text:
Moderating answers which don't answer the question?
One of the reasons for which you are able to flag an answer is the following:

not an answer
This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.

When (or if) you flag an answer like that, then you're asking a moderator to delete the answer.
What should moderators do with answers which are "not an answer"? As a moderator my personal inclination is:

Don't delete an answer just because I think that it's not an answer
Delete it, if I don't think it's an answer, and if:

Several people have downvoted it (so it has a negative number of votes)
Or, someone, or maybe several people, have flagged it
Or, only I'm very certain by myself that it's not an answer (or is at best a "there is no spoon" answer)

For example, some current examples which I think are not an answer include:

Here
Here
Here

Basically these answers say that the view which the question is asking about is wrong, for example,

Q: what is 'enlightenment' if you don't believe in literal rebirth? A: you should believe in literal rebirth and nirvana is meaningless if you don't.
Q: if your view is 'materialist' how does that effect your practice? A: you can't be materialist and Buddhist and you're going to hell if you're materialist.

An advantage or benefit of these answers is that they present an orthodox view.
Two disadvantages, one is that they don't answer the question, and another is that they might be seen as hostile to another sect, if there is another sect (or individual) which self-identifies as Buddhist but which does not conform to that orthodoxy.
So, my questions are,

Do you agree with what I suggested above: that moderators may delete such an answer, but only if other people have flagged and/or downvoted it?
Does it worry you that "not an answer" answers, whose purpose is to define an orthodox view that's contrary to the view that's being asked about, might seem hostile to other sects (if there is any sect with a view like the one being asked about)? Should they be deleted for that reason?

In the first example, the answer is -in my view- at most a comment, something to clarify some misunderstanding in the field which is covered/touched by the question (and as a comment I would appreciate it much). Aside that, I second Chris' appendend comment on it, couldn't make it clearer.

I've fallen foul of this as well. I deleted this zen type answer because it looked like nonsense to me. Apparently not -  it is a legitimate form of answer so I reversed my delete.
If I can try to put my opinion on your first point

Do you agree with what I suggested above: that moderators may delete
  such an answer, but only if other people have flagged and/or downvoted
  it?

I don't think you or I ever claimed to be experts on Buddhism and I think as time goes on the questions and answers are edging towards becoming more technical and academic. Although I practice Buddhism I'm not a teacher and I just have an interest in the academic side but no formal qualification or expertise. But we are moderators and although we weren't voted in, it was a community decision.
So from my perspective it's just best endeavors to moderate the site, delete answers that appear nonsensical, unhelpful or abusive and always listen to the community and be prepared to reverse any deletions if (when) we get them wrong.
Regarding flags I pretty much do what you suggest. So
If it is flagged by a user - really consider a delete if it looks like nonsense or vandalised. However put a comment on trying to explain my decision - to be fair I'm not sure if the user gets the message on a deleted question. I hope they do.
If it is autoflagged by the system - I will almost certainly not delete them (unless it's totally obvious). Instead I might leave a comment expressing doubts about quality and/or vote down.
Generally though I just do my best with it and try to be as fair as possible and be always ready to be called out on anything and reverse a decision. It is hard to tell though what should and should be deleted and downvotes are really helpful in making delete decisions.

For the three answers above (for example) I can't tell whether you think: a) I should delete them unilaterally (because I think they're not-an-answer) and then reverse my deletion if "the community" thinks my deletion was wrong; or whether b) I should wait (without deleting them, even though I think they're not-an-answer) to see whether other people will downvote and/or flag them.

@ChrisW personally I wouldn't delete any of them. You've commented which I think is enough. I think cases where the answer is oblique or it isn't obvious if it addresses the question or not are best left to people down voting. If it gets to -2 or -3 (can't remember) then higher rep users can start to cast delete votes. The only thing extra I would do is downvote if I think they are way off. As ever just my opinion

The reason I'm actually worried about them (and tempted to delete them myself) is that they might be seen as hostile: i.e. Learning about all the branches is great, but no one is helped by being reminded that one branch of Buddhism thinks the very premise of your question is, oh I don't know, either superstition or contemptible scientism

@ChrisW I do see your point. Regarding the materialism one - as soon as I saw that I knew that someone would post and say basically you are going to hell (and I thought it would be Sanhka). But I think that is a legitimate answer - for him in his tradition it's right you might end up in an unfortunate rebirth. But I trust this community to balance itself up and for someone to post the alternative more secular view that materialism and Buddhism can live together or at least you won't go to hell - you just won't get enlightened with that kind of view

MatthewMartins post was at the beginning of the site i think. We are more mature as a community and I think we are good at coping with divergent views. But you are right - that is no reason for complacency. As well I think our 'be nice' policy is helpful. Certainly worth monitoring these posts

Regarding the answer given here, even though the question appears to limit answerers to materialists, it should be fine to answer any question in the site from a Buddhist perspective with information related to the subject matter, unless OP has specifically requested the answerers to be limited to a certain group of people. As you can see the OP has found the information useful. Also, stating something opposite to what one likes to believe in shouldn't be considered as hostile, especially if it is supported by the teachings.

If you felt you had reason to say something like that about any other Buddhist sect, in reply to a question which specifically asks about that other Buddhist sect and seeks answers from members of that other Buddhist sect, then I think that would be contrary to the site guidelines as I understand them. I don't know whether "materialist" is another Buddhist sect (e.g. I don't know whether "materialist" is similar to "secular") but the question itself implied that the OP thinks there is such a thing as a "materialist".

I think he is talking about an individual. In any case, it wasn't an attempt to insult a certain group(not sure if secular Buddhism is recognised as a sect).

Your example questions have the same theme: the askers asks about applying perspective A onto perspective B (e.g. 'Comparative religion' questions). They try to understand B from the point of view A. This is good, but it can be seen as comparing apples with oranges.
So by being off-topic (and perhaps highly upvoted), the answers convey an important message: that the askers need to learn more about B by its own view in its own words. Ideally the answerers should know both A and B, but those who only know about B may also give valuable information, and thus should be allowed to present it. (And by definition, the only answers they can provide are about B, which, by definition, is off-topic.)
As the off-topic answers can be seen as reminders the askers to respect B, I think the best approach should be asking the answerers to put a disclaimer in their answers. The mods may want to educate the users about this, so that both the askers and the answerers don't feel that the other side missing and passing their points.
Although the askers want to understand B from perspective A, it is much better if they ask about A from perspective B.

See also: Answers vs Advice


text:
List of the "Greatest Hits"
I just discovered there's a "Greatest Hits" feature build into the site software:

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/greatest-hits

I find it remarkable because I don't remember most of these questions, and they're not the questions that are the most upvoted.
Instead they're the ones with the most answers, and/or with the most views.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Suspending a 'disruptive' user -- is current policy too forgiving and permissive?
I've been asked to explain my policy for suspending user accounts.
The thought is that perhaps the policy is too forgiving and should be more severe: and so I'm posting it here for discussion and for feedback from the you, the site's community.
I'd appreciate it if you'd help to clarify -- by posting your opinion as an answer here, or by voting on an existing answer -- whether you think this existing policy is about right, or whether we and I had better change it.

The problems
There are few kinds of problem; and the most difficult problem seems to be "hostile comments"?

Someone posts spam -- i.e. an advertisement for a commercial service unrelated to Buddhism -- or perhaps pornography
A moderator will delete the post and destroy the user account immediately.
Someone posts an off-topic question or an off-topic answer -- i.e. one which is unrelated to Buddhism
A moderator will delete the post but not take action against the account.
Someone posts a "bad" answer -- i.e. one which is misleading or incorrect.
This is not a job for moderators to handle (moderators aren't expected to be expert authorities/judges). Instead it's for the community of users -- i.e. it's for you to vote on (possibly downvote) the question, or to post a polite comment to question what was posted or to suggest an improvement.
Someone posts a "hostile" question -- i.e. one which invites criticism of a school of Buddhism
A moderator will close the question but take no action against the account (unless you do it persistently).
The same is true for a few other types of question which the community has voted to be unwelcome -- e.g. preaching disguised as a question, and so on, listed here.
Someone posts a "hostile" answer -- i.e. one which criticises a school of Buddhism, or explicitly criticises or quotes the answer posted by another user
A moderator may edit the answer to delete the little "hostile" bit from it, or delete the whole answer if the hostile bit was all there is.
You can of course post an answer which is different than or happens to contradict another answer, but this isn't a site for debate (e.g. "my answer is right and user X's answer is wrong").
Instead this is a site where users may post independent answers, which reply to the OP's question (don't reply to other answers).
Someone posts a "hostile" comment
Most users don't comment at all, or they comment in a polite and helpful way that seems unobjectionable and helpful, which is not a problem and is welcome.
A few users comment in a way that other users may find rude, unfortunately -- and this is (in my opinion) the most troublesome (labour-intensive) aspect of having to try to moderate this site.

Soon after it was created the founders of SE defined "disruptive behaviour" as follows:

Disruptive behavior

Other users tend to react poorly to this user’s contributions, posting negative responses in kind and generally causing a commotion.
There is a broad sense of community resentment over this user’s behavior, and they are frequently cited in discussion about the community.
There is a dark storm cloud of moderator flags that seems to follow this user around wherever they go.
The moderators get email complaints about this user’s behavior.
This user makes overtly snide, rude, or hostile comments to their fellow users.

… these problem behaviors have to be dealt with. When they aren’t, it takes up excessive moderator time that could be used for something more productive — and, even worse, these behaviors begin to actively turn people away from our community, stunting its growth and harming everyone.
So starting tonight, there will be consequences for patterns of problem behavior.
If we think you are reachable, and the behavior is one that we feel can change, we will try to warn you via email first when there are behavior problems — so that we can address them before they become deeper problems. But I make no guarantees; the community moderators are very, very busy and there are a lot of things that need their attention. The odds of moderators contacting you with a warning first will be in direct proportion to how much evidence you’ve given us that you are, in fact, a potentially valuable and contributing member of the community.
Depending on the severity of the problem behavior — and at the complete discretion of the moderator — your account will be placed in timed suspension for anywhere from 1 to 365 days. That means:

Your account will be locked at 1 reputation.
Your user page will have a visual indication that you are in timed suspension, and for how long.
You will be unable to vote, ask, answer, or comment.

At the end of this timed suspension period, your reputation will be recalculated, and your account will resume as normal. We don’t hold grudges. The point of all this is to address the behavior. If the behavior improves, you are welcome back.
(This should probably go without saying, but if the problem behaviors do continue beyond the timed suspension, your account is very likely to be permanently deleted.)

SE recommends the following suspension periods by the way:

7 days for first serious issue
30 days for second serious issue
365 days for third serious issue

Here's the question -- the current policy for suspending high-reputation accounts is more or less as follows -- is this OK, or should it be stricter involving longer suspension periods?
There are at least two user accounts on this site, with a high reputation (several 1000), which have been suspended half a dozen times or more.
Some users -- and moderators of other SE sites who I've chatted with -- suggest that this shouldn't be possible, because the third suspension should have been for a year, after which a permanent ban.
So these user accounts still exist (and the users are still active on the site) because I and other moderators (e.g. Lanka) have been suspending for shorter than the recommended period.
Here is are my reasons for that:

The suspensions in question are for posting comments which are critical and impolite.
That needs to be stopped when it's contrary to the Code of Conduct -- which says "kindness, collaboration, and mutual respect" and "unfriendly language".
But I'm mindful of the Robustness principle ...

Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others (often reworded as "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept").

... so I'm inclined to try to be tolerant of what other people post and of how they word it.
Or in a Buddhist context you might perhaps "not accept" it (i.e. not participate).
What I don't know exactly is how tolerant you all are -- perhaps you agree, or perhaps you'd like me to be less tolerant.
The fact that these are high-reputation accounts implies that they post answers which help the OP.
I think that's the most important thing, so I'm reluctant to prevent that (by suspending the account for a year, or banning it permanently).
If someone were abusive again a few days after their previous suspension ends, then I'd suspend again for an increased or greatly increased suspension period.
But if it has been like half a year or more since the last time they "stepped over the line" then I'm inclined to suspend for a 'normal' period, like for just another month again rather than a whole year this time.
This is a small site which I have been able to watch closely/frequently. If someone posts something hostile, and if I then quickly see that and delete it and suspend their account for a month, then I think that's quite effective at keeping the site mostly clean.
I hope you see that as an occasional and minor inconvenience, not as a permanent annoyance.
I try to read everything but please also flag something that you think a moderator ought to look at.
If someone's natural style of dialog is uninhibited then some of it might be rude and some polite, it's a range. Bits of it which "cross the line" are likely to be deleted (by a moderator) and maybe cause a suspension.
The result of that may be that, instead of their dialog ranging from polite to rude, it will range from polite to "borderline". So eventually many of their comments might be "borderline" -- not quite rude enough to get them suspended but just rude enough to annoy some users.
That's a problem, but I don't know what I can do about that (suggestions welcome).
Some of you may know some other users from other non-SE sites on the internet, and have formed some opinion of them based on what they posted there. I am inclined to ignore that -- it says "we don't hold grudges" -- and if a user is  more polite on this site than they are on other sites, that's alright by me.
I figure that maybe moderating users is more of a nuisance for me than it is for anyone else -- suspending a user gives me a break and some free time from having to moderate them and the user dialogs and controversies they stir up -- so perhaps, as long as I am willing to keep moderating these users, other members of the community will tolerate it also.
Also I'm not sure I should ban an account (or suspend it for a year) just because I personally lose patience.
But I'm here to help to implement the site you want, so, let me know what moderation policy you prefer.

People are upvoting the question -- not voting for an answer one way or the other. I guess that means "this is a well-asked question" or "thanks for explanation" and perhaps "continue as you see fit".

I am very glad that DD is gone, if this is yet another thread secretly about him. I was definitely one of the people who left the website when he started trying to hijack it. Moderation was very lenient with him. I remember an episode where we went on a bizarre unhinged rant, calling me a Jew and a witch, because I disagreed with his terrible Buddhism-based advice to persons dealing with substance abuse issues. He regularly poisons any forum-adjacent Buddhism discussion community he is a part of.

@Caoimhghin I'm sorry to hear he was offensive, to you (and that you left the site). Generally and in future,, on this or any other SE site, you can "flag" any comment or post you find offensive -- I hope you know all about flagging but if not feel free to ask -- or you can bring it to a moderator's attention more publicly if you wish to, by posting here on Meta.

@Caoimhghin in case this will make you feel any better, all that time you felt moderation was lenient we had an internal debate going on, trying to weigh banning him against losing a user that has more than a passing knowledge of Buddhism. We were hoping we could keep him on and slowly bring up to the right level of discipline but that did not work out. Now we are taking a more drastic position which he apparently doesn't want to cooperate with (which is exactly what we feared would happen)  but at this point I suppose we came to terms with losing him as contributor.

I hope this explains what it looked like from our perspective. I'm still convinced we did the right thing by trying to get him to cooperate rather than outright banning him last year, even if we still had to do it later.

@AndreiVolkov I am not convinced we did the right thing. I found it (being a moderator) an ordeal, stressful, which maybe it isn't supposed to be. Still I signed up for that, with stress of course a result of my own projections and expectations. I'm not sure whether to feel "remorse" about it -- on one hand we act as we do for reasons that seem right enough at the time, but on the other maybe we should know better or be more naïve and willing to apply SE's "rules as written" instead of bending or slowing them leniently. I am sorry though that as I feared, this caused stress to other users too.

Right, and this was the essence of our internal debate. I suppose if I listened to you, things would be different but whether they would be better is something I'm not clear about.

I disagree that he was particularly knowledgeable, but we can agree to disagree. It sounds like moderation here was run through the same ringer all moderation is run through when he darkens the door of a forum.

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


text:
How do I add linebreaks to comments?
The help says that < br/ > style linebreaks can be added to a comment by inserting two spaces after the line in question. I tried it and can't make it work. Any ideas?

It won't work with comments, just answers and questions. You can also just use <br/>, BTW;  double new lines actually create a new paragraph, I think, rather than a carrier return/line feed.

Ah, right, the help is a bit ambiguous. The "Linebreak" stuff comes below a block about comment markdown, but now I see the comment stuff is in a yellow box and the linebreak aspect falls below that.

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


text:
Unnecessary arguing
For reference I think (based on an earlier comment of Alex's) that it was this question ...

If Buddha had unconditional love, why did he "kill" some of his monks?

... or its answers, which was at least one example of the "unnecessary arguing" which @Alex refers to in this answer.
In context that question (about "unconditional love") had been subsequent to this answer -- and to these comments under an earlier version of that answer, which were later moved to chat.
As a moderator I "allowed" that question (about "killing" and "unconditional love") because it seemed to be within the norms of the site, and it was upvoted.
But if that's an example of unnecessary arguing which you'd like to stop somehow, then you could maybe explain here how you see that -- for example ...

Am I too permissive about allowing (or myself participating in) arguing?
Is there a specific pattern of posting -- answers, comments, follow-on question -- that I should watch more closely?
A specific type of content or use of language (I'm already wary of people using the word "you" for example)?
A specific nuisance user account (though I'm loathe to ask this question because personal dislike if any might be quite problematic especially as a basis for moderation, and is arguably against the Code of Conduct which says, "Focus on the content, not the person")?
Or is the status quo (i.e. "the way it is now") kind of good enough or "couldn't be better" even if it is imperfect?

... or whatever else you can say.

I don't know if this helps any, but I've always felt that the role of a moderator was to adjust how people say things, not what things they say. With EB, for instance, I might have suggested that he stop posting rhetorical questions and start answering questions or commenting on other people's answers. That's a more honest application of his intent.

A bit of arguing isn't bad, as long as the attachments don't get out of control. If you just keep an eye on the energy of the conversation and intercede when (and hopefully before) emotions and mind-stuff start to explode all over the page, that should be good enough. And keep in mind the parable of the Bengali Tea Person.

@TedWrigley In this case some Tea People might have perturbed EB. Thanks for your input -- I'll take that as a vote for the status quo.


text:
I challenge you to answer this question
These two recent questions appear to be phrased as a challenge:

How to tackle cold?
How to tackle a beautiful tantrik female/other?

I say that because:

The OP says so explicitly:

Good Luck theorist/s...(if there is anything like luck in this case)! Please feel yourself challenged to get to the details.

The OP seems to talk as if they know the "right answer", or at least able to know a "wrong answer" -- posting comments like this one in reply to an answer:

Nope, you thinking in wrong direction.

... and ...

You just spammed this question, shoo away.

There was also this comment ...

These 2 questions are a challenge and greatest contribution to buddhists/truth-seekers, till now on internet. Good luck(if luck exists)!.

... which reminds me of the saying that, "Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook."

My question is, are these questions welcome and/or should they be closed?
Are they a new category unwelcome question to be moderated -- a combination of "hostile", "seeded", and "preachy"?
Or is hosting questions like these one of the desired/beneficial use-cases for the site?

Can you formulate what's wrong with it? Is the intent, of posting something as a challenge (or something else)? How would it have to be edited, to make it welcome, or how is it unsalvageable?

@sigh I think the OP was looking for proof or evidence that the person answering had meditated (so as to "know for themselves") -- and so, you're right, that the OP wouldn't have been content with a scriptural reference -- hence the line about challenging theorists. Yet I think it's OK in general to ask about Buddhist practice (like it's also OK to ask about theory using a reference-request tag). There's something though that makes these questions unwelcome -- they're now downvoted -- I'm not sure I can articulate what that is though, i.e. why they're unwelcome.

Well that's a reason. A lot of questions can theoretically be answered with a line or a paragraph or two, and maybe a reference. I think the site's Questions policy was that even very broad questions are OK, but that you might expect a shallow/superficial answer in reply. unanswerable lest one wrote him a really long text explaining what was wrong with his request, formulation and expectations I'd better not make the same mistake then -- of asking you to do all that. I suppose it's hard to summarise.

I added a new close reason -- "Too open ended" -- to the Moderation policies for Questions
And then closed How to tackle cold? for that reason.
The other question was closed too, earlier, for a different reason:

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's not really a question: it's a vehicle for [the author] to position himself as an instructor. He should write a blog rather than ask leading questions.

I think these posts fall into the old, questionable camp of spiritual combat, and so are not mere trolling. I've run across spiritual combatants before; they claim that it's important to push hard on others they perceive as teachers in order to expose inconsistencies and misunderstandings; they justify it by claiming they are trying to weed out bad concepts and discredit poor sources, in order to protect innocent beginners from corrupted texts. It's of a part with ancient Greek Cynicism, which practiced intentional impudence: constantly questioning and uprooting the norms of society in order to force people to see the 'truth' of humanity.
It's a deep, deep attachment to a noble idea. That is an intractable combination; there's nothing is more difficult to unwind than a zealot.
The compassionate thing to do, I suppose, would be to sit down and have a talk with him: see if we can tease out a capacity for self-reflection that might mellow his approach. But I can't see a door into that kind of conversation yet. Right now these questions are just a game of king-of-the-hill, where he gets to define what the hill is and start with himself as king. Stepping into that kind of conversation means accepting his terms of combat, and, you know... Meh. But moderating him will merely reinforce his idée fixe: that we are all a bunch of corrupt Buddhist trying to suppress his clear vision.
It's a pickle, and I don't have much of an answer to it, but it's worth pointing out that he's probably earnest.

Right now these questions are just a game of king-of-the-hill, where he gets to define what the hill is and start with himself as king. That's how it seemed. his _idée fixe_: that we are all a bunch of corrupt Buddhist trying to suppress his clear vision. My theory was that I recognise it as having been written by another existing user -- who, might think that other users (not wanting to mention names but including me) argue with each other -- and the intent then might be to, for some reason, demonstrate that we are not the king of some hill. Like causing a scene when other people argue.

Oh, that may be true, but whether or not it's true, it's the kind of speculation that will ultimately make you crazy. Best to just take it at face value.

Well we heard from the OP now. And I started a new follow-on Meta-topic -- Unnecessary arguing -- in case that is a concern that you would kindly like to spend a little time to address (though it's a chore and I could imagine why you might not want to).

I think it's disruptive -- and should therefore possibly be moderated.

Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.

Perhaps it's intended to be "disruptive" -- hence to OP's user name, i.e. "Ego Breaker".

The OP ("Ego Breaker.") posted on the main site as follows -- I'm moving that answer to here.

Vandami Authority(samyak sam buddha),
My last visit on this site, 100% sure.
So, it seems that @TedWrigly could understand me a little-little-- I am not some geeky--, a hard-coded, determined, strong student of dhamma, follower of only Samyak Sam Buddha.
challenge:: (With strong happiness)Ha! Not just challenge, feel yourself tortured, tortured by your own feelings, tortured by thoughts, tortured by life, tortured by outsight, tortured by defiled behaviour pattern. Then, remember my questions, quests and then feel yourself as challenged to get rid of dukkha.
Enviornment for coldness:: It's not meant to be decreased suddenly, rather enviornment is such that, "uptill now when meditator would feel the need to wear woolen clothes". What to do and how should meditator meditate to start tackling that, surely, after some point, h/s-he will feel it to be useless or to be diverted to power so, now focus will only be towards ... enlightenment?
:::::::::::::::::
Being said above, feel free to edit questions to make seemingly-pleasent-to-senses(!).
:::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::
Before, I wanted to post my experience as an answer and then was thinking to some-how, mix-up, come-up, by working with others for  generalized strategy with minute details for everyone.
One other concern was also to stop you all from unnecessary arguing with each other. It made me sad as how some educated people are fighting, is it for some publicity?? Buddha would have called you-lot  'mogh-zeerna'-- aging without any merit.
Place where I live, Buddhists are called as demons and vice-versa, that hurts me.
And after seeing you-lot's behaviour, I don't know where to go other than to remain a lone-freak-meditating-animal in this sexual world.
::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::
But now, you-lot are on your own, I am on my own. Be happy. As nowdays, I am planning to restart my household life to earn money, after wandering in meditation as independent ascetic for ≈3.5 years, so I won't be able to entertain educated-sensual-pleasing-tradition-bounded-idiots.
::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::
And don't worry, I am not breaking percept of "not-to-steal" by hiding my identity(if you could analyse&understand how is this percept broken), customer care of stack exchange know me, my another account is @Alex, even @chrisW knows me(if h/s-he can analyse) through my account before @Alex, not only this, one old-geezer buddhist :), also knows me over here--internet.
::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::
Regarding quest part::
Few things to consider are::
1.) Preparation since a long time through thinking(in both quests)... by maintaining 5 percepts at bodily level only.
2.) Outsight :: ability to analyse outer enviornment and it's effects on my 'unchanged' behaviour(or daily life).
3.) Insight :: Ability to analyse, "there is something wrong within my body", and start analysing, understanding, revising, observing, calming, retracing, freezing, seeing-side-effects, changing, getting changed, establishing, teaching(phew! That's a looooong road, pals, long road).
4.) Doing above 3 in random manner.
5.) Analysing percets(5) at body, speech, mind. Analysing other percepts. Figuring out what can be broken, why are they necessary(in terms of outsight), why are they necessary(in terms of insight)... what would be the limits, what could be next thing?
6.) Establishing self on one planet, within a particular area, practicing!
7.) •••
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Wrong direction::
Thinking about out-sight only; going only for insight without even knowing the percepts required, determination required, preparation required, ••• , without child-like-innocency... and so on(2 have been mentioned)...
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Do english yourself.
ओह! मैं तो छुट्टा सांड ही सही, पता नहीं किन गधों के तबेले में आ गया|
(Posted here as couldn't find answer tab on meta link given as comment under cloded question)
Blessings,
Sayo-Na-Ra, Hasta-La-Vaasta, bye!
Namastey(only to buddha, not you-reader!)

This meta-topic is further to (a response or reply to) the answer above -- Unnecessary arguing

@Erik Yes if only. But multiple accounts is permitted by the software and by SE policy. One of the supposedly "legitimate" uses on the network is to post an anonymous question not associated with your main or "better-known" account. It's meant to be generally harmless since (e.g. according to the Code of Conduct) as users we're supposed to focus on the content posted  and not the person posting, though I admit that as humans we might be inclined to suppose that we get to know and to recognise people.


text:
Can we have a topic to list book recommendations?
Further to these comments ...

The book had 5 stars and so many reviews...its a terrible book...some kind of new age art of living...its so difficult to pick up a good book
where are the book recomendation on here...or you mean i just search books in question tab

... would it be appropriate or possible for this site to have a list of books?
I'm thinking of the following format:

A question asking for books
Many answers, one answer per book: which give the title and author, and a summary of the books contents.

The whole topic could be "community wiki".
People could leave comments to comment on a book, or edit or add to the summary in the answer; and maybe up-vote if they too recommend a book.
We did something a bit similar here:

book-of-the-month
How about a 'resource' tab?

If the answer is "no" then how else could we address the comments quoted above?

Update – the topic is started, see List of book recommendations

In general, it sounds like a good idea. I'm worried about practicalities though. Like you said, posting one book per answer may make too many answers. Multi-book answers will probably look messy and upvoting them won't be as useful. Perhaps, one book per answer is not as bad is it sounds. I remember a similar question on Stack Overflow proper, and it ended up having hundreds of books but still managed to remain useful.

Or maybe not -- I found that we have some already, for example with this search I found this topic: Introductory books to Buddhism. Is there room for another topic, or would that just be a duplicate? E.g. if we already have a topic for any "introductory" books, we could another for any books on any more specific aspect/topics (every topic other than "a good introduction to Buddhism").

I hesitate because it (not having a clearly-defined question) contradicts existing policies, about "polling" and "preaching" and "seeded questions" -- making it "community wiki" tries to say "yes but this question is different", even so ... my primary motive was to benefit people looking for introductory books, and perhaps that's already done.

It might become a long long list -- too long. Some people can recommend 50 books and more. Upvoting might help (to find popular books).
Alternatives:

Create some classification (subsections) for different types of book or topic (e.g. introductory books for beginners, meditation, etc.):

Different answers for different kinds of book, with several books per answer  -- for example, one answer for "Introducing the suttas", with several books in that answer
Different topics (different questions) for different types, each with one book per answer) -- for example, one topic for "Introducing the suttas", with several books in that answer

Recommend authors, instead of books (some authors have many books); i.e. have one answer per author, and describe/summarise the author's books.
Sankha's comment here suggests that the topic could be good collections (lists) of books -- perhaps a separate answer for each collection.

If I can suggest as a non-expert... it might be "cleaner" if instead of a question/answer format you instead use something like the format for "Tags" or "Users"  (little boxes with possibly the cover of the book if available, or just the white square.
Where the book is the “user” the words beneath it are the shortcut words like categories. For example, where currently in the users, beneath ChrisW it says: moderation, specific-question, allowed-questions for a book it might be Advanced Practice; daily living advice; AAA tradition; English; French; German (language tags to indicate the translations available) ; pdf free (to indicate that there is a pdf available at no cost online)
Perhaps a numbering system similar to badges to indicate how many people left reviews and the numbering system similar to reputation points to indicate how many people “liked” or “upvoted” the book.
When you expand the book you would then see a summary of the content. & the reviews.
thank you for your efforts... the pebbles you throw in the pond make lovely ripples.

Thank you. To do that, someone would have to do it on a web site other than stack exchange -- that kind of page layout can't be controlled/created via the stack exchange user interface.

@ChrisW thank you for considering... this exchange is an apt illustration of the difference between a science fiction writer and an actual scientist ;) ... I dream! but in the end, you bring me the (necessary) limits of reality. thank you for your expertise.

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


text:
Are these edits justified?
I made two edits to this answer: What exactly is svabhava?.
The OP doesn't like these edits and wants them rolled back.
Are the edits justified? I made them because someone complained about the answer, found it offensive.
I made two edits:

Remove "lamaism" (and call it "Tibetan Buddhism" instead)
Remove complaints about other schools

Were these good (justifiable) edits, and/or can you suggest any better edit?

I also edited this answer: Lack of objective thinking in Buddhist practitionners
Again the edits were to remove some criticism of a school or of teachers.

I do not think my answer(s) needed any editing. Why don't you check the complaint is it justifiable? Lamaism was a term used by German/British scholar, I just borrowed it. I can check their/his books and add it to my original post. The complainer has already downvoted all my posts which disagree  to her personal devotion, must everyone praise her lineage to please and satisfy her?

I try to prevent users disparaging Mahayana Sutras -- similarly I'd ask you to refrain from being rude about schools of Tibetan Buddhism.

And I think that some people (practitioners or students of of Tibetan Buddhism) find "lamaism" a derogatory term -- so better use a different name instead (e.g. "Tibetan Buddhism" or "Vajrayana", or perhaps the names of specific schools).
Similarly people probably ought to avoid using "Hinayana" on this site -- using that word causes complaints from users.
The fact that the word "lamaism" used to be used by Western scholars isn't enough. There are several words in English, which used to be common or which were used historically, but which are now considered derogatory (some so offensive that they're now taboo, I'm reluctant to quote them as an example)!
Wikipedia:

Westerners unfamiliar with Tibetan Buddhism initially turned to China for an understanding. There the term used was "lamaism" (literally, "doctrine of the lamas": lama jiao) to distinguish it from a then-traditional Chinese form (fo jiao). The term was taken up by western scholars including Hegel, as early as 1822.[3] Insofar as it implies a discontinuity between Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, the term has been discredited.[4]
Another term, "Vajrayāna" is occasionally used mistakenly for Tibetan Buddhism. More accurately, it signifies a certain subset of practices included in, not only Tibetan Buddhism, but other forms of Buddhism as well.

Anyway, "lamaism" just one word. It's seems to me it should be easy to substitute a different name that's not offensive to practitioners, e.g. a name which they use to describe themselves.

And in general maybe this site doesn't necessarily welcome "real criticism" -- especially your criticism of other schools. Instead maybe it's better to explain what's good about Chinese Mahayana, and refrain from saying what's bad about people who use the Pali Canon (e.g. that they're blinkered because they disregard the Chinese which is 85% of the canon), and/or bad about forms of Tibetan Buddhism.
I don't want to delete your whole answer. I think I ought to remove any little bits which are nothing but complaints or criticisms of other schools.
So I'll ask you not to criticise an entire school (and/or another user) in your answer: if you can do that then I'll feel no obligation to edit your answer. Note that about half of the policies listed in the FAQ index (summary of site policies) are in the section titled "Minimizing controversy", designed to minimize friction between different schools. You don't want to spend too much time handling the response to criticism ... and neither do I! so I recommend you try to minimise (or avoid altogether) criticising other schools.

I think it's useful and normal though, to be able to criticise specific teachers' teachings or translations -- e.g. "I don't like X's translation of that word". So:

Not really acceptable: "I don't like Jay Garfield"

Acceptable: "I don't like Jay Garfield's explanation of the Abhidhamma" or "I don't like Thich Nhat Hanh's interpretation of the Heart Sutra".
This latter would be better, though, if you also said what explanation of the Abhidhamma you do like. Otherwise it's just criticism, not constructive criticism (it's saying something's bad without explaining or referencing what's better), so perhaps not really useful or helpful.

Oh, dear @ChrisW, isn't Buddhism SE a professional (quite) forum somehow? How can one keep saying, "I don't like this, I don't like that"? Who care what you like? Are readers not wanting answers that for content, then opinion, or personal taste? How do you find "JG's explanation is questionable" vs "I don't like JG"? I can't do a self-molestation to pretending cute, or you think I should? I know you are very nice moderator, but a penetrating word may help to advance the intellectual exchange

I'm going to conclude all these posts in question within one or two days. I don't like something unfinished to hang around for too long. Either I edit myself, or delete if my edit keep being re-edited by others... or etc. I didn't see there's any suggestion of edit input from the complainer, except keeping repeating her ad hominem criticism, neither she responded to my one little request about if there's any Sutra she read. She was just to express unhappy!!! Honestly, there's nothing wrong with my pre-edited posts - speaking from fairness and sound mind. I'm extending my patience --

I accepted your finding "questionable" the works of specific translators. That criticism might be more constructive if you'd propose or reference better translations, but OK. I'm asking you not to be rude about whole schools ... maybe you find professionals who right like that (e.g. "the positive nature of the Buddhism has been entirely buried underneath of the Lamaism") ... but I don't think they can write like that here, on this site.

I don't have more to say about it. Maybe another user or another moderator will (have more to say about it).

There's another, related, topic here: Should the site accept non-constructive criticism of individuals or their works?

----> refer to my last comment to you on Yeshe Tenley's post

I don't mind to delete the post, readers. Lamaism was in fact employed intentionally to differentiate Tibetan Buddhism from its corrupted version. Historically there was a sect called Jonang in Tibetan Buddhism that abiding the Buddha Teaching, but destroyed by the previous Dalai Lama (5th). Many Tibetan Buddhists masters not all agreed with Je Tsongkhapa, but put down when his sect gained the ruling power... the Gelug sect. Please read the history yourself.

Lamaism was a term rented from the German/British scholars, list a few here:
1. Matthisa Hermanns,
"...the positive nature of the Buddhism has been entirely buried underneath of the Lamaism..."
-- Das Nationalepos der Tibeter, Gling Koenig Ge Sar, Regensburg (1965)
2. Hegel (yes, that "dialectic" German philosopher),
"...Far East (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Lamaism), the Near East (Persian, Egyptian, and Jewish religions), and the West (Greek and Roman religions)..."
-- Hegel: Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, Volume I (Manuscripts of the Introduction and the Lectures of 1822-1823)
3. L. Austine Waddell,
"Lamaism," Prof. Waddell opines, "is only  thinly  and  imperfectly  varnished  over  with  Buddhist symbolism, beneath which  the  sinister  growth  of  poly-demonist  superstition  darkly appears."
-- The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism with its mystic cults, symbolism and mythology, and in its relation to Indian Buddhism
[In his opinion, there are two primary sources for the demonic dimension lurking in Lamaism: it originates in part from the primitive paganism of Bon, and in part from Indian Tantrism. (p. xi & pp. 29-30)]

I in fact was acting out of minimizing the critique not quoting those books, also probably going too extensive from the OP's question, to just use Lamaism, so that Tibetan Buddhism as a whole was not mixed in. There are some Tibetan teachers I admire, such as Tsultrim Lodrö (I watched some of his youtubes),  Lama Kyabje Thubten Zopa Rinpoche (just by his face, same method I used when discerning Dalai Lama), Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche... also some historical ones. IMHO, Chogyam Trungpa could be a victim of his own "crazy wisdom", very unfortunate.
This complainer seems misunderstood the whole picture but directed by emotion from devotion turned sour... Again, I am having no problem to delete my post. In fact I will delete any of my post if anyone insisted I must edit it to a condition I myself found unacceptable/dislike, incl. that post on Svabhava. Sometimes I delete a post if I sensed the audiences not right; or some snapped the useful parts which helped them understood certain concept, or the Mahayana explanations were better than their own, but keep on libeling/disparaging Mahayana tradition; such as saying Lotus Sutra are fake, Heart Sutra fake, Perfect Enlightenment Sutra fake... except Pali Canon is Buddhavacana, Mahayana was a later collective creation work, etc. The more I read in this forum or elsewhere, the more I found that perhaps the libeling/disparaging partly due to the mixed in of Lamaism claimed Mahayana Tibetan Buddhism, such as many so-called deity-worshiping, of Heruka, Palden Lhamo... etc. or mistaking Tantric sexual yoga as one of or the only real Mahayana meditation practices...
For the complainer, you may read Trimondi, and learn about it yourself to see if you can justify your complaints at the first place.
----------
What is a real criticism @ChrisW, of your HHDL @Yeshe Tenley? Please read James Snell from Huffington. My one line on Dalai or comment on the quoted of his words was over-praised by you two a legitimate criticism, really. No?

It's easier to write here than in the comment -
Dear @Yeshe Tenley, you have a fine brain, with vivid personality also very honest you speak your mind, I like people your type. I hope the disagreements didn't inflict stupid negative feeling between you and me, that would be very silly. To avoid messing up more misunderstandings in being disagree, let me put things a bit clear:

Lamaism, I know it's bad term, I used it with good intention. I don't have bad impression towards Tibetan Buddhism as a whole. My initial introduction to Buddhism was via a Tibetan "shifu" - meant teacher-father you called "guru" I think. I learnt a lot from him, mostly in terms of meditation, Great Prostration, healing, and Dharma on ethical life... etc. That was the only teacher I ever called teacher. I'm not belonging to any lineage, nor I see myself going to subscribe to any. I only abide to the Dharma, that is the authentic Buddha Sutras. So when I used Lamaism, I was thinking in my mind to avoid mixed in Tibetan Buddhism as a whole. I only dislike the corrupted version of Tibetan Buddhism, which I thought that's the part called Lamaism. But it seems you guys' understanding just the opposite. I in fact was thinking in the Svabhava post if I used Tibetan Tantra Buddhism would be mixing in all the sects because Tantra has many meanings as I understood, so I thought using Tantra Lamaism was more specific it would refer to just the corrupted part of Tibetan Buddhism. (There are corrupted sects in Mahayana Chinese lineage too, like Nichiren was from the Lotus sect). Let me think of a better way to write it clearer... I don't think we have real conflict in this issue, the only problem is misunderstanding.
HHDL, I don't like him. Yeah, just silly dislike someone's face. That is my problem. I admitted I was innocent/naive even in my answer of that post now in discussion. But I think the way I wrote was half joking, don't you think sometimes taking things lightly is cool? Even after I read your deleted quote of Zopa Rinpoche, I like him, even I disagree with his teaching in that quote. IMO Zopa Rinpoche is a very honest man, he speaks his mind. I have good impression of @Tenzin Dorje (I like the cartoon picture of his profile), I had no idea he is of which lineage or taking what role, he is an amicable user in forum and I remembered there was a post by Theravadin user disparaging Lotus Sutra he wrote very professional comment to refute, using very technical terminologies, impressed!
I have very vague or even confused idea of who refer to which lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. I read some historical masters' works or lines sometimes, I just take up anything that's useful for me. So your thinking I against you or your teachers or your lineage is a misunderstanding.
Due to my personal experience and benefiting from the Buddha Dharma therefore I'm a bit taking it personal if I read something that to my understanding distorting the Buddha's teaching. I think I tried to explain what I understood as correct but due to the texts we based it's likely you can't get my point.

Therefore I don't think there any real issue between you and me, or those posts. The only issue perhaps is just misunderstanding. If you read the Buddha Sutras, many places praise the importance of "noble Dharma friends" (善知識) helping each other along the path. Regards.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I posted an answer here.

I researched "Trimondi" a bit. There's an article about the authors on the  French and German versions of Wikipedia, with some criticism of their work. There are reviews/comments about it here on Dharmawheel.

I found this meta-topic (so don't call it "Lamaism" on this site) -- Is Lamaism derogatory or neutral?

@YesheTenley I cleared the flag without deleting this answer: because the purpose of Meta is to propose and discuss site policy, and users cannot assess (e.g. agree or disagree) with Mishu's answer if the answer is flagged/moderated/deleted.

See my added the last section @YesheTenley


text:
Proposal: Pali should be on-topic
It was decided -- here, long ago and without much discussion -- that Pali (the language) isn't Buddhism and therefore isn't on topic -- though of course the meanings (translations, analysis and so on) of Pali Buddhist texts have always been on-topic.
It's argued in comments under this answer that this prohibition does more harm than good -- is unwelcoming to people who might want Q&A about this topic (i.e. Pali), and who might stay to become members of the community in other topics.
So this proposal is that "Pali", as well as "Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit", should be taken as on-topic here and not closed.
If you have an opinion which decision would be better for the site, please up-vote yes or no.
If you have more to say on this subject you may also post an answer.

Since questions re Pali at this site would likely be re Romanised Pali, & would likely be to do with Buddhist texts, including them seems beneficial & appropriate!

And same for Hybrid Sanskrit & similar

It should be restricted to Pali and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit in romanized form only.

Perhaps to avoid abuse, it might be appropriate to prohibit lengthy original or creative works, or require links to one of the several recognized depositories for lengthy texts? Or that discussion include recognizable contemporary languages? Vocabulary and concept discussion might not be problematic.

Yes
Questions about Pali or Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit should be on-topic and welcome.

I can't cast a vote because I was the one who posted this answer and the other one, but I might vote for this one -- what is the harm, what's the worst that could happen?

No
Let's keep the current policy, that this kind of question isn't on-topic.


text:
List of proposed FAQs
I added the proposed-faq tag to various topics.
I propose that these topics will be retagged with the faq tag.
My understanding of how FAQs are created is outlined in this answer.
I reviewed the current topics on Meta, and I chose this list of topics for the proposed-faq tag on the following basis:

It's clear what policy the topic is proposing or asking about
There is a clear consensus (based on voting) what the community's majority decision was
It's a Meta topic which:

May be of interest to new users
Is used by moderators as their guidance
Might be different from the usual policy of other SE sites
Is not a topic that's already covered in another proposed-faq topic
Is not about a topic which is used very infrequently (e.g. deleting accounts, chat, etc.).
Is not a support question (whose answer is already known by all experienced SE users), nor a topic which is already explained in one of the standard SE Help topics.

So before I convert these to faq, do you agree with each proposal on this list, or is any proposal disagreeable and needs more discussion?
Do you agree with the list, are there any further topics which you want to add to the list?

This is a good idea. The main SE site as a FAQ also. We can add this at the end to compliment our FAQ.

I converted proposed-faq to faq for various topics, and added a FAQ index (summary of site policies) which summarizes them.


text:
What about the 'rice experiment' question?
Should this 'rice experiment' question be opened or closed?

What do you think effects the “rice experiment”?

Why? If it were open what sort of answer could you write, how could you answer it?
What kind of answer might the OP be hoping for?
Can it be improved in any way or clarified somehow before reopening?
Is it on-topic (related to Buddhism)? Isn't this (Masuro Emoto's conjectures and experiments) considered "pseudo-science", and can it be worthwhile to associate that with (or to address it in the context of) Buddhism?

there are a ton of stuff discussed here than can not be proved - there are questions about ghosts and deamons for crying out loud

Ghosts and demons (or rather, entities which were described using words which have been translated as "ghosts" and "demons") are referenced in some Buddhist scriptures ... and the content of
Buddhist scriptures are on-topic.
That doesn't mean, by the way, that any and all questions about "ghosts" would be on-topic: for example I think that "Is this a real photograph of a ghost, or is it a hoax?" would not be on-topic.
Conversely I don't think the rice experiment is on-topic, because I think there's nothing like that in Buddhist scripture or teaching: it's not a subject that's addressed by Buddhist Dharma or tradition.

"Metta", though, is a Buddhist practice. Would it work to rework the question, so that the question is more about "metta" and less about "the rice experiment"?
Perhaps you could ask something like,
Is there a Buddhist tradition or practice, which involves developing or showing metta towards a non-sentient entity ... for example, towards a jar of rice?
If not, why not?
Is it theoretically possible (according to Buddhist theory) that such a practice might have an effect, an effect not only on the mind of the practitioner but also on the object ... for example, might speaking kindly to a sealed jar of cooked rice cause it to rot more slowly (as suggested by Masuro Emoto's rice experiment)?

Ok that is fine i dont mind that version

Thanks for the link - its nice to see you think this things through   (yet still i think this is overthinking this)
there are a ton of stuff discussed here than can not be proved -  there are questions about ghosts and deamons for crying out loud :)
AS i suspected some readers of this question have heared about it so there are opinions on it
what answeres might i expect ?   :
1   .   I have heared about this expirement sounds fishy to me becuase a b c
2 . I have tried this myself and it worked  i belive it works because a b c
3 . i dont think it can work cause metta just dosnt work this way and dont affect food   /    i think it will work cause metta affects rice so no reason it wont work
4 .  this works and can be implemented in peoples practice cause of a b c
just a few things i think of about answers that could have been posted im sure there are more variations and answer types
And  from that people can expand about the effects of words on the mind of people is  or whatever other implications this thing might have on our practice and not conncted to our practice as well


text:
Is it right to close this question?
Is it right to close this question as a duplicate:

What's the meaning of life in Buddhism?

I can see that its title (i.e. "meaning of life") is similar to some previous titles (i.e. "What is the meaning and/or purpose of life?"
and
"Impermanence, nonexistance of self, meaning of life").
But I think this question's is not a very good title, and that the content of this question is different: I think this question is asking, "Why do there seem to be two different goals (e.g. Nirvana, and favourable rebirth)?" -- which isn't the same as what the other questions were asking (and so I think this isn't a duplicate).
Perhaps we could reopen it, possibly change the title somehow?

Hmmm you are right, the title and content do mismatch. My assumption with closing the question, was that the OP had generic question about the Goal (what is the goal?), and then used nirvana vs. good rebirth as example of different goals, to support the confusion as the base of the question.
It seemed to me that the confusion was broader than the example. Based on that, I considered the title as more important than the clarification inside the question. In which case we already have several questions on the topic.
If it is the other way around and the title can be ignored, then the question is actually about the two goals and should be reopened.

I found the title so, I don't know, abstract ... airy-fairy ... that I outright ignored it and looked to the text instead to see what the actual question was. Sometimes I have a question but struggle to summarise it in a title.

Would "Is the goal of Buddhism nirvana, and/or is it good rebirth?" be an OK title? Or would that still be too generic, confused, broad?

Yes, something like that. Maybe "why does Buddhism seem to have more than one goal?" or even "Do all Buddhists have the same goal and if not why?"


text:
Can I copy-and-paste questions from other internet sites?
Is it OK to copy-and-paste a question from another site?

In general it's never OK to copy-and-paste anything (question or answer) from another site, except with attribution.
For example, if you wanted to ask ...

Other religions derive their ideas of right and wrong from the commandments of their god or gods. You Buddhists don't believe in a god, so how do you know what is right and wrong?

... then you should attribute the question, i.e. reference the site from which you copied the question, for example,

This page on buddhanet.net about the Five Precepts asks the following question:

Other religions derive their ideas of right and wrong from the commandments of their god or gods. You Buddhists don't believe in a god, so how do you know what is right and wrong?

Also if a question is already asked-and-answered on another site then you probably shouldn't ask the exact same question again on this site. If you read the answer on the other site and still don't properly understand the answer on the other site, then ask a more-specific question about the (referenced) answer (don't just ask the same question again).

Copying and pasting question may be taken as a sign that you're not interested in asking a question of your own.
Please review these answers for a further explanation of why a copy-and-pasted question is discouraged on this site, and multiple copy-and-pasted questions are forbidden.


text:
Is expanding on a given answer, a proper thing to do?
Mainly when I answer a question I tent to think about It for quite a while, often coming up with some addition to the already given answer.
Is it alright to simply add it to the existing answer or do you have to mention such changes in case it changes the nature of the answer as whole?

just for clarification, are you referring to editing/expanding your own answer or adding to someone else's answer?

I'm referring to expanding my own answer.

I spent some time on the Meta FAQ page FAQ for Stack Exchange sites to see if they had anything about an original author explaining changes to their own posts and I didn't see anything specifically about that. I suppose if you were changing your own answer so drastically that you didn't feel it was proper to keep the upvotes your other answer had received, maybe you could delete the original answer and submit the new one to see how it gets voted on it's own merits. But for minor enhancements I didn't see anything. And certainly on this site, many answers show that they've been edited at one time or another.
Here was one FAQ that went into detail about when it's good to edit both your own and others posts as well. Why can any user edit any other user's question or answer?  Editing seems to be encouraged overall.

Expanding on an earlier given answer is fine and IMHO should be encouraged. People can always look at the edit history so they can see what has changed. Also when you edit an answer, any upvotes on it (which are normally locked after voting) can be undone by the voter in case he/she now disagree with your answer.
Some people prefer to explicitly mention their edits in their answer text, for example by adding the text "EDIT" at the end of the original text and then add new text (see for example this question or this answer), but this isn't mandatory. Personally I only do this if the edit is substantial (but still related to the original answer).


text:
How should we handle the different traditions of Buddhism in our answers?

Theravada
Mahayana (Zen, Tibetan, Pure Land... all three very different from each other!)
Vajrayana

Since Shakyamuni's awakening, buddhism has evolved in many different ways throughout Asia. Each of these way has a different interpretation of the Buddha's teachings.
Then, how are we supposed to answer a question about, let's say, daily life for a buddhist or the concept of being "clear" of thought while meditating (this not how Zen would put it, for instance)?
The use of relevant tags maybe? But even then, it might not be enough, for instance, people who are not practitioners and therefore do not belong to any tradition, but are just eager to know more about buddhism, how should we answer their questions? For instance, should we talk about Enlightnment for every and each tradition each time there is a question about it?
gassho

Questions
The easy ones
Sect-agnostic questions
Some questions are reasonably sect-agnostic and are unlikely to elicit different responses from followers of different sects. Questions about the life of the Buddha (which is probably mostly agreed upon by all sects, unlike some of his teachings) are likely to fall into this category, as are questions about the historical evolution of Buddhism, and maybe some questions about meditation (among others). So these questions shouldn't cause us too much trouble.
Sect-specific questions
Other questions are obviously sect-specific, and the question asker knows it: e.g. What is the purpose of using a wand to hit a monk in Zen meditation?. In this case, it is obvious what to do - tag the question with an appropriate sect-related tag. At the broadest level, I suppose we have theravada, mahayana, or vajrayana - but there are also finer classifications that may be of use, e.g. zen, pure-land, etc.
I think it is a matter of the questioner's taste whether s/he would rather use one of the three top-level tags or something more specific, though of course we should be open to retagging a question with some other sect if would help the questioner get more relevant answers. Either way, the use of a sect-specific tag signals that the questioner knows what s/he's asking about, and wants an answer in the same vein.
The tricky ones
Then we get to the real mess - questions by laypeople that have vaguely-defined ideas about things that Buddhists do and who are unaware of the fine distinctions between the sects (disclaimer: I'm pretty much one of them). This is the tough part.
Christianity.SE, which is the most mature religion SE site, has declared these questions off-topic: "a survey of all Christian views on a particular subject" and "what the Bible says about a subject (unless you specify a doctrine/tradition)" are on the do-not-ask list. This is going to be a bigger problem for us than for them - because of the demographics of Stack Exchange, we're going to have far more non-Buddhists asking questions than they have non-Christians asking questions (relative to the size of the site).
The site is already full of questions like these - as a rough estimate, I'd say at least half fall into this category. On the other hand, I expect that there will be relatively fewer of them going forward - there's only so many generic questions that can be asked.
The easy solution is to ban them outright, like Christianity.SE did - but I don't know if we want to do that. These questions have tangible value both in terms of growth for the site (i.e. these general questions are the ones that are going to draw the most visitors) and as a view into the different sects within Buddhism that would be difficult to attain if we had to fragment these answers across multiple questions like "How do I attain enlightenment in Theravada?" and "How do I attain enlightenment in Zen?" and "How do I attain enlightenment in Bon?".
I don't know what the best thing to do is here; this is going to take a fair bit of discussion to figure out.
Answers
To the easy ones
To sect-agnostic questions
Since these questions are inherently sect-agnostic, it shouldn't matter too much what sect you follow. Nonetheless, it behooves you to make clear where you're coming from. If your answer is based on a passage from the Pali Canon, mention that. If you're drawing on something you heard in a talk by a Zen master, mention that. This helps place the answers in context.
To sect-specific questions.
Well, to start with, you obviously shouldn't answer a question tagged zen with Theravada teachings unless 1.) you have a really good contribution to make, or 2.) the particular teachings you're using happen to be shared with Zen.
Other than that, we should proceed as above - mention what you're drawing your answer from. If it's from the teachings of a particular subsect or a particular teacher, make a note of that in your answer, because, after all, there can be differing interpretations even within a sect.
To the tricky ones
As long as we allow these questions, it is incredibly important that these questions be answered with an explicit mention of the tradition on which the answer is based. It does nobody any good to see a question like "How do I attain enlightenment?" with a dozen contradictory answers and no explanation of why they are contradictory.
I strongly believe that we, as a community, should discourage answers that lack an indication of the tradition/sect/whatever on which the answer is based by 1.) commenting on the answer and politely but firmly asking the answerer to edit their answer with a mention of what scripture/tradition/etc their answer is based on; and 2.) downvoting if, after some time, they have not done that.

I totally agree, thank you @senshin, very nice answer. Now, what is the process to have it added to the site rules and guidelines?

@CTZStef Once we get pro tempore moderators in another week or two, they will be able to edit the various FAQ pages on the site to integrate information like this in. For now, though, we should make sure to wait and see if this answer is where community consensus lies, or if there are other approaches that might be better. (Also, would you be okay with removing the accept checkmark from this answer for now? I feel that we shouldn't imply that the issue has been fully settled yet.)

No problem, I liked your answer so much I couldn't help but accept it ;)

Absolutely agree with your last statement; I think it makes a good rule for stopping us from posing as the authoritative word on any given topic. I don't think it's terribly important in the case of answers to sect-agnostic questions, provided it is clear that the question is on something truly sect-agnostic. I would think answers to such a question would have to be sect-agnostic themselves, regardless of the sources they quote.

My stance on providing references remains the same. By restricting authoritative answers we would deny first-hand experience and limit ourselves to speculative theory. Given the situation in Buddhism, when most so-called practitioners do not even operate from the right frame of reference, denying people access to expert opinion is detrimental.

Encourage people to tag their questions with the sect/tradition in which they want an answer.
In fact, without a tag, every question could turn into a survey of the dozens of schools.
e.g. "Where do Buddhists stand on Abortion/Homosexuality/the existence of the Realms?" Well, Dalai Lama says X, Dharma Drum Mountain say Y, Insight Meditation Community says Z, Shin Buddhists say A, and so on, including I say , my aunt says, and people say "...."
We may end up with a lot of questions/answers that look like doubles, but wouldn't be if they are dealing with things from a different framework-- I suspect that would be fine.
I remember one question elsewhere... "how to repent (in the Buddhist fashion) doing an abortion?" The person was asking a sincere answer wanted to know from the Chinese Buddhist standpoint. It would have been useless to try to convince them that at such and such a meditation center in Indiana, that it is a non issue since they don't repent, nor put abortion on the list of wrongdoings. In the Chinese system repentance is efficacious and abortion is a first precept violation.
From the standpoint of someone with a problem, they want the problem solved in their framework. The solution in half a dozen other frameworks isn't very useful for putting them into action.

I also think having a tag for the sect from which you want an answer is helpful. Diversity in sects means some questions look completely off topic may have relevance to some sects. Also if someone from another sect brings their stand point then others should be respectful of it also as long as the answer is formulated within an acceptable framework. Again sometime these answers may look irrelevant from another sects point of view. This should be tolerated.
Also maybe Theravada, Zen, maybe too brought something as within Theravada there would be subtle variation in Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand. In case you think if there appears to be some variations some one can point out in a comment or can be edited in that there is some variation.
Not mentioning the tradition need not attract down votes but someone who spots that there are subtleties relating to tradition can edit the answer to point this out.


text:
Is "opinion based" a reason for closing a question?
I'm often seeing questions challenged with the "answers will be opinion-based" critique. And one poster pointed out that that critique comes from SE's core guidelines.
If so, I think we have a problem. Clearly there are questions that admit of answers that are non-opinion-based -- those whose answers consist of a sutta reference for example. But there are lots more, of interest to me at least and others by the looks of things, that by their very nature are going to be based on opinion.
Are we to restrict questions only to those whose answers consist of references to suttas and more-or-less recognized commentaries? If so, I think it raises a serious question as to the suitability of Buddhism for being an SE site at all.
My suggestion would be that at least in these early stages, we:

Focus more on up-voting good questions than on critiquing and attempting to close those we don't like
and
Even on those we do consider bad/inappropriate, we use the voting system rather than trying to close

New groups are like new fragile gardens -- easy to kill off stuff. I suggest we err on the side of getting people to ask any questions, and then use gentle voting to guide it all in the right direction. Once we've built momentum, and got a forum "culture" going, including letting the moderators find their feet, then we can more safely close stuff off (if we even need to).

I think a big misconception I've seen more than once here is that this reason applies to questions that express an opinion, which of course can have a fact-based answer.

OK so there are two concerns then -- one where a question itself is a bit rhetorical, and one where it will tend to stimulate only purely opinion-based answers? I think, as one commenter suggested, there was indeed a bit of "loading" in this question. But that may be muddying the fact that core question was (IMHO) perfectly valid and open to perfectly sound answers.

Here's the description for what really constitutes an "overly opinion-based" question:

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.

Why is this the way it is? Well, get comfortable, and read this treatise.
All of this is to say that the "opinion-based" close reason's raison d'être is not to insta-close anything with a whiff of opinion in it. It's to avoid becoming a forum where people fling opinions back and forth and call it "debate". We want to be a Q&A site full of good answers with clear evidentiary background, even if that evidence is one person's individual experience.
There's an old, and excellent, blog post on this fine line: Good Subjective, Bad Subjective.

They talk about how “opinion, by itself, is noise.” They’re not saying that subjective opinions are to be avoided; they’re attempting to mold and shape their inherently subjective Q&A into something constructive, informative and helpful. As it turns out, there is an entire field of subjective “expertise” that has the hallmarks of making great Q&A sites[.]

All of this is to say that in order to thrive, this community should continue to use the opinion-based close reason, and vote to close questions that need it. But that shouldn't mean that every question with a little bit of subjectivity is automatically kaiboshed.

A piece of discourse from the comments below that I find worth highlighting here in the answer:

This opinion thing is especially significant here in a Buddhism forum since part of the essence of Buddhism is knowledge gained via introspection which is, epistemologically, necessarily opinion. Here, more than in a group about a programming language (say) we may have to allow for more of [the] "one person's individual experience" exception. If not, I think the scope of the group will necessarily cut out whole chunks of valuable discourse. (Of course that may be OK.)

I think this moves the question forward but I think there's a little more needs said (for my own clarity anyway). On the one hand you make the very important caveat that evidentiary background can consist of "one person's individual experience". That's good, and crucial I'd say for a Buddhist group. But we still have the "opinion-based close" reason. That's fine, but I think we could therefore make clearer the difference between "individual experience" on the one hand, and "opinion" on the other. They could look remarkably similar.

Take, for example, this currently contentious question. Yuttadhammo's answer is clearly opinion -- almost no sources -- but it's equally clearly well thought-out, based on a lot of thinking/practice (a.k.a. "personal experience"). It's a good answer. Compare it with DamienR's answer (sorry Damien). That, by contrast, has no apparent foundation other than Damien's opinion. What's creating the difference?

I just want to hammer this point home, in case people think it's already been dealt with on SE. I propose that this opinion thing is especially significant here in a Buddhism forum since part of the essence of Buddhism is knowledge gained via introspection which is, epistemologically, necessarily opinion. Here, more than in a group about a programming language (say) we may have to allow for more of Abby's "one person's individual experience" exception. If not, I think the scope of the group will necessarily cut out whole chunks of valuable discourse. (Of course that may be OK.)

I don't think my answer was particularly opinion-based; it was Buddhism-based, just not sourced. Also logic and argumentation, I suppose, but not opinion, really.


text:
Answers vs Advice
(This is part observation, part suggestion/question and is triggered by a response to my own question here.)
Because a "religious" topic like Buddhism lends itself both to questions looking for (more or less) factual information and questions looking for advice on personal practice, I wonder if it's worth flagging somewhere that when answering a question, the responder should take care to respect the difference. On other Buddhist forums I've seen problems arise fairly often when the two things get mixed up. Guidelines could look something like this:

The best answers deal directly and solely with the question(s) specifically asked in the first place. Take care when "reading into" a question and answering some "deeper" question (that perhaps you think the questioner should have asked). Sometimes such pre-emption (i.e. avoiding first asking "Did you really mean ...?" and having the person reply "Ah, yes! That's a better way of putting it. So what's the answer?") is perfectly acceptable, but care is needed.
Avoid inadvertently invalidating the question, e.g. with answers of the form "That's the wrong question...". Use comments (and down-voting or flagging, where appropriate) to reflect a concern over a question's quality.
Take care when allowing assumptions about the personal intent of the questioner to influence your answer. Internet-based text correspondence is notoriously bad at conveying intent and emotion, so if you think you know, based solely on the text, why someone asked a question -- other than simply wanting to know the answer -- you're probably wrong.
In general, unless you actually are the questioner's teacher, don't assume a teacher's mantle.

Updated
See also Sectarian shout downs should be dealt with

Can you add examples of the problems that arise from offering advice vs answering a question.

If the advice invalidates or undermines the question itself, it can be off-putting, especially to newbies -- in that respect it can act like a mild form of "RTFM".  2. It can cause thread hijacking wherein the OP's question gets ignored in favor of the topic of the advice  3. In a subject area with both an intellectual and practice aspect, unsolicited advice from strangers may simply dilute the quality of an answer.  For example, if I was now to advise you that you had made a grammatical error in your request, and that perhaps you should read Strunk & White, it would be inappropriate.

If you guys are looking for examples of this discussion one of my own answers generated comments and discussion about this very topic.
http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1315/is-it-useful-and-polite-to-ask-a-potential-meditation-teacher-about-their-atta/1329#1329

@Jayantha, Yeah, I know ;-)

This is good, but it seems to be in the 'wrong' place. Is there a proper place for such guidelines?

I tend to agree, and I did hesitate to post the thing in the first place. I think I ended up deciding just to go ahead for two reasons. A) I didn't know where the "proper" place was. And B) Stackexchange forums differ widely in terms of culture and rules of posting etc, and fortunately we Buddhist and Buddhism-interested types appear to reside very much at the laid back and friendly end of the spectrum; so even if I was posting to the wrong place, I reckoned no one would mind much provided I was clearly well-intentioned and not egregiously out of scope. :-)

That said, I just noticed we're in buddhism.meta.se, not buddhism.se proper. I don't recall my post being to here, but if I was forced to choose a "proper" place for my post, then meta would probably be it. So if I actually did post it to meta in the first place, yay me! Or, if I posted it to buddhism.se itself but some helpful person then moved it to meta, yay said helpful person! Either way, yay!

I agree. I do think Buddhist discussions online have a tendency to attract "there is no spoon"* answers. For example, a better way to say "that is the wrong question" could be "before I answer your question, I must correct this or that premise" or something in this spirit. Some people may like answers in a style of the former ("that is the wrong question") because it creates a sense of "mystery", but personally I find it arrogant, disingenuous, and not encouraging to the person who asked (I'm speaking generally, not about any particular user).
*A reference to the movie "The Matrix", current popular usage can sometimes refer to an "answer" that is an intellectually dishonest "non-answer".

What are "there is no spoon" answers?

@yuttadhammo A question of yours I can answer! It is from the move "The Matrix". It has a loose Buddhist undertone. Scene. Sophie is most likely using it to refer to enigmatic answers.

@user70 - Thank you, that's exactly what I meant. I have edited my post for clarity.

In general, unless you actually are the questioner's teacher, don't assume a teacher's mantle. - I think that was a great line.

Your example questions have the same theme: the askers asks about applying perspective A onto perspective B (e.g. 'Comparative religion' questions). They try to understand B from the point of view A. This is good, but it can be seen as comparing apples with oranges.
So by being off-topic (and perhaps highly upvoted), the answers convey an important message: that the askers need to learn more about B by its own view in its own words. Ideally the answerers should know both A and B, but those who only know about B may also give valuable information, and thus should be allowed to present it. (And by definition, the only answers they can provide are about B, which, by definition, is off-topic.)
As the off-topic answers can be seen as reminders the askers to respect B, I think the best approach should be asking the answerers to put a disclaimer in their answers. The mods may want to educate the users about this, so that both the askers and the answerers don't feel that the other side missing and passing their points.
Although the askers want to understand B from perspective A, it is much better if they ask about A from perspective B.

See also: Moderating answers which don't answer the question?

This is somewhat tricky.  If a person ask a question he needs precise answer for that questions.  If a person knowing the answer and asked questions expecting to check others knowledge is something else. Or else people asked questions and expect the answer what they want from others that also something else.
If a person really wanted to have the real answer then it is our responsibility for giving the exact answer because otherwise people whom reading those answers may take wrong path and deserted.
I had the similar issue with the question what is New Age Buddhism. People have the right to create something like that and spread instead of what lord buddha preached.  But that is not a Buddhism. So I explained exactly what we should do with metta and lovingkindness.  Because if a person who do not know head or tail of the buddhism and read this new aged buddhism and they start following that it may direct that person to somewhere else instead of Nibbana or Eightfold path.
unfortunately moderator deleted my answer. I personally feel respect all the answers and keep them to readers to decide the correct one is more fair than the moderator deleting the answers given by others.  Because we are discussing here Lord Buddha's word. Not our thoughts and improvised buddhism which may leads people to wrong paths.
May Triple Gem Bless You All!!!!


text:
Are followup (e.g. asking for further details) questions OK?
On receiving an answer to a question, it can sometimes be useful to ask for more details or clarification from the responder. Is that OK, and if so where should that be done? Example (silly, for illustration only):
Question: "How should I pronounce Buddhism?"
  Answer: "Boo-di-sm, and not Buh-di-sm"
Followup: "Thanks, and what about syllable emphasis. Is it BOO-di-sm, or boo-DISM?"

My assumption is that it is OK to do this and should be done in the comments below the first answer, but I was wondering if that's seen as a problem because it may morph the Q&A form into a discussion, which AFAIK is discouraged on SE sites.
Is that correct?

It depends on how related your follow-up question is to your original question.
In your example, I think that your follow-up question about syllable emphasis is a "sub-question" of your original question "how should I pronounce Buddhism?", and so you should post it in the comments. Likewise, in any case where your follow-up question is necessary to clarify some unclear details of an answer or to get a more complete answer, you should post it in the comments.

On the other hand, consider a different example:

Question: "How should I pronounce Buddhism?"
  Answer: "Boo-di-sm, and not Buh-di-sm"
  Follow-up: "Thanks, and also, what's the etymology of 'Buddhism'?"

In this case, I would say that your follow-up question should be a different question. Even though the etymology of "Buddhism" is very closely related to the pronunciation of "Buddhism", these are fundamentally different questions. In this case, you should post your follow-up question as a new question.
I think it would also be appropriate to comment on the original answer with something like "Thanks. By the way, I posted another question at [link] which is related". This is helpful for everybody, because this makes the linked question show up in the "Linked" section of the sidebar, and thus helps connect people (including the answerer) to questions that may also be of interest to them.

I'm sure there must be some good posts about this over at Meta.SE, but I haven't been able to find any. If you find any of them, post them here - every site has had to deal with handling follow-up questions, so we may as well draw on their wisdom where possible.
There are a number of posts about "chameleon questions" and so forth, but those are more written for the benefit of an answerer who has to deal with a misbehaving asker, rather than for the benefit of an asker who isn't sure what should go in the comments and what shouldn't.

Thanks, I'll look at Meta.SE (already read the chameleon link -- first reaction "Aw crap! Am I Mort!?" :-) ) and report back if appropriate. But I think your overall summary sounds sensible. I'll note that as I prepared my original question I initially had the followup as "Thanks, but what I was really asking about was syllable emphasis..." In other words, it was less a followup and more me compensating for lack of precision in the original. Based on your advice, that's clearly something to be handled within the original thread and not worth a new question.


text:
Questions about choosing a tradition?
One of the most important questions for me personally at the moment is on choosing a tradition/school/lineage/whatever-other-taxonomical-widgets-applies. I have already given, and continue to give the matter a lot of thought, but it's hard. While I read and ponder and muse, I do practice, so I'm not waiting to know who shot the arrow before working on getting it out. But, still, as my practice advances, I will need to decide.
HOWEVER, I'm also aware that this style of question can be fraught with difficulties on an SE site.
So, what's the general view? Extremely important (to me) question, but possibly entirely unsuitable for SE: Ask it? Go elsewhere (for this question -- i.e. let SE be good at what it's good at, and use other forums/channels/places for what they're good at)?
P.S. I suspect that this is an important question for many people.
P.P.S. The devil may be in the details, so one option is I just go ahead and ask my question on the main site and let the votes have their way. But I'm chicken! :-)

This is one of those where different SEs have done different things and has been, er, somewhat controversial.
As a general rule I don't like recommendation questions.  I'll speak to this from a martial arts perspective, since that is the one I am most familiar with.
"What tradition should I practice" is usually worthless and too highly localized to be of use to many others. "Should I choose Hapkido or Kyokushinkai?" is not going to generate a lot of useful answers, as a general rule, simply because the instructor is such a huge variable unless the person is looking for something specific that is or is not found in one art and not the other.
For me it isn't that they come down to opinion, it is that most people don't have a broad enough experience to give an answer that is going to be applicable to both the person in question without significant caveats (not knowing, for example, the instructors in the area) or so localized as to be useless for anyone else.
That said, I think there are a lot of recommendation-like questions that could be increadibly valuable.

"What are the differences between these two specific traditions?"
"I have (these considerations), what should I look for in choosing a tradition?"
"In my circumstance, what should I look for in a teacher?"
"I am considering tradition X, can I get some more information around practice/viewpoint P?"

So long as the considerations and circumstances are not too narrow here, I think these sorts of questions can be quite valuable both for the asker and for people down the road.

Help with choosing a tradition is likely to be opinion-based. For instance, I have seen the same reasons used for choosing Mahayana over Theravada, as the opposite (Theravada over Mahayana).
However, asked in a more specific way, these types of questions could be helpful. For instance, asking for fact-based comparisons of certain (limited scope) aspects of the traditions may be helpful and less subjective.
On topic, choosing a tradition also involves finding a teacher that is suitable for you - you have to try them out (both tradition and teacher). There are a number of questions already about different traditions and teachers, letting everyone make their own informed choices.


text:
What to do about suicide ideation posts?
We just had a post that could be considered suicide ideation. I tried to comment but in the interim it got closed, so I'm posting here.
Do we need to check if SE itself has a policy for such things? Other social media sites appear to be building them, and here are some overall guidelines from the Suicide Prevention Resource Center.

I think it should be noted that in this case the poster wanted his question to be deleted as soon as possible, limiting the ability to remain in contact. But overall I'm for having a policy. (finding or making one ourself.

I can't find the question; is it deleted?

It depends on the situation, but we don't hesitate to reach out directly. If you still have access to it please email me the link in question and I'll handle it privately.

I have no experience with it but Befrienders may be a good suggestion for these cases.

does self-immolation fall under this category?

I have reached out directly to the user in that specific case.
Here is a good primer on how to handle these situations if they arise in the future.

I have managed several of these posts in the past and they can range from serious problems and actual suicide attempts to trolling. Every case is individual.
What we did was:
1) Identify who on the mod staff would contact the person. It is important, IMO, to have a single contact and we had the advantage of having people with some background in suicide prevention. If you do not have official training, most any staff member can help.
2) Close and delete the question. With the exception of trolls, I have NEVER seen a complaint about deleting the post/question. This is to protect both privacy and unwanted attention to the OP.
3) Maintain frequent and supportive contact. Offer compassion and alternate options. Ideally, guide the OP to professional assistance, suicide hotline typically. You can find them via google search.
http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-hotlines.html
If the OP is unable or unwilling to help, you as a staff member can make the call. At a minimum you will get some advice form people actually trained to manage such a crisis.
4) I will caution you that there are times when such treats result in an actual suicide attempt. Depending on your training and background, staff may need help as well, either from each other or professional.

I recommend that Stack Exchange users (including moderators) leave the business of contacting the person directly to employees (Community Managers or developers), simply because it's a breach of privacy and a fuzzy legal boundary a user probably wouldn't want to run afoul in.

I asked about this issue in the Temperance chat room and it turns out mods actually have a template email to send out for suicidal ideation. Definitely wouldn't want to get involved directly since this isn't our site. We just work here :)

It would be good to have a email address or something to post about questions like this so SE can reach out.

Looks like things have settled down but it would be good if someone professional can reach out to the OP of this question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/8973/why-life-is-so-important

Hi Suminda. This post was given as the best course to handle this type of situation. http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/6256/do-we-have-any-responsibility-to-take-any-action-if-someone-says-theyre-thinkin It does mention using the Contact Us button at the bottom of the page to contact SE staff if needed.

@Robin111 since you might have had experience dealing with situation like this in teaching is it possible to escalate this so that the person gets help. As from his last comments things seem to have settled down though.

I'd like to mark this as answered, so it's not dangling here. I've had a look at the stuff mentioned in other answers and here's a summary of what I think we'd want to have as a "standard operating procedure"
In response to these kinds of ideation posts (genuine or not), we want to achieve four things:

Not to offer advice. Few people on SE are qualified to do so, and SE isn't the right mechanism for that kind of advice anyway.
And in addition, close (but not necessarily delete -- see point 4) the question
But at the same time:
Not to dismiss or simply ignore the OP.
And so while the question should be closed, the OP could be offered a pointer to a safe place where they can possibly get help. I suggest that place could be the IASP and even specifically their Crisis Centers Lists page


text:
Can different chat rooms be pinned to the side bar?
I'm generally interested in making more use of chat. Before I raise a meta questions about how might that be achieved I'd just like to ask a technical question. If we were to create a new/different chat room - could this be pinned to the front page side bar? Is it the moderators who can do this? Someone else maybe?
As an aside I've just noticed that our chat room has disappeared from the front page. Not a major issue but obviously chat rooms can change locations on the site. Unless I've just got chat room blindness and it is still there.

I don't think we have much control over the site layout until we graduate beta (if we do). Even then, I imagine we only get to make cosmetic changes.

Any chat room associated with Buddhism on chat.stackexchange.com will show up in that little sidebar widget as long as it's not a private room. Make as many rooms as you like! The widget shows 2 rooms at a time and chooses the most recently active rooms to show.