strange

Briefly,

This is a question-and-answer site -- a site for asking questions (about Buddhism)
You wrote, "Thats why I wanted to start a discussion about this here" -- but the Tour says,

This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat.

This particular site has policies against posting question in order to promote your own views, e.g.:

Are we here to preach and make converts?
May I share my research, by posting questions on this site and self-answering them?

IOW the site is for "asking a question" -- it's not for advertising (e.g. "DMT exists!") and it's not for pushing a view (e.g. "DMT is interesting!")
The fact that DMT is illegal makes it a dubious topic.
This site's Moderation policies for Questions is unusually/relatively permissive -- but one of the few types of "question" that's considered "not a question" is "polling questions" -- e.g. questions like "what's your experience with X?" or "what's your favourite Y?"
Good answers are usually based on something -- based on references or on personal experience. A good question is a question which can theoretically be answered well.
But this wasn't a question at all -- there was no question-mark.
Asking "What do Buddhists think about X?" isn't enough to make "X" on-topic -- e.g. "What do Buddhists think about this spinach pie recipe?" wouldn't be on-topic.
The site is I think mostly/only for questions about Buddhist doctrine, and Buddhist practice, and the application of doctrine and practice to daily life (there are also a few questions about Buddhist art and history).
A question like "Is there Buddhist doctrine about X?" might be more on-topic.
I'm not sure what Buddhist doctrine about DMT there might exist -- so far as I know it wasn't endemic to Asia, and was therefore unknown to classic Buddhist societies -- questions on the site are mostly (not exclusively) about classic Buddhist doctrine, pre-20th-century.
The Buddhist "fifth precept" is anti-alcohol -- many contemporary interpretations of that forbid hallucinogens too.

Why did you imagine it's relevant to Buddhism -- or what school of Buddhism, what Buddhist doctrine or practice, were you thinking of when you posted?

"Why did you imagine it's relevant to Buddhism [...]?" Because its users suddenly believe in rebirth. Because the entities the volunteers describe might fit some desciption of beings in higher realms.

To answer the question I guess I'd have to a) know about DMT b) know about rebirth according to Buddhism c) compare the two. This site sometimes allows "comparative religion" questions (e.g. "how is 'faith' in Christianity like or unlike 'faith' in Buddhism?"). I think our policy is that comparative questions are allowed if it's more about Buddhism than it is about the other religion. But from the wording, this (non-)question was more about DMT than it is asking about Buddhism.

The sentence "Maybe a reader of this text might recognize other things in these reports stated in the Dhamma"  can be phrased as a question: "do you see any parallels between what is written in the suttas and the things reported here?". Any question is an affordance to the reader to be answered. Why does this affordance have to end with a question mark?

Because this is a question and answer site, where answers are expected to answer the question -- "The best answers deal directly and solely with the question(s) specifically asked in the first place" If I read the text and don't understand what the question was, then I search it for a question mark.

What should I do now?

One of the first things I did on this site was ask a question about 'rebirth'. That was a start, it took me longer than that however to get a better understanding of the topic. I've heard of Jordan Peterson before (in other contexts) -- when I Googled, today's news is of his entering rehab for addiction. Theoretically SE is for expert Q&A -- this might be a useful site if you want to learn/ask more about classic/mainstream Buddhism -- especially non-Western. Only, not necessarily about drug use/abuse/experiences.

You could try to post a new, more-on-topic question. Or read existing questions to see what kinds of questions are on-topic. Or edit the existing question. Or leave it as-is to see whether the community will vote to reopen it (which they could, I doubt they will though). Or delete the question -- or do nothing (then the question (if it isn't reopened) will be auto-deleted after about a week).

There are no questions with that phrasing on the site -- https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=%22what+do+Buddhist+think%22


text:
My previous question was totally serious, but was closed down
Alan Wallace site suggested I post any question here. Clearly this was a mistake. Please close my account here.

might wanna try dhammawheel.com also. You might have better luck there..

Sorry you didn't get the answer you were hoping for. You can ask most questions here -- but maybe not that one, for reasons which aren't easy to explain. You can simply abandon your account here if you don't want to reuse it in future; or if you want to delete your account, please see How do I delete my account?

You can delete your account from here.


text:
why is there a buddhism meta forum?
i was on buddhism.stackexchange.com  and i clicked on the meta link and it brought me to buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com, but I was expecting to redirect to meta.stackexchange.com.  What is buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com for?

Every StackExchange site has its own Meta site too.
Buddhism Meta SE is meant for Q&A on the operations and moderation of Buddhism SE.
So, if you have any technical questions (like "why have some of my points disappeared?"), questions on moderation decisions (like "why was this question of mine closed?"), suggestions for improvements of Buddhism SE (like "why don't we reorganize the tags in this way?") etc. you should discuss it here, on Buddhism Meta SE, and not Buddhism SE.
The moderators may also use Buddhism Meta SE to explain some policies.
Meta SE is like the meta for the whole platform, not just Buddhism SE. You can ask questions there like "why don't StackExchange introduce two factor authentication?"


text:
moderator intervention notifications
Is it possible to get notification when moderators delete content - comments, questions, answers, etc - of content providers?  I don't necessarily mind my content being deleted if it's not meeting the forum's standard, but there is no notification when content is deleted by moderators.  I would prefer an e-mail, but inbox notification is also fine.

There is no automatic way to generate a notification that I know of.
I think this query will list your deleted questions and answers, you can run this whenever you like:

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?tab=newest&q=user%3a19249%20deleted%3a1&searchOn=3

That user ID (19249) identifies your account.
Most users can see their own deleted posts, but not other users'.
Moderators can also see deleted comments, but I don't know that other users can, not even their own.

Yes, I searched another site's meta-site ...

https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=deleted+comments

... and found topics there like these ...

Ability to see own deleted comments
Please notify users when their comment is deleted

... which confirm that users can't see their own deleted comments and aren't notified if a comment is deleted.
Instead I should have searched the main meta-site here:

https://meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=deleted+comments

... but that says much the same thing, for example:

Let us view our deleted comments

thanks..not really what i'm looking for...i guess notification via inbox or something like that would have been the thing..oh well.


text:
What does a reputation deduction with the description “User was removed” mean?
I noticed this in my account this morning, and I would like to know what it means.

There's some explanation of that here, on the main Meta-site -- What does “user was removed” mean and why did my reputation change because of it?
There's also a Help topic on the subject -- Why do I have a reputation change on my reputation page that says 'User was removed'?

Thank you, Chris.

You're welcome. Would you "Accept" this answer? Because otherwise it will keep bubbling to the top of the Active list as an "Unanswered question" in future.


text:
What is the goal of this community?
When the Buddha attained liberation he immediately dedicated his life to the selfless goal of helping others end their suffering.
There are people posting questions who are in need of responses that can steer them in the right direction. All I have seen is dogmatic responses that they never accept as an answer. I am just asking you to think about what you are doing. Is that OK?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that answers should be less "dogmatic"? Might you explain what that word means, perhaps with references to specific examples of some more-dogmatic ('worse') and less-dogmatic ('better') answers? Do you mean the word literally, i.e. a dogmatic answer being any answer which references dogma, canonical scripture, e.g. suttas?

What is the goal of this community? Freedom should not be sacrificed for safety, nor safety for freedom. It must be difficult sometimes trying to be a fair moderator.

What way is not one way or another?  I don't know what is going on but when someone tries to persuade you, you don't have to take it personally. Stuff is happening. That's it. Samsara isn't anything personal.

The goal of this community is not to answer ones individual questions or personal issues, something the OP would and should need to go and deal with IRL, ideally with the sangha.
The goal of the community is to answer questions in a way that is used as a source of information, so that others can search for the answers to the questions they seek themselves.
i.e, OP states "X event happened to me, how do I deal with the suffering of X event"
People answer with quoting sources of Buddhas teachings, not personal anecdotes.
This is NOT a self help group. If you think it is and that is something you want you are in the wrong place. This is a reference of information relating to Buddhas teachings and Buddhism. Evident as to you or I can actually alter the question itself to make it more in line with the intentions of the group, to be less of a personal question and more generic to fit in line as a source of information.
The reason why answers are not "chosen" is simply because the OP didn't know the answer to the question, or the question would not have been asked in the first place. The answers are multiple faced and in most cases all correct. As well as the thread gets neglected by OP. There is only a need to actually close a thread when no more information can be added, which in most cases is never. We can still answer questions from a decade ago if you like. Something people often do in fact!.
Also choosing an answer is not needed as the voting system does the same job. Its akin to old yahoo answers format.

Who is the OP? Maybe some people don't know what that is. Not me of course.

If you do not know what basic online acronym, abbreviations and general decades old online slang are....well you should not be using the internet in such a way that you are trying to give opinions, but instead need to git gud at interwebz and lurk moar before posting.


text:
Isn't it useful to have a content Posting section and Filtered content searching?
Posting section
Isn't it useful to have a personal posting section for personal opinions, experience, (something similar to social media)?
Filtered content searching
Isn't it useful to have off stack content search service inside every stack site, filtered by the subject of every stack site?
Otherwise, sometimes, by the nature of not use of seeded questions, some stack sites lack very major points/information regarding a subject on a relevant stack sites.

Posting section
We (users and moderators of this site) can't change the built-in functionality of this web site -- e.g. its software, navigation tools, etc.
Therefore for example we can't create a different section.
You could post a feature-request on the SE network's main meta-site i.e. https://meta.stackexchange.com/ but I doubt that would be effective.
Without changing the site in theory we might try to use it differently, e.g. try to simulate a different section by defining a new tag like personal-opinion -- and agree collectively that posts using this are not subject to the usual Q&A format, and instead any and all personal opinion is on-topic -- however:

It's not evident how to moderate that

It's not what the site is for, which is as stated on the Tour page:

It's so contrary to what's normal that I doubt whether I should go along with it, as moderator -- part of my role here is to help people use the site as it's described in all the various Help topic, including the Code of Conduct:

A lot of what you're asking for is why there is a "chat" section:

https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/15162/buddhism
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/chat

But people of this site tend not to use the "chat" room, for whatever reason.
Filtered content searching
Again we can't implement new software e.g. "a search feature".
Maybe you'd like the Community Wiki.
It's an old idea, introduced in 2011 and maybe deprecated later -- but some topics might perhaps do well with a Community Wiki page?
Here's an example of one:

Terminology index - a list of bike part names and cycling concepts

That's maybe an example of a "search"-related topic.


text:
Amazon links are broken
I was trying to link to wisdom publication books on amazon, as they are copyright, and just noticed that amazon links are broken.
It seems like it happened years ago and was fixed on stackexchange here.
This is what is showing on buddhism stackexchange: https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B003XRDC2K
instead of https://www.amazon.com/Middle-Length-Discourses-Buddha-Translation-ebook/dp/B003XRDC2K

Are they broken?

When I go to https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B003XRDC2K then I'm redirected to the correct link.
I'm not sure how they were "fixed", the post you linked to said that the rads.stackoverflow.com domain was down.
Othercomments there and elsewhere say the problem may be caused by using an ad blocker (which I don't).

I don't think they are any different on other sites that here -- for example the post which you linked to i.e. ...

Amazon links are broken network-wide

... references this post on StackOverflow ...

The Definitive C Book Guide and List

... and the links in that post are still in rads format:

I must be behind a something that is blocking the links, thanks for the clarification. I will follow up, glad they are not broken

I also hope that hyperlinks in posts would also include the title of the book, in the text of link -- so that you can read the title whether or not the link it broken. One would be welcome to tell me if any don't, I would fix that.

Greetings @ChrisW, good idea, I will revise the posts in the future to do as you have suggested


text:
10th Anniversary of Buddhism SE!
In June Buddhism SE will turn 10 years old. Congratulations on asking, answering, voting, and building this community for a whole decade!
Whenever a Stack Exchange site turns 10 we like to celebrate by encouraging users to reflect on their experiences here.
How did you first discover the site? Do you have a favorite question or answer that helped you solve a problem? Any funny anecdotes or other insights on your time here, that you would like to share? We want to hear it all!


text:
Is there something wrong with this question about "Buddhism and Relativity"?
Wouldn't it be nice if the elite on this site help new resourceful people come up.They can help new people gain more rep depending on their behavior.we are all trying to help each other please consider this proposal.
I posted the following question on the main site, and one of the moderators deleted it:

Buddhism and Reletivity
According to Albert Einstein when you reach higher speeds (Speed of light) you can go faster than time itself,so you will be able to go and see the future.when Buddhism describe the speed of "Deva's/Brahma's" they can reach anywhere within seconds,So are they travelling through time?
theravada science

Is this a good question or a bad question: do you agree with its being closed, or should it be left open to answers?
If you think it is not suitable for this site, can you explain what's wrong with it?
If you don't think that it's suitable as it is (quoted above), can you suggest how to edit/change it to make it suitable so that it could be reopened?

Yes @nocomprende some elite users might be a bit driven by their ego.sometimes new fields of discussions appear but when you ask such a thing some elites don't like it.     For example i asked a question about Buddhism's perspective on relativity after watching a documentary that mentioned some details about Buddhist perspective.But before anyone answered it within minutes an elite deleted it.I think great power should come with a fair mind and responsibility.

Thanks for the tip.Life is hard even on this :)

You wrote "please consider this proposal" but are you proposing any specific form of help? Would you like some help with something? What would you like help with, or what form of help would you like?

thank you for taking time to read my posting.This is what happened to me...  Some elite users might be a bit driven by their ego.sometimes new fields of discussions appear but when you ask such a thing some elites don't like it. For example i asked a question about Buddhism's perspective on relativity after watching a documentary that mentioned some details about Buddhist perspective.But before anyone answered it within minutes an elite deleted it.I think great power should come with a fair mind and responsibility. @ChrisW

Sometimes people (i.e. the moderators and/or other users in the community) decide to close a question on the main site. If you disagree with or want to question that decision, you're right that you can use this meta-site to do that, using the [meta-tag:specific-question] tag.

Thank you @ChrisW :)

I agree that it's not a suitable question for this site (i.e. it is not a question which is likely to attract good answers).
Some problems with the question include:

I don't think Einstein said that "you can go faster than time itself" (instead, Physics talks about spacetime and about light cones)
"Are they travelling through time?" isn't a clear question

The site has had some questions like this in the past: see e.g. Is our mind faster than light?
This question is based on mistaken assumptions and many of its answers are meaningless.
Most users of this site don't really know Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and so it's not worth asking people about it here; also theoretical Physics is not really on-topic on this site.
This blog entry Good Subjective, Bad Subjective suggests that

your answers must be based on either:

Something that happened to you personally
Something you can back up with a reference

Given that ...

Acting as a Deva or Brahma isn't something which people have "personal experience" with
Einstein's Relativity isn't a subject that's described in (pre-20th century) Buddhist references

... therefore I think it's not a question which will attract sensible and useful answers.

I will better my way of asking questions nest time Thank you @chrisw :)

This question (and similar ones) 'rings bells' of two scenes in me (i.e. it reminds me of two scenes).
It is not only that I doubt this is a good and acceptable question for the *Q&A-site whose topic is "Buddhism": not only because it is --while boldly formulated-- based on a false premise; but also because it (and a bunch of sister-questions) ignores the Buddha's hint to not to speculate too much about fruitless constructs of the mind (constructs of rationality/reason): it is (in my opinion) surely OK to ask such a question one time - but I would also expect a learning curve (I expect the type of question to change), and everyone knows, there are trolls around (who repeat the same types of question)...
A second aspect why --and now for completely personal reasons-- I tend to dislike such questions because since my early youth in school and later with friends I've met people with this style of "philosophical" playing with concepts of the modern time: and what remained to me from that time was a big grief about that near and remote friends, because that "questioning", that "discussing", did not lead to anything, let only to more unhappiness, more contention in life, delivering/lighting-life-problems. Thus also, in politics (when I was a student), I liked more to be with the "Unionists" instead of being with the "anarchists" or other "utopists": because I didn't find the relation to the discussants' true life, the problems with their partners, with their own life-perspectives and even more with their problems, to feel happily embedded in society with near fellows and people around them.
So when I now come across questions which ring that bell, the same old grief comes from the memory and I feel unlucky to see, that again in the next generation such "lost minds" (as I may provisionally denote it here) are following such a zig-zag-path so far away from life-related thinking/consideration/meditation.
As I said, all the latter is purely personal and does not matter for the question whether such questions are acceptable for this site. But it makes me an impulse to even give a downvote (which I do very rarely in general) - especially if I do not see subsequent improvements with increasing "seriousness" (in my view) and personal attempts to resolve such questions by one's own thinking (and possibly by doing simple research in the Pali-canon or other resources first). So that part of my answer might explain my emotion to give a downvote sometimes, instead of simple ignoring of questions.
Giving it a perspective, seeing not only a single, individual, question but a set of them, a history, a "form" of them: I wouldn't like this Q&A-board to cultivate such fruitless speculatiions, the bell rings: "oops, this might go in the wrong, in an unwanted, in an unwholesome direction".
I hope that personal reflection does not frustrate now you !  - but helps to explain, that beneath such possible downvoting by me there is still an impulse to correct something which I associate with unfortunate praxis of looking at life (and thus unavoidable self-training when repeated) - (think that this is after now about 50 years long experiences with myself and with our "folks around").

@ChrisW: thank you for the profound edit :-) (I've been a bit in a hurry in the morning)


text:
If thumbs down the person has to give a reason for it
I am new to the forum and I got a thumbs down (minus) to one of my questions. It is a good idea if the person can give the reason for the thumbs down.

Yes it generally is a good idea: it can be helpful if they can and do leave a comment.
Voting is anonymous and it's impossible to require a user to do to that: we can only ask them to.
I edited your question to include the additional explanation which you posted in comments. I think the question is clearer now.

Thank you Chris W. -)