text:
What is the level of similarity in a question for it to be a duplicate?
What is the level of similarity for a question to be judged a duplicate?
If 2 questions are such that you end up with a similar answer does this mean the questions are duplicates:
E.g.

Why do planets form into spherical objects? vs
Why do soap bubbles form spherical objects?

I think SE thinks duplicate answers are OK.

One thing I want to be clear about, though, is that duplication is not necessarily bad. Quite the contrary -- some duplication is desirable. There’s often benefit to having multiple subtle variants of a question around, as people tend to ask and search using completely different words, and the better our coverage, the better odds people can find the answer they’re looking for. And isn't that, really, the whole point of this exercise?
Furthermore, it's OK for duplicate questions to have duplicate answers. While you could argue that the duplicate questions could all be merged into one question with a "master" set of answers, this is kind of irritating from the perspective of the user looking for an answer. Put yourself in their shoes. Instead of finding ...

Source: Dr. Strangedupe: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love Duplication

As for the treatment of the following question:
On the other had I just closed one of the following two questions as a duplicate:

Does the level of awareness of an awakened buddhist also stay the
same event when he
sleeps?
But when an enlightened person lives he could be in the present all
the time. But when you sleep your conscious/awareness may be different
or just disappear.
So does the level of awareness of an enlightened person also change or
stay the same even when sleeping.

And:

Do Arhats sleep?
I have read somewhere that Arhats (people who attained Nirvana) do not
sleep like normal people do. Instead they just stay calm in a suitable
position to give the rest required for the physical body, but their
mind is always alert...
Is this true?

I don't agree with what happened on couple of fronts:

The terminology and what exactly being asked does differ significantly to leave it open.
I do not agree with the deleting of my answer to this question despite the rational given. I think moderators should be more sensitive to topics of controversy and debate including topics around: on or linked to fallibility of an Arhat, unconscious, subconscious, Luminous mind, but not limited to such topics. Or any other topics which there are variations among schools / lineages or are subjected to debate and disagreement where not everyone holds the same POV. Such questions either should not be closed so all can add their POV or close without answers. In case of answers which are not spam should be allowed especially if it is strongly tied to a specific POV. (My answer in this case represented a POV and I did not want to put more effort than needed.) If it is a closed question with some answers users will get only the POVs represented with no ability to add any more from different schools. If a POV is removed while other remain it will disadvantage the particular school / lineage being represented properly. Having a link in a comment is not a solution if there are other answers as the chances of people going through these links are less than scrolling. Every POV should have a fair chance to be represented, especially there is variations.

either on this site. E.g. The impact of the subconscious mind on the conscious mind, What's the difference between a "primordial consciousness" and a soul?, What are the positions of the different schools on a primordial mind?
among schools. E.g. see discussion in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavanga
historically being a point of schism and debate which perhaps lead to splits among schools and lineages

I suppose it's subjective (i.e. it's something which we must use our intelligence to decide, machine-like rules can't decide that for us), and so it's something we vote on.

Subjectivity and judgement is double edged sword. If used wisely it is good. But this can also be used as means to justify prejudice, discrimination or furthering one's own agenda or POV or means of censorship or bias.

I (personally) don't like to see copy-and-pasted answers (exactly the same answer in more than one topic).

This is a personal opinion and you should not let personal opinions get into moderation decisions. There may be instance this should be discouraged. There is definitely manpower shortage regarding contribution from Ledi traditions. Once we reach a critical mass of contributors perhaps maybe this can be the case. Until such time there is so much effort one can put.

The SE software raises a moderator flag when an answer is copy-and-pasted, so I suppose that SE too doesn't like or is suspicious of copy-and-pasted answers.

Copy and past maybe spamming. In my case it is not spam. It validly answers the  question also. Since there are answers I believe it should be open and my answer also represented.

Instead of copy-and-pasting an answer it might be better to vote-to-close as duplicate

This is sufficiently different. Also depending on the topic as noted before I do not feel this is in some cases the best action when there are answers or incase there no enough close voted where your close vote will close the question before answers.

It says that "multiple subtle variants" is tolerated in a question, and that we shouldn't try to combine "semi-related" questions. But when I see an "exact" duplicate then I'll close it. Or if I see a difference (in the question) then I'll post a different answer.

The post does not mention it cannot be an exact duplicate.

"please continue to close and merge duplicates as you see fit"

Duplicate Answer Flag and How should one respond to “duplicate answer” flags? and similar say it's OK to post duplicate answers to different (similar but non-duplicate) questions ... but that duplicate answers are a warning that the question might be an exact duplicate.

These are waning but does not mean duplicated. The question is sufficiently different. Any way I do not see the rationale of deleting the answer and it will be helpful if someone does not visit the other question since it already has an answer. In which case recreate this answer in the other question and delete it also.

What's the difference between the two questions? In what way are the two questions different?

This question asks the level of awareness/conciousness of an Arhat and this asks if Arhats Sleep. In this observes that awareness of a normal person drops to nothing during sleep asks if it chages in the case of an Arhat regardless of whther an Arhath speels or not.

Do Arhats sleep? is also asking whether "their mind is always alert", which I think is the same as Does the level of awareness of an awakened buddhist also stay the same event when he sleeps? which asks whether "conscious/awareness may be different or just disappear" during sleep. I don't see any difference between those two questions.

One is asking if is black or white and the other is asking if it pure black or can it be slightly off black or gray.

With regard to deleted answer of mine it is best all answer are deleted it you want to keep this close.

I feel the question should be left open with my answer also. If you are adamant always what you way or no other way, then at least either delete the other answer or if possible migrate to the other thread. You are inadvertently disfavoring one tradition over the other through your moderation action.

I still don't see a difference (so I won't reopen immediately), but I'll wait a bit and if any more people vote to reopen it then I'll reopen it, otherwise I'll leave it close but merge the answers. Thank you for pointing out that answers can be merged, I've never previously done that and had forgotten or never knew that feature existed (instead I imagined, mistakenly, that when questions are linked by comments then people would read both answers).

Also IMO this example was a better way to answer than to copy-and-paste your previous answer: because it links to your previous answer but also links to the other answers on that similar (almost-duplicate) topic.

This site being small and number of hits on a page is small with the users having the ability to cast reopen votes (500) are small this is an indirect way to get what you want. You should very well know that the cases are next to nothing. So I reiterate my position, there should be no answers if the question remains closed and open if answers are retained.

Since you think it's important, please remind me next week, so that other people have an opportunity (between now and then) to participate in the decision if they want to.

I reopened it..

I suppose it's subjective (i.e. it's something which we must use our intelligence to decide, machine-like rules can't decide that for us), and so it's something we vote on.
As you know, as a moderator I usually avoid voting to close a question (because my vote isn't a "vote", it's binding), but I will close topic I see as duplicates (and people don't usually complain when I do).
However there are many topics on the site and I don't remember every one: if I don't vote that doesn't mean it's not a duplicate, it may just mean that I haven't noticed that there is a duplicate.
And so I recommend that you vote to close topics which you consider to be duplicates.
In general I'd suggest that topics are identical if they have exactly the same answer ... if one question asks something different then it deserves a different answer, so if they don't deserve different answers maybe they're asking the same thing.

I (personally) don't like to see copy-and-pasted answers (exactly the same answer in more than one topic).
The SE software raises a moderator flag when an answer is copy-and-pasted, so I suppose that SE too doesn't like or is suspicious of copy-and-pasted answers.
Instead of copy-and-pasting an answer it might be better to vote-to-close as duplicate (if you think it is a duplicate); or, post a "see also" comment (if you think it's not quite a duplicate, but so closely related that the OP would be interested in reading an answer that was posted in reply to the previous topic).

This isn't a duplicate IMO:

Why do planets form into spherical objects? vs
Why do soap bubbles form spherical objects?

They actually have different answers (the first is caused by "gravity" and the second is caused by "surface tension", though both are caused by "minimizing potential energy" or something like that).

On the other had I just closed one of the following two questions as a duplicate:

Does the level of awareness of an awakened buddhist also stay the
  same event when he
  sleeps?
But when an enlightened person lives he could be in the present all
  the time. But when you sleep your conscious/awareness may be different
  or just disappear.
So does the level of awareness of an enlightened person also change or
  stay the same even when sleeping.

And:

Do Arhats sleep?
I have read somewhere that Arhats (people who attained Nirvana) do not
  sleep like normal people do. Instead they just stay calm in a suitable
  position to give the rest required for the physical body, but their
  mind is always alert...
Is this true?

I dont see anything that one is asking which the other isn't already asking, furthermore one attracted exactly the same answer as the other.
Conversely, these aren't exact duplicates:

Mindfulness during sleep -- this is about "monastics" not arhats, and about "training methods" not about already-enlightened people
Sleep, references to the buddha and other arhats -- this is asking whether the Buddha "slept little", not about whether he remained aware/alert during sleep

Please read this Help topic: Why are some questions marked as duplicate?


text:
Which tags for questions on texts?
Right now we have the following tags that are related to buddhist texts.

pali-canon x  13
sutras x 9
texts x 8
scripture x 2
canon x 2
buddhist-text x 1

Most seem rather redundant to me, but which tags should we mark as synonym?
Personally I'm in favor of keeping pali-canon  for questions about the pali canon in general and sutras for questions about specific buddhist texts. We can mark texts, scripture and buddhist-text as synonym of sutras. The one tag I'm not sure what to do with is canon

Great suggestion! I would make canon a synonym of pali-canon (is there any other canon in Buddhism?)
Not all texts belong to either pali-canon or sutras though, even in Theravada e.g. Milinda-panha, Visuddhimagga. Plus, there are Mahayana & Vajrayana texts that are not sutras.
One approach is to standardize on texts as the most encompassing tag, to be accompanied by another tag specifying a school e.g.

early-buddhism texts
theravada texts
mahayana texts
tibetan-buddhism texts

Interesting point about the pali canon being the only canon. I'm not sure if that's true (sorry) so I have asked the question on the main site http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/2428/157

I don't have any personal knowledge of this but this answer indicates a Chinese canon: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1525/what-are-the-canonical-texts-for-the-buddhisms-of-the-world/1760#1760

Yes, i suppose my point re:canon is arguable (although both Kanjur and Chinese body of Buddhist literature both being fuzzy / open-ended collections they are hardly canons in strict Western sense of the word) -- but practically speaking i don't expect many people to routinely tag or search for Kanjur / Chinese texts using the "canon" tag. Heck, i dont really expect more than a handful questions on these.

It might be more efficient for someone to be able to (for example) hit a tag of "tibetan-buddhism texts" than "tibetan-buddhism" and "texts" to zero in on the particular texts they were seeking without having to sort through all things marked "texts".

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What to do if I am a victim of revenge downvotes?
If someone decides to go to many of my posts (answers or questions), and downvote all of them in revenge, what can I do?

should this be faq or faq-proposed, or is it very rare on this site?

@ChrisW Any comments on faq, faq-proposed?

StackExchange has an automated script to scan voting patterns and automatically reverse any abnormal patterns of serial voting (both downvotes and upvotes). However, this runs once every 24 hours according to this Meta SE answer.
So, the recommendation is to wait for up to 48 hours for the automatic voting correction to take place. If it does not take place, then please report to a moderator using a flag. You may flag any one of your own answers or questions that was suspected to have been revenge downvoted. One is enough.
If the abnormal pattern of voting was automatically corrected, the Reputation tab on your profile will show "Voting corrected (learn more)".

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


text:
Unregistered user, or user with multiple unregistered accounts
There is a Mike Olds who wrote this answer and this answer, with this account and this account. Both appear to be the same person, but writing different answers with different unregistered accounts.
It appears that on every new session he uses this site, he may be doing so as a different user.
This appears to be a problem. How can this be prevented or avoided?
And Mike Olds probably needs a fix.

Users are allowed to use unregistered accounts.
I brought up this topic with him via comments once and he declined, saying (I forget the exact words he used) that he will no longer register on an internet sites (e.g. this site) -- so that's his choice.
Nevertheless each of his posts is welcome (good answers), and his meta-behaviour as a user is good (answering questions, not criticising other users, not using multiple accounts in order to evade moderation).
I believe he is the author/editor of http://obo.genaud.net/

@SamanaJohann Yes really -- "Users are allowed to use unregistered accounts" is SE policy -- it is "by design" i.e. if SE didn't want to permit it then their software wouldn't allow it. I think it's because SE want to make it possible for users to participate easily.

It's sometimes easier for me and other users if any regular/frequent users do have registered accounts (also users aren't allowed to use unregistered or alternate accounts to evade moderation, e.g. to post even while their main account is suspended).

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


text:
How can I promote my Buddhist site, product or service?
I have my own Buddhism-related site/ Discord server/ Telegram group/ YouTube channel/ discussion forum/ Twitter channel/ Facebook group/ blog/ book/ product/ service etc. that is not directly related to Buddhism Stack Exchange.
How can I promote it here?
It seems to get flagged as spam and deleted. Is there a way that I can promote it?

Firstly, please read "How to not be a spammer" from Buddhism SE's Help center.
Any post (question or answer or comment) that exists solely to promote a site, product or service, and serves no other purpose, will be flagged as spam and deleted.
Also, this is a Q&A site, and not a discussion forum.
Genuine questions or answers that include third party links to support the post, may be acceptable, provided the author clearly discloses his or her affiliation. The reader should not have to click the link in order to understand the question or benefit from the answer. The question or answer should summarize the relevant contents from the link.
Buddhism-related non-profit sites, products and services may be promoted in the Buddhism SE chatroom, provided the author clearly discloses his or her affiliation. I have not seen any Stack Exchange rules prohibiting this so far.
As stated on this page, Stack Exchange also offers free community promotion ads for non-profit organizations.


text:
Help me to ask an question I have found source called "How a Mother Would Tell the Buddha’s Birth Story
"
I've found this source How a Mother Would Tell the Buddha’s Birth Story.
I want to share this with all of you my Buddhist friends.
So ask a question relates to this source and use the source to answer it.
Thank you.


text:
A question has been answered but the user missed to accept and is now gone. How to avoid "bumping to homepage" automatically?
The question MPNS has just been bumped on the homepage by the automatic bot. However the author has left the scene and there is an answer, however unaccepted. Can something be done such that B.SE "closes the case" and that "bumping-to-homepage" does not enter an infinite repetition?

Thanks for asking. I think the bot will bump it if:

No answer or
No accepted or upvoted answer

I upvoted (so, that topic shouldn't be bumped again).
I didn't upvote originally because I could't tell whether that answer was "right" ... but based on the OP's comments they did find useful, so upvoted now.
P.S. If you don't upvote or accept this meta-answer, then the bot will also bump this meta-answer eventually.

Correction: Community bot doesn't bump questions without answers. It only bumps... "Questions with at least 30 days of no activity, at least one answer scoring zero, and no answers scoring above that. Questions that are locked or closed will not be bumped." (ref. FAQ)


text:
2023: a year in moderation

It’s that time of the year again! As we wave goodbye to last year and welcome the new one, we have a tradition of sharing moderation stats for the preceding calendar year.
As most of you here might be aware, sites on the Stack Exchange network are moderated somewhat differently to other sites on the web:

We designed the Stack Exchange network engine to be mostly self-regulating, in that we amortize the overall moderation cost of the system across thousands of teeny-tiny slices of effort contributed by regular, everyday users.
-- A Theory of Moderation

That doesn't eliminate the need for having moderators altogether, but it does mean that the bulk of moderation work is carried out by regular folks — folks like you. Every bit of time and effort y'all contribute to the site gives you access to more privileges you can use to help in this effort, all of which produce a cumulative effect that makes a big difference in ensuring Stack Exchange sites remain a valuable source of high-quality content on the web.
So as we say goodbye to 2023 (and January 2024… ahem) and move into 2024, let us look back at what we accomplished as a community... by looking at some exciting stats. Below is a breakdown of moderation actions performed on Buddhism over the past 12 months:

Action
Moderators
Community User¹
Community²

All comments on a post moved to chat
10
0
0

Answer flags handled
71
16
0

Answers flagged
4
23
60

Bounties canceled
0
0
0

Comment flags handled
71
15
0

Comments deleted⁸
417
16
682

Comments flagged
2
20
64

Comments undeleted
19
0
0

Escalations to the Community Manager team
1
0
0

Posts bumped
0
210
0

Posts deleted⁷
93
78
245

Posts locked
6
11
0

Posts undeleted
2
0
57

Posts unlocked
1
0
0

Question flags handled⁶
28
30
2

Questions closed
31
0
0

Questions flagged⁶
2
13
43

Questions merged
0
0
0

Questions migrated
1
0
0

Questions protected
0
1
0

Questions reopened
4
0
0

Questions unprotected
0
0
0

Revisions redacted
0
0
0

Tag highlight language set
0
0
0

Tag synonyms created
0
0
0

Tag synonyms proposed
0
0
0

Tags merged
0
0
0

Tasks reviewed⁵: "Close votes" queue
14
0
0

Tasks reviewed⁵: "First answers" queue
43
5
20

Tasks reviewed⁵: "First questions" queue
16
0
0

Tasks reviewed⁵: "Late answers" queue
16
0
0

Tasks reviewed⁵: "Low quality posts" queue
4
3
0

Tasks reviewed⁵: "Reopen votes" queue
0
0
0

Tasks reviewed⁵: "Suggested edits" queue
30
5
17

Tasks reviewed⁵: "Triage" queue
0
0
0

User banned from review
0
0
0

User review-bans lifted early
0
0
0

User suspensions lifted early
0
0
0

Users contacted
7
0
0

Users deleted
0
0
0

Users destroyed⁴
8
0
0

Users suspended³
4
8
0

Footnotes
¹ This refers to the automated systems otherwise known as user #-1.
² This refers to the membership of Buddhism without diamonds next to their names.
³ The system will suspend users under three circumstances: when a user is recreated after being previously suspended, when a user is recreated after being destroyed for spam or abuse, and when a network-wide suspension is in effect on an account.
⁴ A "destroyed" user is deleted along with all that they had posted: questions, answers, comments. Generally used as an expedient way of getting rid of spam.
⁵ This counts every review that was submitted (not skipped) - so the 2 suggested edits reviews needed to approve an edit would count as 2, the goal being to indicate the frequency of moderation actions. This also applies to flags, etc.
⁶ Includes close flags (but not close or reopen votes). The community² can handle these flags by at least one person voting to close a question that has a close flag.
⁷ This ignores numerous deletions that happen automatically in response to some other action.
⁸ This includes comments deleted by their own authors (which also account for some number of handled comment flags).
Further reading:

Wanna see how these numbers have changed over time? We posted a similar report here last year: 2022: a year in moderation

You can also check out this report on other sites

Or peruse detailed information on the number of questions closed and reopened across all sites

Wishing everyone a happy 2024! ^_^


text:
2021: a year in moderation

As we say goodbye to the old year and welcome the new one, we have a tradition of sharing moderation stats for the preceding calendar year.
As most of you here are aware, sites on the Stack Exchange network are moderated somewhat differently to other sites on the web:

We designed the Stack Exchange network engine to be mostly self-regulating, in that we amortize the overall moderation cost of the system across thousands of teeny-tiny slices of effort contributed by regular, everyday users.
-- A Theory of Moderation

That doesn't eliminate the need for having moderators altogether, but it does mean that the bulk of moderation work is carried out by regular folks. Every bit of time and effort y'all contribute to the site gives you access to more privileges you can use to help in this effort, all of which produce a cumulative effect that makes a big difference.
So as we say goodbye to 2021, let us look back at what we accomplished as a community... by looking at some exciting stats. Below is a breakdown of moderation actions performed on Buddhism over the past 12 months:

Action
Moderators
Community¹

Users suspended²
4
14

Users destroyed³
11
0

Users deleted
4
0

Users contacted
7
0

Tasks reviewed⁴: Suggested Edit queue
59
27

Tasks reviewed⁴: Reopen Vote queue
8
1

Tasks reviewed⁴: Low Quality Posts queue
18
3

Tasks reviewed⁴: Late Answer queue
81
31

Tasks reviewed⁴: First questions queue
21
0

Tasks reviewed⁴: First Post queue
135
46

Tasks reviewed⁴: First answers queue
50
10

Tasks reviewed⁴: Close Votes queue
22
6

Questions reopened
20
0

Questions protected
15
4

Questions migrated
2
0

Questions merged
3
0

Questions flagged⁵
5
82

Questions closed
85
2

Question flags handled⁵
75
11

Posts unlocked
4
2

Posts undeleted
9
32

Posts locked
8
12

Posts deleted⁶
123
215

Posts bumped
0
226

Escalations to the Community Manager team
1
0

Comments undeleted
50
0

Comments flagged
1
102

Comments deleted⁷
743
472

Comment flags handled
98
5

Answers flagged
9
159

Answer flags handled
156
12

All comments on a post moved to chat
11
0

Footnotes
¹ "Community" here refers both to the membership of Buddhism without diamonds next to their names, and to the automated systems otherwise known as user #-1.
² The system will suspend users under three circumstances: when a user is recreated after being previously suspended, when a user is recreated after being destroyed for spam or abuse, and when a network-wide suspension is in effect on an account.
³ A "destroyed" user is deleted along with all that they had posted: questions, answers, comments. Generally used as an expedient way of getting rid of spam.
⁴ This counts every review that was submitted (not skipped) - so the 2 suggested edits reviews needed to approve an edit would count as 2, the goal being to indicate the frequency of moderation actions. This also applies to flags, etc.
⁵ Includes close flags (but not close or reopen votes).
⁶ This ignores numerous deletions that happen automatically in response to some other action.
⁷ This includes comments deleted by their own authors (which also account for some number of handled comment flags).
Further reading:

Wanna see how these numbers have changed over time? We posted a similar report here last year: 2020: a year in moderation

You can also check out this report on other sites

Or peruse detailed information on the number of questions closed and reopened across all sites

Wishing everyone a happy 2022! ^_^


text:
Modifying comments
I happened to re-read a comment thread from a couple of days ago and I noticed a comment I had left looked different. There was some additional information and a suggestion that I don't recall making. It was a little disorienting.
I looked it up in the help center and saw that mods have the ability to modify comments. I understand this was done to add helpful information and I'm not upset. But it was honestly a little confusing and made me wonder if I was "losing it" that I didn't recall writing something. :)
Is this an ability that is useful to use as compared to simply adding a new comment? My reason for asking is that while posts clearly show who wrote what, comments don't have an edit history visible to a regular user. So it can be a bit confusing to a regular user to see something attributed to them that they didn't write.
Not a bit deal either way. Thank you mods for all you do! But I just thought I'd share my moment of confusion over this. :)

I expect you're talking about this comment. It was me who edited it: because, if I recall correctly your comment invited the OP (lewis) to post in meta about their question being closed: however with only "1 rep" they're actually not allowed to post in meta (which could be frustrating for them). Given that your comment was trying to help the new OP, rather than post another comment to contradict yours I though it better to lightly edit your comment, to invite them to read meta without inviting them to post.
Sorry for the confusion; I hope I didn't change your intent.
It is true that moderators can edit comments. Occasionally in the past I might have edited someone else's comment to replace a raw http:\\example.com link with the more useful [Article title](http:\\example.com) equivalent.
One more thing is that users can edit their own comments for only the first five minutes after posting it but moderators have no time limit. So I'll sometimes edit my own comments later, for example today I edited this comment to condense and tidy up a previous day's (imo now-obsolete) comment thread.
Thank you for asking; and do tell me if I do something as a moderator which you think I shouldn't.

On rereading the comment I see that once I started to edit it I also went on and added suggestions of how to fix (or re-ask) the question, based on (i.e. trying to summarize) what other people (i.e. not you) had suggested in the corresponding meta-thread. Sorry about that. I'll try not to do that again.

Thanks for clarifying Chris! Your efforts to make Buddhism.SE a better place are appreciated. :)

Also, I'd forgotten about brand new users being unable to post in Meta, so thank you for the reminder!

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


text:
Can we show both up votes and downvotes by default?
Isn't there a way to see both upvotes and downvotes on a question at the question?
Isn't the default to add the thumbs up and minus the thumbs down and then the user has this number that represents sort of the average vote?
Can the default change to that average vote number and also at the same time, how many voted up and how many voted down. That would give one looking for the answer better insight into what might be the correct answer or what might be an answer  that is more argumentative.
The way it is by default(at least it is on mine), 10 people could love the answer and 10 people could hate it and the rating would show 0 so those looking for answers might not know they're  in a war zone so to speak.-metta

Apparently this feature is implemented as  a "privilege" available to "established users" -- see Help Center > Privileges > Established User
I don't know why it isn't available to all users; one reason may be to reduce the complexity of the user interface seen by new users.
I don't think we can persuade Stack Exchange to change this (or any) functionality.
Can you identify some specific answer[s], which have this kind of "voting war" happening? I ask because I wonder whether there's some other way, to clarify that sort of answer for new users.

By voting war I mean some vote up, some vote down and some do neither.

I think I know what you mean: i.e. lots of up-votes and lots of down-votes on the same answer. But do you have an example or two, of such an answer, in mind? Because, I wonder whether a comment on that answer, or an edit, might make the answer any clearer.

Right, ok. That shouldn't be too difficult.

@UUU Would you "accept" this answer? Otherwise it will be "bumped to the homepage by Community♦" again and again, forever.

@ChrisW The voting here is almost as random, reactive and surprising as the  the voting in the United States. Rather than voting maybe we should just pick the correct answers. If we have to "vote" on what is the truth then we are far from knowing what the truth is.

@UUU I hope that people do pick whatever they can that's useful from the answers. But anyway I can't change the way in which the software (web site) implements voting, and provides a UI for it.

@ChrisW Yeah. I'm just talking you know. We

@ChrisW  Oh yes, I know that but that doesn't mean we can't ponder such things, does it? Maybe someday we will figure out a solution that the web site leaders will like. Who knows :)


text:
How can the Dhamma help internet admins be fair?
Admins behave inappropriately at times. This leads to suffering for the admins and everyone. They make mistakes because they are human. It's hard to turn anger into compassion and admins can make a lot of people angry. So that's why I'm asking the above question.


text:
100% Answered Questions - Wow!
I know it's not a competition and we shouldn't use it as a target and really 100% isn't really 100% but....

Wow - 100% answered questions on this site. OK I know there is still 9 without an upvoted answer. But still ...... I just wanted to post to celebrate this and thank everyone for all the answers. We've really tackled a lot and there is tonnes of good stuff here.
Thanks everyone.

I'm glad we are generating timely answers, but more importantly I'm glad for the quality of answers and sense of community that this score doesn't reflect.

@Buddho absolutely. We have some great answers to some difficult questions. These numbers just tell part of it. I genuinely think we are creating a great resource for the internet, spreading the Dharma and building a great community. A bit self-congratulatory maybe but I think we are great.

I suspect it is a common feeling, but I feel immensely grateful to have the opportunity to not only learn the Dhamma but also to share what I've learned and understood. I am so glad this community exists.

Since this question has no answer, I am giving an answer so you don't lose your 100% answered question award. I wouldn't want to cause a paradox. :)


text:
Can you do a search for votes compared to number of answers?
I've got a bit of a thing about when questions have more answers than votes. For me I think it's a signifier of low voting (maybe just my thing). I'm curious to know if it's something that frequently occurs on the site. Does anyone know if there is a way to show questions that have more answers than votes? I know there is some clever searches than can be done - is that one of them?
Thanks

With SQL (a query language) you can write a query (and/or adapt an existing query) using SEDE.
I did that: see Questions with answers and votes.
The 'subtraction' column displays the difference between the number of votes and the number of answers (for each question). You can click on the 'subtraction' column title to sort by largest 'subtraction' value.
For example the top three topics (with the largest subtraction values) are:
5699 Is our mind faster than light? 12 1 11
5276 Is Buddha a Man or Woman? 9 -2 11
5398 Can one practice meditation to gain knowledge about the universe? 10 2 8

It looks like about a third of the topics have a value of at least 1.

Brilliant. Thank you for that. I just had the feeling that voting had dropped recently. I always think that if someone has answered a question there is probably merit in that question so why not upvote. That said your query does point out some very confused questions so that's not always the case by any means. I can write SQL so i think i'll have alook at this when i get a moment. Very interesting. Thanks


text:
How do I log in to chat?
Even though I'm logged in here (buddhism.SE), I don't appear to be logged into our chat area. Any ideas why? I'm wondering if it's because we're still in beta and so buddhism.SE is still not considered a full-blown StackExchange site?

There's a link at the top under StackExchange:

Here's the actual link to the main chat room:
http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/15162/buddhism
Edit: you also need to be logged in as your Buddhism user:

Get to this page by clicking on your user name at the top on chat.stackexchange.com

Yeah, I've been there and can see the discussions. But at the bottom it says "You must be logged in to talk. See the faq for more information.", and I don't see anywhere that I can join the chat.

Also, a weirdness that may be related. When I committed for beta, I did it under a specific email address. Then when beta started I was notified on that email address, but when I tried to login it said it had never heard of me. So I explicitly registered with the same email address. Then as recently as this morning I got an email poking me to contribute, even though I already have been. I wonder if the site thinks there's two of me?

Are you logged into chat as your Buddhism user?

Well I'm logged into SE as my Buddhism user, and then I click the link to go to chat and I'm taken to the same place your link took me to. At the moment there are three chat boxes, and I click on the first. I am taken to a long screen of chats, but at the bottom it says "You must be logged in to talk. See the faq for more information." The "logged in" is a link, so I click on that and I see "Please log in to any StackExchange site first, or log in via StackExchange.com." But I'm already logged into a StackExchange site.

I'm pretty sure I'm bumping into an account collision between my current account and a years old one I no longer use. I probably need to escalate this to the SE gods. Can anyone tell me how to do that?

Did you see my edit? You need to be logged in as the right user.

I think I've found the problem. I have an old account called "tkp" which is connected both to buddhism.SE and to area51.SE. It and my current "Tommy" account are both registered to the same email address. I can only login to buddhism.SE with my main account, but I can only login to chat with tkp. I've contacted SE to have it fixed.

Responding to Tommy directly through the contact system, but for the record, users don't need to have Buddhism as their parent user on their chat profile to chat with us. As long as their parent profile has sufficient reputation, they'll be able to get in.


text:
Have review permissions changed?
I was looking at some New user answers in the review queue but found that I now have only two options as a response: "No Action Needed" or "Skip". There is a third option button of "I'm done", but it's greyed out.
Is that -- either a "thumbs up" or a "shrug" but nothing else -- how it should be? I seem to remember also being able to edit to improve or some other such option.

The "I'm done" option becomes enabled after you actually do something with that post: e.g. vote it up, or vote it down, or flag it ... I forget whether leaving a comment without voting is enough  to enable "I'm done".
"No Action" means 'shrug' (it's OK but no upvote and no downvote) and "Skip" doesn't even mean that.
And/or if you want to edit the answer, you can: the 'edit' button is in its usual place i.e. underneath (at the bottom-left of) the answer, between the 'share' and 'flag buttons.


text:
Where can I post on this site?
This site has various pages etc.
Where are the different places to post, and what is each one used for?

Main site
The main site is:

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/

This is for Question-and-Answer topics about Buddhism -- with a minimum of discussion, as described in the tour:

The guidelines for posting on this site are slightly different than on other Stanch Exchange sites -- they're summarized here: FAQ index (summary of site policies).
You probably don't need to read these usually -- simply use the site like most other people do!
Meta site
The "Meta' site is this one i.e.:

https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/

It's used for asking questions about the site (i.e. not about Buddhism), for discussing the guidelines for using the site, etc.
This site is for the "community" of user to discuss the site.
The moderators are "users" also, part of this community.
Generally, decisions are made by a majority of the community, and moderators help to publish and enact those decisions.
Comments
You can post comments under questions and answers.
Please read this Help topic first -- including "When should I comment?" and "When shouldn't I comment?"
As a moderator I can tell you that most of the 'trouble' that needs 'moderating' comes from comments.

If a couple of users want to discuss something, that's probably tolerated.
If it turns into an argument, you can "flag" it for moderator to intervene.

There's slightly tedious list of guidelines here -- Commenting with minimal argument -- for posting a comment where it's not welcome. I suggest:

Just one comment
Politely
About the topic, not the person

Chat
The site has one or more chat rooms:

https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&host=buddhism.stackexchange.com

One is open permanently, and temporary ones may be created when comments are "moved to chat".
The main chat room is hardly ever used so, if you post there, probably no-one will notice and reply?
Moderators
The site's moderators can do a few things other users can't, including:

Delete answers and comments
Suspend a user account

If you see something wrong then you can "flag" it for moderator attention.
Note that an answer which is simply incorrect doesn't invite moderator attention -- you can "down-vote" that instead.
A moderator is more likely to intervene when:

The answer is "hostile" to another user or a group of users
The answer is off-topic e.g. not about "Buddhism"


text:
Should we use honorifics when referring to monks?
This comment refers to Thanissaro Bhikkhu by name:

Nice. And I noticed that in the updated version of Kimattha Sutta, Geoff has replaced the word "Serenity" with "Calm". Thanks.

That resulted this comment from an anonymous user (who I presume is Samana Johann):

(but how can you fools call a most Ven. by name like one of your homies...)

I habitually use the "Ven." prefix.
Should everyone always use an honorific? If I see a post or a comment which doesn't, should I edit it? Even though a moderator shouldn't usually edit comments?
I think perhaps so, to avoid causing offence.

I feel users should respectfully use appropriate honorifics such as "Venerable" together with the monastic name of the monk or nun, in the spirit of the Buddha's order to the monks in DN 16.
However, it must not be made mandatory. It should only be a strong recommendation. Moderators can also "improve" posts directly, in an indirect way to propagate this policy.

"And, Ananda, whereas now the bhikkhus address one another as
'friend,' let it not be so when I am gone. The senior bhikkhus,
Ananda, may address the junior ones by their name, their family name,
or as 'friend'; but the junior bhikkhus should address the senior ones
as 'venerable sir' or 'your reverence.'
DN 16

It happens rarely. If it is recommended though not required, isn't it easiest for everyone if we edit or 'improve' the post ourselves? And less bossy than asking the user to do it or redo it? And when it's a comment, users cannot edit it. So if the policy is that it's recommended, then I'm inclined to edit it myself without comment?

@ChrisW Yes. I agree. We can edit it directly. It's definitely more effective than telling the user to do it.


text:
Is Advaita "Buddhism"?
Is Advaita considered to be not-Buddhism (for the purpose of deciding what's on-topic on this site)?
I'm guessing that these answers might be Advaita, or something like that:

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34960/254

Adisankara says, "Brahma satya jagan mothya".

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34932/254

But the most important question remains? The intelligence you put in the puppet belongs to whom? It belongs to the one who created the puppet. He trojen intelligence into it. These are 5 skhandas. And there is also higher intelligence who have took this form. We are just puppet made by Absolute.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34776/254

What you see, hear, touch, felt and see is actually experienced by Brahma. He is the seer behind all individual

Wikipedia has an entry for "Adisankara"

Adi Shankaracharya (Sanskrit: आदि शङ्कराआचार्य [aːdɪ ɕɐŋkɐɽɐ]) was an early 8th century Indian philosopher and theologian who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. He is credited with unifying and establishing the main currents of thought in Hinduism.

Anyway, these answers are all downvoted and one has been flagged.

Advaita: a Vedantic doctrine that identifies the individual self (atman) with the ground of reality (brahman). It is associated especially with the Indian philosopher Shankara (c. 788–820).

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/advaita

Advaita Vedanta: Advaita Vedanta, originally known as Puruṣavāda, is a school of Hindu philosophy, and believed to be one of the classic paths to spiritual realization in Hindu tradition. The term Advaita refers to its idea that the true self, Atman, is the same as the highest metaphysical Reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

Vedanta: Vedanta or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is the most prominent of the six schools of Hindu philosophy. Literally meaning "end of the Vedas", Vedanta reflects ideas that emerged from the speculations and philosophies contained in the Upanishads. It does not stand for one comprehensive or unifying doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta
These are Hindu concepts. therefore, if a question/answer is only about Advaita and/or Vedanta it belongs to https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/ can be migrated here. If it is comparative religions question with a Buddhist angle then it can be here.

I think that's right, i.e. that's what I get about Advaita Vedanta from Wikipedia. What I didn't know for sure is whether people from that school identify the school as "Buddhist", or not.

Advaita and Vedanta are tags on https://hinduism.stackexchange.com perhaps if it's on-topic there we could consider it off-topic here.

My thinking is:- If the question is seeking and Hindu response or purely about Hinduism with a Buddhist angle it can be off-topic. If there is a comparative religion with Buddhism angle we can have it here as well. E.g. a Hindu may be interested in Buddhism but might refer to Hindu concepts familiar to them to understand Buddhism.

The answers which you have highlighted in your OP are more Hindu than Buddhist answers.

Alright I deleted this one anyway, which someone had flagged. The other two remain, downvoted.

All Vedanta schools must have Atman at the core of all sentient beings (Bhagavad Gita 2.17-30). If it does not, then it is not Vedanta. Regardless of whether it is Dvaita, Advaita, Visishtadvaita, Shuddhādvaita or Bhedabheda, all have Atman and Brahman.
Similarly, all Buddhist schools must accept that all phenomena is not Atman or not Self, regardless of whether it is unconditioned phenomena (Nirvana) or conditioned phenomena. If it does not fulfill this, then it is not Buddhism. This is confirmed in the essay "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study" by German indologist Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp. This essay includes a definition of Atman or Self, that is consistent with Bhagavad Gita 2.17-30. This applies to all Hinayana / Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana schools.
This topic of Atman is a fundamental irreconcilable difference between Vedanta and Buddhism.
By this definition, since Adi Shankaracharya preached Atman at the core of all beings, he was definitely an astika (a believer) and therefore his teachings fall under the umbrella of Hinduism. This can be seen in his compositions: Atma Bodha, Vivekachudamani, Aparokshanubhuti, Tattva Bodha and his commentaries.
The Buddha rejected the concept of an eternal Atman at the core of any being and also rejected Brahman, so he was a nastika (a non-believer).
Another criteria is the acceptance of the authority of the Vedas as revealed scripture (shruti). Adi Shankara accepted the Vedas, so he was an astika. Meanwhile, the Buddha did not accept the Vedas as evidenced in the Canki Sutta, so he was a nastika.
It can be seen in this answer that even non-Vedanta schools that are classified as astika (believer), all accept Atman.
So, based on these two criteria, Advaita Vedanta does not fall under Buddhism, and instead falls under Hinduism.
From Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp's essay "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study":

Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and
  the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal
  concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear
  anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of
  a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum
  (true substance)," or similarly.


text:
Should we roll back the edit to this question?
This question was recently edited.
The edit changed the meaning of the question: so, existing answers no longer make sense (they are no longer an answer to the question).
Is this a problem, should we roll back (undo) the edit to the question?
I know that some other SE sites don't permit this kind of late edit to a question (I'm thinking of, for example, About answer-invalidating edits on CodeReview.SE).
If you do permit the edit, should we delete the answers?
It's because we shouldn't delete the answers that I think the edit to the question is a type of vandalism.
If the OP wants to ask that new question, they can ask it as a new question.

The OP doesn't want more answers, posted a comment:

i am done with it, perhaps just close, i see no good coming out of it

... which I suppose is fair enough. So I rolled-back the edit and closed the question.


text:
Political content
I see that Politics.SE has this policy -- to "protect the site from propaganda posts":

What measures are taken to protect the site from propaganda posts during the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine?

And that that one of their reasons for closing a question is,

Questions which invite speculation or soapboxing, or contain soapboxing themselves, will get closed as "Promotes or discredits a political cause", "Speculative" or "Opinion-Based". As regular users of this site will be aware, this is not a new policy. Posts like that were never welcome on this website.

Now given that:

Buddhism.SE isn't meant to be about "politics"
We have no guidelines to assess political content
We have policies like this one to prevent "soapboxing"

I suggest that as policy, if the question isn't asking about modern politics, then don't add political commentary to your answer -- for example:

Buddhist views of marriage, or of gender roles in society, might be on-topic -- but not commentary on the laws and customs of specific countries
The Buddhist views on war (in general) is on-topic -- but specific wars are not

Similarly, questions should be general:

"Is fighting a war of self-defence OK?"
Perhaps even, "Kingship or democracy?"
But not, "What do you think of the war in Ukraine?"

When I see political opinion shoehorned into an answer, I'm inclined to delete it as "spam" -- i.e. unasked-for, unsolicited.
Also as a moderator I'm inclined to delete it:

Because if commentary about Israel for example gets flagged as "anti-semitism", I don't want to have to judge whether it is or isn't
In the past we've had a few comments that could be considered anti-Chinese, anti-Tibetan, anti-American -- which I don't think is necessary for answering questions on this site, nor welcoming etc.

Please say if you agree -- or whether you see any important exceptions, when it might be good to add political opinion or commentary? Or links to news articles which illustrate what you're saying?


text:
Deleting bumped topics
Topics may be "bumped" to the top of the Active view.

What can cause a question to be bumped?
The Community user will bump non-negatively scored, open questions every hour that have at least one answer scoring 0 and none scoring more than that.

For example:

I propose to delete (or propose we delete) these, on this Meta site:

They clutter the top of the Active view
They're mostly uninteresting -- answered but nobody thought the answer worth upvoting

When they're deleted you'll see a log of the human activity on this site, not only the bot named "Community".


text:
Posting comments to answers
Sometimes I read an answer which I don't agree with.
I could just downvote the answer, but should I post a comment as well?
If I do post comment, to an answer that I disagree with, does it matter what kind of comment I post?
Does it matter how I phrase it?
Does it matter which user I'm talking to?
What can I say, and what shouldn't I say?

Sometimes I read an answer which I don't agree with.

If this disagreement is due to the view point is a particular school, tradition, line of thinking, or what is orthodoxy and what is not then best is to do nothing (commenting or down voting) as there might be others who would find this agreeable. Even if you downvote leaving comments might make new comers un welcome from the particular tradition.
If the disagreement is a matter of opinion the best is not to do anything again as ideally you should verify theory and practice through meditative experience and not opinions.
If it is a matter of possible error or omission, or the answer is does not seam to answer the question, by all means comment and point out the errors and also give guidance. Ideally avoid confrontational tone and be friendly.
Also keep in mind that the angle 2 people look at a question is not the same also. In this case it will be very useful to comment for every one as to there is another angle or another way to look at things. Ideally this should not be a reinstatement of your understanding.
Also be mindful, when there are multiple answers some answers may aim to fill the gaps or points which one differ with in an existing answer or comments. In these cases not all answers will be complete. But if its the 1st then the sanded you are looking for needs to be higher, but also give it some times as sometimes the initial answer may be  skeletal answer to save what you have written so far with possibility of subsistent edits to fill in the meat when you find more time to work on improvements and references and content.
Also there are things that people take for grant that others know because of the discourses you listen very often or the temple you go often or the type of meditation you are familiarize with. These are things that slip through when you answer. This is also best pointed out in comments where you can add these information as this will improve the answers because others participating under another teacher may have no clue what you are talking about.
Local Buddhist educational and culture can also can influence certain concepts and view. There aspects of the doctrine which is taught which even I am struggling to find how to trace back to the Suttas which are available in translated form. Asking reference requests for this type of answers can be tricky as this is what we have been taught or this is the commonly held view. In these cases best is to retrospect to see if any aspect is a culture specific or commonly held view. These comments and answers can be reference to others who might not be familiar.
Also on what is topical and what aspects are given prominence varies country to country varies. E.g. topics like Tatta, Sunyatta, etc. found discussed at length in Thai sermons but hardly in Sri Lanka. So this also give some aspect of familiarity and taking for grant that the reader would know the background. Best is to leave comments for further elaboration.
Apart from commenting it would be most beneficial everyone if you add an answer with your angle if appropriate.

Does it matter which user I'm talking to?

If it is a new comer give them time to adjust. Gently point out why something is not and answer or something is like a discussion. Give them time and opportunity to adjust. We want to grow the side than drive away potential users.


text:
Which type of Buddhism is for me?
Should this question be asked, on the main site:

How do I know which type of Buddhism is for me?

Is it answerable, potentially useful? If that's the question title, what would be appropriate question text?
It was an up-voted suggested question topic on Area 51.

Also what tag should we use for that question? When I edited meta-tags recently, I added a new tag on meta, traditions (I thought of calling it 'schools' or 'branches', decided 'traditions' was respectful etc.).
On the main site, though, I later discovered that the traditions tag is used for "holidays, rituals, marriage" etc. Is there a tag on the main site for questions about comparing these schools (if so, which tag is it; if not, should there be one and what tag-name should it have), or are there just separate tags for separate schools, e.g. theravada and mahayana?

Very important topic!
I would not ask this question in such broad form though. I'm afraid this will be like comparative-religion questions, answers coming from limited perspectives of mostly being familiar with "my" school and assuming it to be better ("truer") than others.
If we assume that what type of Buddhism is better for you depends on you, then we could ask this as: "what factors in a person are responsible for affinity to a particular school of Buddhism" -- although this could get speculative...
Another way to ask this would be to focus on one school at a time, and ask: "Why would I choose X (or not choose X)" -- but this will too devolve into comparison.
So perhaps the affinity factors is the safest route, even if not very facts-based.

The fact that it's possible to answer badly doesn't prove it's a bad question: is it a question that's possible to answer well? Re.being "better" I presume a) there are differences b) they're good for different reasons or in different ways. I could probably explain the difference between C++ and JavaScript if I had to...

But you know that C vs Pascal type discussions are banned on all forums since 90s? :) The fact that question can be answered well, does not mean it will be answered well. A good question has an incline, so its answers naturally turn out good. A bad question is inclined toward flamewars, and takes extra effort and wisdom to answer well. Like that question about faith in B vs. C which I had to save.

if bad answers are a worry, you could protect the question, and delete answers which don't confirm to whatever community standards are defined here on meta. You're saying we shouldn't ask that question. Can you suggest a specific phraseology that would work? Or can answers to such a topic only exist in a prejudicial form, on a partisan site? I had an English, non-Buddhist school teacher who explained the difference to me in his class, decades ago. I wouldn't mind getting a second, more informed opinion now.

Also the fact that an expert has to to 'save' it with a good answer still doesn't make it a bad question, imo. Perhaps you're saying no-one on this site is expert enough to give a fair, reasonable, useful, or agreeable answer.

I'm not saying this question should not be asked. I'm saying, let's ask this: "There are people who prefer some schools to others. Could there be a correlation between person's character and the school he or she prefers, and if yes what are the factors?"

"Character" might be a good word to use, and a seemingly-interesting factor to ask about. OTOH it makes it ad-hominem while still being superficially objective: "Borland Pascal is for novices who would shoot themselves in the foot if they tried to use Microsoft C, whereas Microsoft C is for lemmings who jumped on the corporate band-wagon never appreciating the productivity benefits of using an IDE." Following the "Good Subjective, Bad Subjective" guidelines e.g. polling for personal experiences would provide some protection against that, then again

this comment suggests that, in that case, it would be a Community Wiki topic.

Ah good point. That's what I referred to as "speculative" in my answer above when I first proposed this idea.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

This question was asked recently: How to find the right Dhamma teacher


text:
Why is the site moderated?
Further to this comment:

chandāgati? bhayāgati? lophāgati? mohāgati? sugatigamanam?

... read in context, I think Samana Johann is asking why the site is moderated:

chandāgati (love or desire, perhaps wanting to depend on people liking the site)
bhayāgati (fear, perhaps of people who dislike the moderation or lack of moderation)
lophāgati (greed or desire)
mohāgati (delusion or stupidity)
sugatigamanam (independent and neutral, perhaps willing to see a tiger for what it is i.e. ungrateful, and to say so, and not try to be generous to one)

In other words: is the site being moderated because of desire (for followers), aversion (unwilling to rebuke people perhaps for fear of what they might say, or fear of loss), or delusion and ignorance?
If a person prefers to say that a user might be greedy and lazy, because the user asked a question on this site instead of seeking good local monks, for what reason (e.g. desire, fear, etc.) do moderators intervene?

Can't this question "why is this site ..." best be answered by the creators of the whole site (stackexchange)? At least it has been their idea to install the current model of moderation...


text:
Merge the lay-buddhism and laity tags
There are two tags on the main site, lay-buddhism and laity tags.
Neither has a description (i.e. a wiki summary).
Do they mean the same thing? Should they be merged, with being one be made a synonym of the other?
They might be quite important/useful tags for some users.

To me these are different concepts.
lay-buddhism. A Buddhist sect/movement without a significant monastic component e.g. Triratna Buddhist Community (where I practice)
laity - the lay community within any Buddhist school or sect
I have to say though the I'm not sure whether they are used like that but I see the concepts as different. If they are going to be useful then I think they should have a tag wiki each and probably I bit of retagging is required. I'd be happy to do that or defer to yourself as you see fit.
Hope that's useful
EDIT
Actually I notice that the lay-buddhism tag now has a description which is different from my definition which might invalidate my comments

Thank you for answering. Don't worry about the new wiki description, because it was added very recently therefore didn't influence how the tags were used. Thanks for explaining that concept of 'lay-buddhism'. Is that concept applicable (would that meaning of a tag be useful) to many of the topics on the main site? Is it important/useful to distinguish it from 'laity'? If we keep two tags then would it be generally possible to tell which tag (laity or lay-buddhism) to use, e.g. in a question about, I don't know, sexuality?

Is that a common/conventional use of the term "lay buddhism"? https://www.google.com/search?q="lay+buddhism" suggests not, that 'lay buddhism' just implies 'laity'. SGI calls itself explicitly a lay Buddhist movement but maybe Triratna says Neither monastic nor lay, we are simply Buddhists.


text:
What's difficult about moderating this site?
This question is addressed mostly to moderators, hoping you don't mind the question.

What's difficult about moderating this site?

Gives you a lot of trouble?
Costs you a lot of time?
Impossible to do well?

What if anything can experienced users do to help?

For example, I'm guessing that "dealing with spam" is not one of the main problems (because so far as I know any spam is dealt with quickly by the system and regular users).

I'm not a moderator so I will only comment but the most difficult thing I've seen is the personal attacks (which I don't think is too stromg a word) that I've seen both Andrei and Yuttadhammo suffer from. I think it's the nature of these forums - even on a Buddhist forum these things happen - we are all just human beings after all. It is very difficult to see though

I personally don't find it that difficult at all; I'm just not sure I'm suitable for the job, given my position as a teacher and major site contributor as well.

@yuttadhammo That sounds reassuring: that moderating isn't that difficult. You did say, though, "if there were not enough qualified candidates": so I wondered about the job requirements and qualifications. Especially, whether someone other than you could cope as moderator, even if they had much less knowledge than you (and Andrei) of the subject matter and content (i.e. of Buddhism)?

Idk... To me competency is more about being moderate. Like fair and impartial. Wouldn't be good to have bad moderators.


text:
Is the discussion of Taoism acceptable?
I often find it hard to drawn any real differences between Taoism and Buddhism. Because these two  have historically influenced each other, should Taoism be allowed as a subject for discussion on the Buddhism S.O.?

I'd say no, unless you are comparing/contrasting the two, or looking into influences etc.

Stackexchange is not a platform for discussion. "Question & answers" is the communication-form for which this software was developed. If you have a concrete question, and if it is somehow related to buddhism, and this relation is also relevant, then -for instance- I am much interested to look at it and to say what I know. For the "discussion" of Taoism I think I'd try to look at facebook or usenet. Possibly the stackexchange-people are currently developing a discussion-orientated software, but I've not yet a real impression of this, so if you want to attach you to this you likely have to wait a short more time.

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/meaning/verbal.php But should Taoism be a possible subject to DISCUSS answers about?

Didn't you encounter the thought about "DISCUSS"ion in my answer? It's already there (line 4, near the beginning, only it's not capitalized).

We have taoism which gives a good idea of the type of questions that work but they always relate to Buddhism in some way.
Personally I'm not convinced they are similar enough to be interchangeable on this site. For instance Taoism had a big thing going on about immortality which is completely at odds with Buddhism philosophy (IMO). That said if you disagree with that statement then there would be a very reasonable question for the main site.


text:
Blog Newsletter Delivery Day
Why is the newsletter sent in the middle of the week on Tuesday?
Can we change this to some other day?

Why is the newsletter sent in the middle of the week on Tuesday?
According to this answer,

* we searched Google for "best day of week to send email newsletter" and Tuesday seemed popular

Can we change this to some other day?
I don't think we can: I think the algorithm is hard-coded and not user-configurable nor site-configurable.
There was at the time a request to implement an option like that, but it wasn't a popular request (attracting only 5 up-votes and 5 down-votes), and so that request now has the status-declined tag.

FWIW that was apparently somewhat of a relief to the person who might have had to help implement that feature, who commented,

phew, less work for me :)

I think that in general it's difficult to persuade Stack Exchange to change the current software.
One example is this feature request which has 30 up-votes but which so far as we know is not scheduled for implementation.
There are currently 19000 feature requests of which 2000 have been completed and 1000 declined.

That answer seems oriented for marketing. This is a sangha and i think a more appropriate day would be the weekend so that people can read and write better replies.

I updated my answer: I don't think we have the ability to configure it.

That freaking sucks. But then again I can't think of any newsletter where you can choose the day to receive the digest.


text:
Alternate Accounts
It's my assertion that some users are posting on alternate accounts as a means of posting questions that they know are not in line with the intent and purpose of this forum, for their own devices.
Is this something that is within the bounds of how this site should be used?
Is there a way to contact the site administration to confirm that these accounts are coming from the same source, should it be determined that this behavior does undermine the spirit of the site?

I've seen this on other internet forums, but I didn't think it would be a problem here. However, now that you do mention it, I can think of one or two cases where this indeed may have been the case.

I'm not sure it is happening, but given a few particular instances over the past couple days I now question

posting questions that they know are not in line with the intent and purpose of this forum
That might be another or a separate problem, i.e. if a question is bad then it hardly matters which account was used to post it.
Is this something that is within the bounds of how this site should be used?
The slang word (i.e. the jargon) for an alternate account is a "sock-puppet" (so-called because it looks like a separate/independent user but it's not autonomous, instead it's controlled by someone else).
A reason why some users create sock-puppet accounts is to up-vote themselves: that's a standard problem, and there are automated mechanisms in place to detect and prevent it.
This answer says that the following, too, ought to be seen as problematic behaviour:

Answering your own questions with the other account(s)

Is there a way to contact the site administration to confirm that these accounts are coming from the same source, should it be determined that this behavior does undermine the spirit of the site?
One way is to 'flag' it for moderator attention (when you flag it, choose the "other" reason at the end of the list and explain the problem clearly).
And/or let a moderator know that you want us to contact you privately so that you can explain the problem (e.g. post a little comment in reply to any of my posts, saying something like "@ChrisW can I have a word with you in private?").
And/or you can contact the site administration (the SE community team) using the contact page (there's a link to this in the footer at the bottom of every page).
A communication like this from you, to the moderators or to the SE team, would be handled confidentially.

Moderators can see if two accounts come from the same IP address. While this not necessarily indicate puppet accounts (there may be two users in the same household or they may use the site from work) - it could be a sign to look more closely.


text:
"resource" or "reference" tag?
Searched for a super-category for various reference materials and resources on information about Buddhism which covers podcasts, books, videos, retreats, etc., didn't find one. Not sure if this is the way to go about suggesting a new tag, couldn't find info on that either.
In a recent post I made a reference to a resource. Would a tag that includes all types of references and resources be helpful, an umbrella for all the different media and forms rather than applying each one individually in order to locate all types of available information?

We've got the media tag. And also a book tag. The reference-request tag covers text based resources that answer specific question. But it's a good question


text:
Create a "podcast" tag?
Many Dharma talks are available by podcast, as well as a number of podcasts on Buddhism in iTunes--would it be worthwhile to create a "podcast" tag?

Would the media tag cover it?

Let me examine that tag and get back to you :-)


text:
Does this site show preference for any particular form of Buddhism?
I don't consider myself a Buddhist although I find it the religion to which I am most drawn.
Many of the questions appear to my untutored eyes to be referring to a default Buddhism that most people here adhere to. To give just one example, I can't find a single question referring to Nichiren Buddhism.

Nichiren Buddhism a Japanese Buddhist sect founded by the
  religious teacher Nichiren (1222–82) with the Lotus Sutra as its
  central scripture. Google Dictionary

Questions
Is there in fact a particular type of Buddhism that prevails on this site?
If so does it have a name so that I can find out more about it?
If not, what are the main teachings  that people are discussing here?

Was your question answered, or were the answers not quite helpful? Would you like to ask another question, here or on the main site? To find out more about Buddhism, apart from or as well as reading existing Q&A and asking new questions, I can recommend some of the "Useful resources" (listed in no particular order) which we edited into the Help page; and/or maybe look at some of the questions tagged [meta-tag:book-of-the-month]: especially the first one suggests several gratis introductory books.

Yes the question was answered very well. I have now accepted the one of the answers to indicate the fact . Both were very useful. I do have other questions and will get around to them at some point. Thanks for the resources.

Welcome to the site.
Does this site show preference for any particular form of Buddhism?
I hope that, theoretically, the site has no preference: there are at several meta-topics in which we say that we hope to invite questions about (and welcome people from) any or all forms of Buddhism.
Theoretically, also, unless otherwise specified the answers have no preference. So for example if you ask a question then you might get an answer from a Theravada or a Vajrayana perspective (or, perhaps even better, several answers from several perspectives).
One exception is if a question specifically asks for a specific perspective. So for example if you ask a question, and use a tag like theravada, then that question should only get a specific form of answer.
To give just one example, I can't find a single question referring to Nichiren Buddhism.
Yes: there are only a half a dozen questions tagged nichiren or sgi, so that's basically true.
I hope that's not because "the site" shows preference, but instead simply reflects the demographics or history of the site's users.
Even if a form isn't frequently-asked-about, a question about it might still get a good answer.
And if someone asks new questions, then possibly they might find some new answers.
Is there in fact a particular type of Buddhism that prevails on this site?
Possibly so; but among the site's 'regular users', who often answer questions, are various people who could answer from various perspectives including Theravada, Zen, Tibetan Buddhism, secular Buddhism, etc.
If so does it have a name so that I can find out more about it?
I think you can name but don't necessarily need to name a specific form of Buddhism, to ask a question on this site.
If not, what are the main teachings that people are discussing here?
I suppose, broadly, the teachings which people discuss include theoretical doctrine (for example the "teachings" such as are found in the Pali suttas and elsewhere); and about the practice of meditation.
Many of the questions appear to my untutored eyes to be referring to a default Buddhism that most people here adhere to.
Well, yes you may be right, but I think that's not quite so.
Instead I think that people often refer to their own understanding (whatever it is) when they answer questions; and that people's experience is fairly diverse.
Also people refer to other people's understanding, for example by including a reference with their answer, for further reading or so that you can see what the answer is based on.

Hi Chasly and welcome to the site. Buddhism.SE embraces questions about all schools and traditions of Buddhism. There is no intentional partiality towards any particular school or tradition and we have a 99% answer rate for all questions.
That said, there have been far more questions that have been asked and answered about Theravada Buddhism, (sometimes called Early Buddhism), then there have been about other schools of Buddhism including Nicheran Buddhism.
The reasons for this are unclear and we've discussed in a couple of threads here, including this one, how to attract more participants from underrepresented traditions to answer questions. But to date, we've found no effective way to do this. The best we can do is to welcome all and try our best to be helpful.


text:
What are the aspects of Buddhism and it's scriptures that a Buddhist might not like to comment on?
What are the aspects of Buddhism and it's scriptures that a Buddhist might not like to comment on?
(Note: A well-reputed forum member suggested that I should ask this question, possibly as an alternative to the sort of questions that I have been asking. So, what I have reproduced above are exactly his words. I hope this query does not offend anybody, and also that it is not considered off-topic.)

(I don't know which suggestion from a "a well-reputed forum member" you're referring to. Do you know how to use 'mardown formating' to insert a hyperlink in your answer? Do you know how to find the hyperlink URL associated with each question, each answer, and each comment?)

@ChrisW Can you please let it know how to find those URLs.

I've found it here: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11487/is-the-buddha-supposed-to-have-been-only-human-or-super-human/11503#11503 It seems to me a rather rhetoric question, btw. and not really intended to actually be asked.

@Shrawaka Underneath each question or answer there's a link which says "share":if you click on "share" that pops a URL which you can copy and paste. The URL for each comment is in the signature at the end of the comment. E.g. my comment above currently says, "... and each comment?) –  ChrisW♦ 3 hours ago". If you right-click on the timestamp (which currently says "3 hours ago" but which in the future will say "days ago") your browser ...

... will display an option like "Copy link address".

@ChrisW Thanks for help.

@ChrisW - Uilium said to me, 'Why don't you just ask "What are the aspects of Buddhism and it's scriptures that a Buddhist might not like to comment on?"' -- These were exactly his words.
I was unsure whether he wanted to be directly named, and hence I referred to him simply as 'a well-reputed forum member'.

I asked, not because I wanted to know which person said it, but because to understand a quote it's helpful to know the context in which it was said and from which it is extracted. So for example I edited the first sentence of this question to reference the specific comment instead of alluding to its author's repute.

What are the aspects of Buddhism and it's scriptures that a Buddhist might not like to comment on?
You're asking this question on meta so I'll interpret it as,

"What aspects of Buddhism should I not comment on, on this site?"

The principal comment you should avoid here is, "Buddhists" (or "some Buddhists") "are wrong".
There's a parable, which I want you to know:

Tittha Sutta: Sectarians
And/or Wikipedia's version: Blind men and an elephant

Examples of acceptable or useful questions (about dhamma) ask about the elephant:

In what way is an elephant like a sail?
In such and such a sutta it says that an elephant is like a tree trunk. I didn't understand that, could you explain it a little further?

Examples of unacceptable questions imply that (all and/or some) Buddhists are wrong:

The "plowshare" school of Buddhism implies that an elephant is like a plowshare. Modern scientists has never seen an elephant plowing. So why is the plowshare school so stupid? Don't scientists know now a lot more about it than they do?

Some people say this is a site "about Buddhism" not necessarily "a Buddhist site". However I think that if it's not a site "for Buddhists", or "which includes Buddhists", then I wouldn't see the point of this site. The 'community' (i.e. users of this site) want to teach Buddhism, and they want to learn Buddhism. Most people don't come here to argue about Buddhism, and if that (i.e. arguments) is what this site offers them then they may not accept it.
The difference between 'a discussion' and 'an argument' may be subjective and therefore difficult to legislate. However, if arguments and negativity cause expert users to become dissatisfied with the site, then the difference between discussion and argument is a material difference even if it's subjective, and I think moderators should intervene accordingly.
I think it matters, especially, how you ask a question, and why. It's less a matter of what ("which topics" or "which aspects") to avoid and more a matter of how you ask it. When I asked about 'rebirth' for example I didn't ask, "Why did people used to talk about 'rebirth' and more importantly why is anyone still talking about it, have scientists ever proven it even exists, isn't that just some superstition (and I'm asking because I despise superstition)?" Instead I asked, "Even if 'rebirth' isn't quite the most central doctrine it's still mentioned frequently, and I don't understand it, maybe I'm missing something important (and I'm asking because I want to some experts' understanding of the doctrine)."
One of the "without which, nothing" of this site is the good will of experts who are able and willing to answer question. I assume that most if not all of these experts are Buddhist themselves.
Therefore, anti-Buddhist (or even 'apparently anti-Buddhist' or 'possibly anti-Buddhist') propaganda is unwelcome.
On a mature SE site with dozens of users who vote regularly, unwanted (however 'unwanted' is defined) are downvoted, flagged, and deleted by the community. On a "Beta" site like Buddhism.SE the moderators may need to intervene a little more.

For example here are some recent comments which I find unacceptable:

The reason I suggest "Critical Reasoning" is that Skeptic is a label that some people attach to others. If you have a Skeptic tag, then maybe you should consider having a tag for a diametrically opposed quality, such as "Fundamentalist" or maybe even "Superstitious"?

That's unacceptable: because it implies that we should label various Buddhist beliefs i.e. the beliefs of various Buddhists as superstitious. It's also a silly and useless suggestion, because it implies that we'd even consider doing that. If you had a better or a longer experience with this site I hope you'd know that such a suggestion is at best useless, and at worse hostile and insulting.

And I firmly hold that by lancing superstitions and by promoting rational thought, one renders a very real service to society. By doing this, one defends the common man who cannot defend himself.

You use the word "superstition" again but I think this comment is 'wrong' in another way too. The word "lancing" as a metaphor claims you're acting as a medical doctor (or, perhaps, acting as Saint George fighting a dragon, because Saint George too had a "lance"), but imo you're not licensed to do that here, nor invited to. It also implies you do everyone a favour by defending the common man (however instead of your "defending" people some people see your posts as divisive or even "offensive").

Note that this Help page imply that your questions and answers may be edited (but please don't take that as license to write offensively and to count on the community to edit away offensive excess). When necessary I hope that experienced users will edit your posts so that the 'tone' of your posts will match the tone which other users enjoy on this site. I hope you'll also learn quickly, perhaps by example, how edit your own posts to that effect.

Apart from the content of a post (i.e. "what am I posting about?") and the tone of a post (i.e. "how am I posting that?") there's also the intent behind the post (i.e. "why am I posting?"). Some users have interpreted your posts as trolling.
It's difficult to be sure about motive or intent, but I think it's true that some of your posts are difficult to distinguish from that of a so called called "concern troll" (e.g. when you say anything like, "I'm concerned that some aspects of Buddhism are superstitious and thus misleading the common man").
In summary a working definition of divisive might be:

A post which a lot of users object to
A post which takes a lot of time to moderate

Thank you for the plainspeak. I will apply my mind and introspect. I am asked to word my questions differently; I get that. But, when a commenter asks why I wrote as as I did, I should be able to speak my mind plainly, even at risk being disliked (e.g. my reply about "lancing superstitions"). If my answers to blunt questions are expected to be rephrased, then IMO the right to say "I'm hurt" has gone too far. I accept your plainspeak, vote-downs and edits (and everyone else's) without ever pleading that I'm hurt or that I feel isolated. I expect the same from others. Too much to ask?

And Chris, in a discussion about adding a flag or tag called skeptic on this "Meta" site, I think I am within my rights to suggest a Fundamentalist tag. You may not think it is a good idea, and that's fine. You may think I'm not a nice person, and that's fine too. But I don't think I should have to worry about hurting someone's feelings by saying it. Please look up the definition of this word: it just defines a person (or an outlook) who/which is apt to go by the literal meaning of scriptural texts. It's not negative, only descriptive.

This is a good explanation Chris. Also, I'm one of the people who has recently reminded "This is not a Buddhist site; this is a site about Buddhism"; please allow me to clarify what that means to my understanding. Early on, in Meta, we discussed the difference which I understood to be; this is a site to inform anyone interested (Buddhist and Non Buddhist alike) about Buddhism as opposed to a group serving only people who self identify as Buddhists. Meaning anyone is welcome to ask a question. :) But your thoughts above on how to ask a question skillfully are valuable guidelines. Thank you. :)

@KrishnarajRao I don't want to spend more time arguing with you, nor chatting with other users about problems they imagine they may have with you: is that OK? I don't dislike you, I don't think you're not a nice person, I don't want you to feel hurt, nor isolated, but I have other things to do. As an agent, aren't I meant to protect "the community" on this site? The "community" here don't want a site that's disagreeable. If expert users lose interest and start to leave, that's not OK, and it would ask too much of me to ask me to tolerate that. Kindly accept this and stop arguing for a while,

@ChrisW - Peace, Brother :-)  I have no hard feelings, and lots of respect for the work that you and other moderators are doing. So, if you think that I'm rattling the community so much that you need me to leave, just say so in as many words, and I'll be gone. God bless! (if I may be permitted to use that expression to indicate my warm feelings towards you.)

@Chris - Here's a suggestion, if I may. How about a rule that if a person's questions are downvoted X number of times (say 50) within a month, then he loses ALL privileges for the remainder of the month.  That is effectively a mute button. Presumably, that would empower experts to shush perceived troublemakers like me, make moderators/agents like yourself less anxious about experts getting peeved, and possibly, reduce the need for censorship and heavy editing. If a troublemaker gets muzzled often enough, he would probably lose interest and leave. Simple, no? :-)

Buddists are not answer machines. So use your chance wisely.

Buddhists and everybody else has the power to ignore any question. If a question displeases everybody, they will not answer my question, and I will find myself ignored. The world (and this forum) is possibly large enough for everybody to co-exist with my questions. Am I wrong?

@KrishnarajRao  Believe me, I have spent 30 years to study this. Give up job, house, and etc..But If I had a chance to ask questions  from a person ( Like Andrei ) who can understand what  i ask, the time will definitely reduce. SO hurry up. I can see you have the power to understand this. So try to ask questions methodically. means from normal to complex. Do not mix. anyway decision is up to you.

Love and peace :-) We will resume our discussion later.


text:
Wouldn't it be better to use a soft approach with newbies on this SE?
Say someone saw Buddhism.Stackexchange yesterday and joined in, Then that means that this particular person is not interested in the laws or policies here.
He or she has a question and that question will be asked in his/her own Form,words,grammar knowledge & softness or harshness.
If we are able to answer the question and the next day this person login he sees a bunch of answers and some Rep to his profile he will be exited and the he will come again. After this we can slowly lay the rules and regulations on him.

We can take the time to edit the question according to the policies and make it suitable. And by the way giving a thumbs up for a new user and encouraging him or her is a great thing to do but for some reason people are very picky on that too, I mean come on we are not reviving movies on Oscars. It is just a new user with his or her own little question, if we are able to show both verbal and emotional feedback with answers and up votes/stars it will help the new user to be more open next time.

This topic could be more actionable or more informative if it were more specific. I'd like to ask you to answer this by posting answers -- these answers could link to specific questions which were treated too-hardly, with one or more suggestions of how to edit the question instead.

It's already policy to welcome and to edit instead of close where possible. Sorry if that's not happening enough. I'm conscious of having closed (instead of editing) two types of question: a) exact duplicates b) religious comparisons, which require answers to express some opinion about other religions. With the former (exact duplicates), I hope I'm doing the OP a favour by linking to where the question has already been asked, and where they can immediately find many good answers.

The latter (over-broad religious comparisons/opinions) is in the class of question which we should edit if possible to make it more on-topic (i.e. a question that's more about Buddhism than other religions). However even more important than editing, IMO, is to not change the OP's intent. If I don't see how to edit without asking a completely different question instead, which wasn't what the user was asking, then I prefer to close it to give the OP has an opportunity to discuss and/or edit it (instead of making an edit they wouldn't like).

There may be other examples that I don't remember at the moment, but these are the two I remember.

Thank you for the extended explanation Chris. I did not tried to sound negative, i was just giving a suggestion. @ChrisW

One thing we can do is to see if the user is active in other SE / SO sites and in case not be more lenient and provide extra guidance as they will have no clue on how the site operates.


text:
How about a resource pool?
I have often seen that new people who just join ask for Books,Abhidhamma explanations,Meditation teaching audios & etc.
And every time a person tries to answer these question he has to go all over the internet to find links,articles,videos,etc.

So what i'm asking is can we build a resource pool like a blog or a cloud that people can have access to. People who wants to answer questions will add the links from there without any hassle as everything is there in one place and readers can take whatever they want just the same.

There's a list of (some) useful resources on the site's Help page.
See also Suggestions for resources section.


text:
Rewriting the laws
Is it possible for us to take a vote or take suggestions from the community to make this SE more user friendly?
For example, new users have a bit of a hard time adjusting to the well maintained uniform here. Even though all the moderators do a great job, i think it will be a help for them and all the users to set the bar a bit low. If laws and regulations are a bit more flexible it would be nice.
Now i do not mean changing the essentials, what i mean is a flexible set of rules. This SE can attract a lot of people if it becomes a bit more like Reddit. But we can't have the same going on because we are a Q&A site, But some changes are possible and necessary.
Namo Buddhaya!

Yes it's possible to take suggestions and to discuss and vote on the suggestion -- that's what Meta is for. We've had (only) 3 questions closed in the last 30 days: which doesn't suggest to me that we're excessively strict? And the Moderation policy for questions is already more permissive than on other SE sites: so I don't see a general/systemic problem with being inflexible, but maybe you'd like to point one out? We can also use Meta to discuss specific posts.

Yes, i agree it is more free here. Let me wait and add such occasions once i see them. I think it would be easier than going through questions. Thanks Chris.


text:
What comments to take into account?
Sometimes a question gets closed/put on hold for being opinion based. Fine.
But sometimes people comment on your question and say "you should revise, this is opinion based". So you revise? Only to find another user has answered the original question.
So should we think like "a question is not opinion based unless a moderator thinks it is? And the it gets closed." I think so; I think this should be solely up to moderators to decide. It's like a band. The Boss makes the rules and tells the others their roles. Accept or get kicked out.
Any opinions on this?

IMHO, if any user (non-moderator) comments that the question seems opinion-based, you should take that as food for thought and see if you can tweak the phrasing. If a moderator or a high-rated user does so, their opinion should probably have a little more weight (but not be taken as absolute truth! - use common sense!)
If question is put on hold, either by a popular vote of five, or by a moderator, that's basically an ultimatum to rework the question. Putting question on hold is not same as closing it. Because we are pretty liberal here, the question will most likely be reopened if the new version passes the grey area even by an inch.
If one person says the question is opinion-based, and other people answers it - that doesn't necessarily mean the original question was alright. It just means the original question had a valid point in it - that some people could relate to - but also has some phrasing problems - that other people found misleading. IMHO, in this case the question should still be rephrased, if possible in such way as to preserve the validity of the answers.

I see and agree. Also better to think stuff more through before asking. I'm learning and you get to practice patience, win win

Whether to ignore a comment?
If someone comments "this is opinion-based", that comment has 3 audiences: the OP, other users, and moderators.
Anyone can do three things with such a comment: ignore the comment, edit the question, vote to close the question.
People other than the OP may be more reluctant to edit the question, e.g. because we don't want to turn it into a different question which the OP didn't want to ask. For that reason, it's better if the OP asks themselves whether they can improve their own question, even if other people don't edit it.

What does "opinion-based" mean?
My own criterion for what's too opinion-based comes from Good Subjective, Bad Subjective, i.e.

The folks at Moms4mom owned up to the subjective issue and came up with a set of principles to create useful subjective discussions on parenting: 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

An answer that begins with "this sutta says..." or "my teacher told me..." counts as a reference, and plenty of questions about practice can be answered based on some personal experience.
I did close one question which seemed to be asking, "If the Buddha were here today would he use Twitter for teaching?", because I thought that couldn't be answered using references nor using personal experience (and so, any answers could be no more than mere/idle opinion).

Are moderators The Boss?
Not exactly.
I think that moderators are meant to be agents who reflect a community consensus/opinion. For example our Moderation policies for Questions was based on this discussion with the members of the community who wanted to discuss it. In a mature site moderators are elected (not appointed), presumably based on their ability to implement a communal consensus.
On this site in particular, I think that users tend not to vote-to-close or down-vote questions (i.e. the majority of questions are acceptable to the community).
So if anyone does criticize a question it's worth at least considering their criticism.
I guess it works that way in a Band, too: if anyone doesn't like something, it's worth listening: otherwise you won't get harmony and a full sound, participation.
Furthermore, even now a question can be closed by 1 moderator or by any 5 sufficiently reputable users. On a mature site with many users it's easier to get 5 votes-to-close (on a beta site with fewer users it's harder to accumulate 5 votes, so moderators are relatively more active). That doesn't mean that only moderators are important, it means that moderators are trying to act as a proxy for community consensus.

When can I comment on a question?
Anyone can comment on a question:

To explain why they think it ought to be closed
To suggest (identify) any specific improvement[s] which could be made
To ask some question about the question, if the question or the OP's intent is unclear

Answers to the question are better posted as answers rather than as comments.