text:
Answers I don't understand and/or answers that are questions/riddles/koans
Fex. I asked a question about self as verb, and one of the answers was really not an answer.
The "answer" was:

Self as noun or action/verb?
Is mirage is a noun or action?
  Is rainbow is a noun or action?
Is Dress(Not cloth) is a noun(a thing) or concept?
  Is person is a noun or concept?

If I wanted a riddle or questions back I would have asked for it. I can't see how asking questions back is useful.
I don't like to get into quarrels with or offend other users, so I'd like to know what happens if I flag answers.

It can be useful, it can be very very useful, some questions like that haunted me for months and then when the aha moment came it was much more powerful and deep than any detailed explanation might have given me, for I would not really understand it. What kind of answer you need at a time is individual I guess, but http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/277/7587 approach with the spoiler tag would have given everybody what they were looking for. Maybe that is what we're looking for?

When you ask a question are the answers just for you?

I don't like to get into quarrels with or offend other users
Welcome. :-)
I hope most other users here are that way too.
A related topic is Posting comments to answers.
..., so I'd like to know what happens if I flag answers.
Related topics:

Should this 'zen type' answer be deleted?
Moderating answers which don't answer the question?

In summary, it depends on whether people (including you) perceive it as a useful answer.
If you downvote an answer, people will see that someone downvoted it but they won't know who (won't know it was you).
A curious person can look at your total "Votes Cast" on your user profile (and see how many times you've up- and down-voted in total), but people can't associate individual votes with specific topics.
If you flag an answer then moderators will know you flagged it, but that's confidential (i.e. moderators won't tell other users about any flags you raise).
In any case (whether or not anyone flags), moderators may or may not choose to delete an answer (depending on whether they think it's an answer). Moderators opinions' are inluenced by other users (if an answer gets several downvotes or flags then I for one am more likely to delete that answer).
I'm inclined to delete, not 'bad' answers, but rather answers which don't answer/address the question.
Furthermore "trusted" (i.e. high-reputation) users can vote to delete an answer that has been downvoted.
An alternative is to downvote (a downvote means "This answer is not useful") instead of flag (and flag when it's truly not an answer, e.g. if it's a reply addressing some other answer, which should have been posted as a comment, or something like that).


text:
Not everyone has English as their first language. Thanks to the moderators (but who are they?)
Very useful (and time consuming) site!
English is not my native tongue, and I guess I'm not the only one. I think that sometimes it can be more difficult for us "foreigners" to make ourselves clear. Is it possible for the moderators take this in to account? Maybe difficult, but keep in mind that sometimes a formulation can seem strange because a person is not English speaking.
The moderators seem to be doing a very fair and thorough job. But sometimes a question gets put on hold, and I don't quite see why; and there is no explanation except fex. "opinion based". I think a question can be opinion based on the basis of the moderators opinion, so I wonder if the one that put it on hold could explain more his/her reasons for doing so.
I also wonder how many moderators are there? And how do I know who they are? I tried to find out, but couldn't find it? Does the moderators have "meetings" and discuss before fex. putting a post on hold or is it up to the moderator to do it? I think that it's more reason to moderate comments like "GO TO HELL YOU JACKASS ALAN WATTS!", than stopping my question about whether humanity is spiritually evolving or not. But that is just my opinion.
Thanks for the attention!

I deleted the "jackass" comment, thanks!
As for your question "Does mankind evolve or devolve spiritually?" - it was asking for broad characterization of large-scale contemporary phenomena. In my opinion, that is a quintessentially opinion-based type of question, i.e. a question that is likely to generate evaluating answers and not answers that share either personal experience or analytical knowledge.
Many of your questions borderline with the opinion-based category, but this one was too blatantly opinion-based, I felt. To me this site is supposed to be primarily about Buddhism (i.e. the teachings/narratives inside the Buddhist universe). I personally also encourage questions requesting to relate specific Buddhist narratives with personal practice. The first type of questions I personally specifically discourage are requests to compare and contrast Buddhist narratives with other narratives (scientific, Christian etc.). To me it is a rarely well-informed and often controversial exercise.
Your question, the core of which looks to be "Is mankind now, 2500 years after the historical Buddha, in a better position to make use of the Dharma?" was, like I said, asking for broad characterization of large-scale contemporary phenomena. This is a second type of questions that I personally don't find working well in this Q&A format.
I understand your excitement with this venue and appreciate your interest in Buddhism and our little corner of the internet. Unfortunately the medium places its restrictions - and some discussions that I would totally have with you in my kitchen are simply not a good fit for this site. If you stick to questions that are either "in-universe" or request elaboration on "in-universe" concepts in terms of actual practice - you can both contribute useful topics for others to learn from, and get quality answers -- and not mere opinions -- to your questions.

Just in the way of introduction I'm Tim Brown (Crab Bucket on this site). I've been a practising Buddhist for about 8 years with the Triratna community though my commitment does ebb and flow. I live in Leeds UK with my wife and daughter. I'm a computer programmer.
I guess I'm a bit less active on the site than the other mods but I do still try to keep an eye on things and close down the off topic and delete the inflammatory comments as they arise.
Generally my motivation is the the site is a welcoming place where people can have a go at asking and answering questions without invoking horrendous flame wars. Generally I'm very grateful to all the mods. Doing this is voluntary and no one goes away for moderator training or anything. We all just do our best with the best intentions

Is it possible for the moderators take this in to account?

Yes and no.
I'm conscious that most users on this site are writing English-as-a-second-language, and it's been normal for me to work with such people in real life. Your English is infinitely better than my Norwegian, and I'm grateful (and don't hold it against you) that you're writing in English.
If I write something you don't understand, you are welcome to ask me to clarify/explain.
If I understand what you write that's good enough for me. I might correct spelling and grammar to make it easier for other non-English users (who might find it easier to read correctly-spelled English).
However if I don't understand something you write then "taking it into account" might not be enough to correct that.

But sometimes a question gets put on hold, and I don't quite see why

As Lanka explained, if a question leads to discussion and debate then it might not be a good question for this site.
For example, "Are we better equipped for enlightenment" has several possible answers:

No, because "Three Ages of Buddhism" and because the Buddha himself predicted a decline
Yes, because with world-wide travel and so on it's easier to meet teachers these days
No, because modern consumerism leaves no place for spiritual development
Yes, because there's more education and more leisure time for everyone these days
No, because etc.

These answers are mutually contradictory. They're based on different assumptions. Maybe it's an overly vague or ambiguous questions. As a site moderator I don't want questions where it's too easy to foresee multiple conflicting answers; that kind of question is better suited to another site (e.g. a discussion forum).
Our etiquette encourages us to edit unclear questions, but,

You edit to make things better, clearer, more effective -- never to change meaning.

As I wrote in this comment someone could (you could) edit that post to make it on-topic. You could ask a question like,

Does Buddhist scripture predict that now, 2500 years after the historical Buddha, we'll be in a better or a worse position to make use of the Dharma?

I didn't want to go ahead and make that edit though, myself, because I thought it too much of a change to the meaning of your question: i.e. that wasn't the question which you wanted to ask.

Does the moderators have "meetings" and discuss before fex. putting a post on hold or is it up to the moderator to do it?

Moderators can chat with each other, and do before making serious decisions.
Closing a question (or "putting it on hold") is easy to do and also easy to undo (if it was a bad decision), so no we don't chat before every such decision.
It doesn't have to be a final decision though:

If another moderator disagreed they could question that decision (e.g. privately via chat)
If five high-reputation users voted to reopen, that would override the moderator's vote-to-close (actually no-one has voted to reopen it at least yet)
Anyone (usually the person who asked the question and wants it reopened) can start a topic like this one on meta, to ask why it was closed and whether it can be reopened
The discussion on meta might result in some edit suggestion ("If we edit the question in such-and-such a way then we could reopen it")

I think that it's more reason to moderate comments like "**** ALAN WATTS!"

Yes I looked at that comment several times and don't remember why I decided not to delete it. I've very occasionally seen worse comments (which have been deleted). :-(
If you see any comments you dislike, please flag the comment (e.g. you might flag this one as "offensive"). Comments are 'second-class citizens' on this site, i.e. I'm more inclined to delete useless or out-of-place comments than to close people's questions or delete people's answers.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Guidance on a particular kind of questions
I recently asked a question from our community here...
Lord Buddha descending from heavens?
Far as i see this is completely on topic question and it actually bugged me ever since i saw people started making up stories and conspiracy theories on this certain event which even went on to be featured in international television.
I asked this question in hopes that i might find answers.Our good friend ChrisW helped me with it but something odd happened to the question,
It was down voted without even leaving a comment to explain why.
So what i'm asking is.....
Is there something wrong with my question (i'm all ears to advice because this is not the first time)
I have a feeling some people just race their eyes on questions and instead of really taking their time with it they just go on with their gut feeling.

I didn't downvote so I can only guess.

One possibility is that having "Alien", "UFO", and "the Buddha" all in the same sentence was unpopular. I thought that was unnecessary and unhelpful, so  I removed it -- in case it was that which was attracting downvotes.
"Please inspect these images" is an imperative, it's commanding, giving an order. So just in case anyone resented your telling them what to do, I rephrased that as a neutral/simple question.
I also removed the uncessary formatting which makes text seem threatening and harder to read..... What's the matter, are you saying I'm too stupid to notice text unless it's black?
In other words, only some trivial changes to the presentation (not the content) of the question.

I didn't notice anything else wrong with the question.
I thought it was an 'iconography' question; and as you can see from this search this site doesn't get those questions often (so maybe some people might have thought the topic a bit strange).
Theoretically a question downvote should mean, "This question doesn't show any research effort. It is not clear or not useful." (though in practice people might downvote for any reason they feel like).

Andrei writes

I personally also encourage questions requesting to relate specific Buddhist narratives with personal practice.

This doesn't seem to me to be a question about personal practice, i.e. I don't see how an answer to it could help someone to practice Buddhism ... if it were all useless theory and fuel for arguing with UFOlogists then what's the point? Maybe that's why it wasn't upvoted.

By the way if anyone does tell you why they downvote, then I recommend you (optionally) thank them for telling you and (definitely) not argue with them. Because, it's easy to downvote without leaving a comment, harder (but helpful, but time-consuming) to leave a comment, and if their explanation just exposes them to an argument then next time they have an incentive to downvote without a comment.

Sorry I can't really answer. :-)

Thank you Chris, You are right about the reason why it was unpopular.

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


text:
Which is more important when a question is a bit off topic: objectivity, or humanity?
I saw someone asking (in this question) for some sources to learn Pali language so he can broaden his understanding of Buddhism.
The reason given by the user who had asked it to be edited was it being off topic.
But here's the thing I am confused about.
We are interested in Buddhism and that's why we come here: so when someone asks us for a good source to learn, should we be like robots and say, "you are off topic", or should we lend a hand to that person who is in search of 'the path'? I mean after all isn't that the advice in Buddhism: to be good friends to fellow searchers of path?
Can't we be more sensitive than being objective in certain circumstances?

I think that question relating to Pali should be on topic as this helps clarify certain options expressed in the Suttas of which most English translations are not perfect and in many cases miss leading because there are not easy ways to express what is in Pali directly in English. On one had we have some subtitles like different words have different shades of meaning generally map to one word in English and on the other where you cannot reliably express some thing easily.
Also though Pali has it's roots in Magada language, it was a language which was created to write the Buddhist texts as if it was in a commonly used language due to the evolution of the language the meaning would change. It is paramount to understand the some Pali to get to deeper or serious practice as trying to do this in English. Languages like old Singhala does have the same expressive power but since the site is not in such a language Pali questions should be on topic.
Also if Pali becomes off topic this will cut out any body who have done in depth study of Theravada Buddhism.

I agree. Pali and Buddhism have a very special relation, so I think that practical questions about the language (such as about learning resources or about meaning of some Pali passages) should be on-topic. Of course, theoretical questions about Pali grammar should be off-topic, as they are a better fit for Linguistics.SE

I am wondering how pragmatic this is though. Pali experts are generally Buddhism experts but I am not sure out of all who have expertise in Pali view them self as Linguists. This kind of rigidity can easily kill the growth as many of the real experts have already left.

If somebody needs help with understanding a Pali passage, and the answerer uses some linguistic terminology to explain it "see, this word is the subject, so you should understand it that way" - I'd consider it on-topic. But if somebody asks "what is the position of subject in Pali sentences?", I'd say it's off-topic here and better suited for Linguistics.SE.

Look at it in this way. Only Buddhism is written in Pali. If the person points to a particular passage then it is direct. If the person does not then it is in direct as though there will be any example passage which fit this he has not made reference. By adding and removing quoted passage you toddle between the two categories. Also question are there Pali experts in Linguists.SE or are there Pali experts in Buddhism.SE. If it the latter asking on Linguists.SE would be a wast of time may not get any responses and this indirectly means deeper it has curtailed deeper understanding of Pariyatti

See: Pariyatti (also this ) > Patipatti > Pativedha which is the normal route of realising.

If the option to make Pali on-topic wins, I guess we should open another meta question to discuss what kind of questions should be allowed. I'm actually a linguist and I know that one can ask many questions about Pali that are only relevant to people who are into languages or linguistics, not for people interested in Buddhism.

I think best is to accept the Pali related question on this site and periodically transfer these question to the Linguistic site. This was in case some one sees it here who can answer it can have a stab and so can some one in the other site. Every one wins.

I think we should allow questions about Buddhism which depend on a knowledge of Pali (but not necessary welcome questions about Pali itself). So for example, questions about Pali (e.g. declensions and conjugation) could be off-topic, while questions about the meaning and/or translation of Buddhist texts written in Pali (e.g. suttas, also all the specific words like anattā etc) are on-topic.

My thinking is that understanding of Pali is directly or indirectly related to understanding Buddhism as it is only Buddhism write in Pali through artificial question can be created about Pali which bight not be related to Buddhism. But in essence every understanding Pali is an attempt to understand Buddhism, unless creating artificial questions. This is my take on this.

As I said best is aspect any Pali question to see if it attracts any responses than move it to Linguistics SE. This way both the sites users will see the question and ultimately will end up in the site where it is more suited and definitely on topic. If you close it as off topic, it will not get a chance to get answered.

The question was answered, and it had an accepted answer. Do you think that the site's community would (and should) welcome many further questions, whose subject is Pali but not Buddhism?

May way this question can be moved to Linguists.SE as this is more appropriate than being closed. We should accept Pali question on this site. If it is more on the Linguistic accepts it can be moved as there is a site for this. I have seen this moving happening other sites.

@Suminda I think your solution is good.

@michau : for illustration, do you think you could post an example of question about Pali that would not have any relation to Buddhism per se?

@Andrei I gave an example above: "what is the position of subject in Pali sentences?"

Good, I hope this will help draw the line.

@michau The above example seams there is not relation to Buddhism but there is not particle use of Pali than to read Buddhist text, so you cannot say this is completely unrelated Buddhism.

@michau So lets accept the question, let it linger so this sites users can see the question and without closing move them to the the relevant site if another site is more relevant.

Just wanted to remind everyone who thinks that Pali should be on-topic that you can vote to reopen the question about Pali learning resources.

OK. Voted. How can this be transferred to the other site?

This particular question about resources for learning Pali isn't suitable for Linguistics.SE. In short, some Buddhists may want to learn the language, while linguists would rather want to learn about the language. I think the question should stay here, perhaps as a community wiki.

OK. I think this is better as Pali is more relevant to Theravada Buddhism

We defined this site's Moderation policies for Questions to be (relatively) liberal or permissive: i.e. we allow (and try to answer) many kinds of question which other StackExchange sites wouldn't.
One of the (few) reasons why people may choose to close a question is if a question is "off-topic".
In this case the question is about Pali, rather than about Buddhism. Those subjects (Pali and Buddhism) may be related, but they're not the same subject: and (for example) perhaps we don't want the site to be used to ask a lot of questions about various details of Pali grammar.
Whether something is on-topic or off-topic is to some extent a 'community' decision, i.e. people can vote to close and/or vote to reopen.
The experience of the founders of other SE sites is that there is some need and benefit to keeping sites on-topic -- for example if people are interested in this site because it's about Buddhism, perhaps they'd be less interested (and less willing to answer questions) if the site were about other topics too.

Thank you, i understand :)


text:
Are we correct about our community's potential?
Yesterday i had an idea...
"I had a hard time finding good sources to learn Buddhism and when i found some the content was questionable.But years after i finally have a good collection of teachings that i use for my learning.But even today some poor guy out there is having the same struggle that i once had.So why shouldn't i help them?"
In this thought i translated some Theravada teachings and posted one in our community yesterday.
What makes "Dhamma" worthy of worship?
So few hours after a good friend i found on this site advised me to have the self control of waiting a question instead of turning Buddhism SE to a blog post.Spent the day thinking about it and i came across this feeling....
Imagine yourself as a man with boat on a river.You have been in both sides of the river many times and have no problem doing it because you have a boat.But thousands try to swim across the river and rarely anyone asks for help before they jump in. If someone asks for help while getting washed away from the tides you are to slow to reach them.
So the question is whether you are going to be gentle and wait for a request or offer to help them anyway?
I have trouble understanding the key value of this community is it Keeping a site unchanged in a ever changing world or Helping poor new comers to find their way and answer good questions to help every ones understanding get better.
I am from Sri Lanka,as to our Theravada teachings one must always share his knowledge of dharma with other because it helps clear his view and it helps another ones path.It is also described as the Highest form of offering than anyone can possibly do in a "Buddha shasana" (In an era of a Buddha)
I saw this conversation in the comments section of my post

I am asking the same question now.
We have the best community here, no one can say lies here,no one can spread non-Dharma as Dharma here. Here we have absolute proof of what we get to read.So tell me why we are so shy?
Why don't we start being a good source of Dharma as well?

if there is questionable content then perhaps leave a comment on that you think might be wrong. But the problem is what is the Dhamma is not clear cut. Even within lineages there are differences.

In my opinion, if you have some knowledge you want to share, you should do the following:

Ask the question that you actually had in mind when you started looking for knowledge you want to share.
Wait for comments: Perhaps your question is not clear? Or it is understood in a different way than you expected? Improve the question accordingly.
Wait for answers from other users. Did they understand your question correctly? Did they provide insights that may be useful for improving the answer you want to share? Improve the question and the answer you want to share accordingly.
At that point, in my opinion it is OK if you provide your own answer. But make sure it is an answer to a question that somebody really might have asked, and the question is more than just an excuse for sharing whatever you want to share.

By the way, I'm not saying that you shouldn't share your knowledge if you can't follow this procedure. You simply shouldn't share it here, because it's a site for answers to genuine questions people have. If you want to present your knowledge in another form, simply do it somewhere else, for example in some Buddhist blog service. We could also make a blog for Buddhism.SE, but this is a topic for another meta question.

Thank you for the advice, How about that blog wouldn't it be great if we can do it? @michau

I guess that http://meta.islam.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/community-blog is an example of the series of meta-posts required to have a blog. See also https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/06/blog-overflow/


text:
How to do better with this down-voted question?
I asked this question and it has raised a good discussion among our friends and there were very good answers too. But it was down-voted unexpectedly.
I would like to know why so I can do better next time. And I know there is a similar question which was asked by me, even though it had good replies it also did not go where I wanted it to, and that's why I asked it in a different way, with some additional philosophical points that I struggled to understand.

Here is the question

Gender : Is it truly what it seems?

A very fair meta question. I downvoted this question and I don't so a lot of downvoting really. For me I like to see questions that are to the point. If they are excessively verbose then I don't like them and don't think they are good questions. If I feel my attention waning halfway down then I feel my mouse point edging towards the down button arrow. Also I had a suspicion it was a duplicate question.
It is possible to have long questions that are great but I feel the same way about questions that I do about films. If you make a 3 hour film it's got to be pretty compelling and I'm always thinking - couldn't this be done in 90 mins. Similarly if you write a page for a question I think the question itself should be pretty amazing and insightful to justify that length. If not then edit it.
Also as a moderator I can't cast close votes without that vote becoming binding. So when I am in the case where I think the question isn't great but I'm not sure about closing it then my only option is a comment to that effect and maybe a downvote.
That said I really appreciate your input and I hope you aren't discouraged with the downvoting. Perhaps a net score of -4 is a bit extreme. I've certainly seen a lot worse with far higher scores. I guess a lot of people didn't like it so I would be interested to see comments.

Thanks for the reply, I don't know about the short and sweet, after all Godfather was a great movie :-) . I believe some feelings and explanations take both more time and words. But "@Crab" in other sites like "Reddit" it is allowed to ask long questions and people often do that. I must say i have seen a pattern in our SE, people tend to fall in line and follow the leader (I mean in some question or answer has like 2 or 3 up votes people usually follow and it is same about down voting). Sadly the trend is not done mindfully sometimes. May triple gems bless you!

@Theravada to be fair I'm aware that short question is a personal preference rather than any kind of site policy. I would imaging other users /moderators would have a different view. In fact I know they would. I do agree with the herd mentally thing. It's not too bad here but other sites are savage. Try answering on stack overflow main site on the JavaScript tag. Make a small mistake let the down votes fly. Alarming

@Theravada and I didn't like Godfather. Sorry - minority opinion I know

Ha ha! , never say that about godfather in a movie festival because there is a good chance of a murder :-)

Maybe a kindly written comment, to the effect that the question might be easier to follow if it was less lengthy, might be more helpful

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


text:
What happens when comments one wanted to Flag are deleted?
Commenting this answer, dhammadhatu insistently stated that I was dogmatic, that my dogma was confusing, my language alien, and so forth. When I intended to "Flag" one of the comments "for serious problems or moderator attention", I noticed that dhammadhatu's comments had been deleted. It is not that I wanted dhammadhatu to be admonished, but I would have liked his comments to be examined by a third person, since I am biased in this situation.
The thing is, how does SE deal with authors of deleted comments that might have been improper?

You're welcome to bring it up on Meta. Thank you for asking!
Moderators can view deleted comments if they have reason to.
I was watching your conversation while it was happening, and I didn't know what to do with it: whether to intervene, whether to stop it, whether to migrate it to a chat room.
In particular I didn't know whether you were willing to continue the conversation, or whether you were feeling obliged to converse (obliged by the fact that comments and question were being posted).
I also didn't know whether either of you felt that you were benefiting from the conversation, or whether you were hoping that you might benefit each other or benefit other readers.
Anyway, to answer your question:

What happens when comments one wanted to Flag are deleted?

Moderators can see that there are deleted comments (there's text which says "6 deleted comments" next to your answer), and can easily (one click) see the deleted comments.
New flagging isn't possible and an existing flag is cleared if a comment is deleted (deleted by anyone for any reason). After a comment is deleted, if you want moderators' attention you can post on Meta.

The thing is, how does SE deal with authors of deleted comments that might have been improper?

It's up to the site moderators to "deal with authors".
One on the only constraints is that if a moderator ever does reprimand an author in private, SE policy says that that reprimand should remain private.
As a moderator I am also not supposed to publicly disclose the content of deleted comments (per SE policy, doing so would be an abuse of my ability to read them), so in public I'll only talk about the deleted comment/content that you remember and mentioned yourself.
I currently read all non-deleted comments (using this tool) but that's not guaranteed (I don't guarantee that I'll see every comments except if you flag them).
Anyway, a moderator's options include:

Tell people to avoid posting improperly
Decide whether they did post improperly
Tell them to stop posting improperly and deal with the improper posts
Prevent them from posting improperly

I try to do 1. as a matter of course: e.g. I ask people to moderate their own comments and hope they will.

2. is a little difficult. I don't want to prevent people from asking questions, or even having brief conversations, if their conversations are constructive/informative/friendly.
In this case (your being called dogmatic etc.) I didn't intervene.

I (perhaps wrongly) thought you had the patience of a saint, given your willingness to continue to answer such questions.
I didn't know how to tell you that, instead of answering a comment, you're welcome to flag it. You're also welcome to answer it and flag it (for moderator attention). If the comment is deleted then the flag is probably cleared too, but if you post in Meta that will surely be seen.

If you want to be told you're right, I think you're right. The most commonplace English meaning of the word "fabrication" is "an invention, a lie" (maybe it's a word that's over-complicated for specialists by the fact that it's used to translate saṅkhāra).
To be honest I thought that Dhammadhatu was also right, except whenever he implied that you or your answer were wrong.
I'm sure that this site is meant to permit more than one answer to a question, and users (especially including you) should be able to post without unwarranted criticism or disagreement.

There are various ways to do 3. (i.e. telling them to stop), including: comments; posts on Meta; public chat rooms (moderators can also initiate a private chat rooms to discuss any problems in private); and official private messages (for moderators to admonish a user).
Dealing with improper posts includes deleting them. Moderators can also migrate comments to a chat room.
I don't understand the motive for Dhammadhatu's posting comments which he then deletes: in my opinion that's inept, and you shouldn't post comments which you feel the need to delete.
The only good time to delete your own comment might be something like:

You post an answer
I post a comment to suggest an improvement
You edit your answer to make the improvement
My comment is now obsolete so I delete it

In other cases I probably shouldn't delete my own comment, for example:

You post an answer
I post a comment to ask a question
You post a comment to answer my question

In the above case I shouldn't delete my comment, because deleting it would leave your comment/answer alone and out-of-context (on the other hand, moderators probably shouldn't undelete comments which the comment's author has deleted).
Note that instead of posting a comment (to answer a question that's posted as a comment), you can also edit your original answer to answer that question (if necessary I could reference answers where I've done that, i.e. why I have edited my answer to reply to a supplementary question posted as a comment).

Re. 4. moderators can prevent a user can be prevented from posting at all (i.e. by suspending their account for a shorter or longer time) but only if they ignore official admonishment.

In summary:
If someone posts a comment which you don't like; if the comment makes the site worse, if the comment isn't an opportunity to make the site better in some way, then you don't have to reply: instead, simply flag the comment for moderator attention and then ignore it.
Part of my job as moderator is to moderate user interactions (especially comments), to make this a site where you can post your expert answers with no excessive criticism. If you want my help, if I'm not doing my job, please tell me so.
If you have any questions about how the site is run, or want to discuss that, post in Meta.
If you want to chat with a moderator privately, you can do that: post a message like "@ChrisW can we have a private chat please".
If you disagree with someone's answer the best thing to do is post a better answer of your own.
If you want to post a comment which disagrees with someone's answer then keep it short: "I disagree for reason X and Y." and leave it at that, don't post more than one comment (let the author of the answer have the last word).
If you want to post a comment to someone's answer, better than posting a criticism is to:

Post a question: "I didn't understand X? Can I have a reference for Y? Don't you think that Z?"
Post an addition: "I agree and furthermore I think X."
Post a specific/constructive suggestion (but not using too many comments): "I think your answer would be better if you added X/edited Y/deleted Z."

Avoid deleting your own comments if that would leave other answers out-of-context. If you think that several comments (yours and someone else's) ought to be deleted then flag them for a moderator.


text:
Leading by example and requesting feedback/collaboration
In this question I recieved several answers that were far from what I asked, and had very little effort put into them.
After having one bounty expire unrewarded, the user Ryan put a second bounty on the question.
I am working on providing a through answer to my original question, and was wondering if any feedback could be provided.
There is still a lot of detail to be added, and I am going to continue working on it until it is as complete as my knowledge and resources will allow.
I really have not provided new information to myself, as the book I am using is an old favorite of mine. I was hoping that with feedback anyone that knows more about these stages could help me edit and add detail to the answer.
I have a 4 CD lecture on the Bardo given by Robert Thurman that I plan on re-listening to tonight, and adding any new details appropriate from it to the answer.

I wonder, if you asked Tenzin Dorje e.g. by posting an '@' message, e.g. in this chat room, whether he might be able to recommend any relevant reference or at least explain why he couldn't.

@ChrisW that is part of my worry.  I know not all the bardo teachings are considered public

Here's the chat room you created: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/34692/bardo-discussion


text:
For what reason is this question on hold: "Was the Buddha a rationalist?"
This question, which I posted today was put on hold within a couple of hours of its posting, seemingly based on my answer to another question on Meta and possibly, my interactions with a moderator on that answer.
What is wrong or offensive about this question? As far as I can tell, it wasn't even anti-piety. "Rationalist" is not a pejorative term. The opposite of rationalist, whatever that may be, is also not negative either. So, nobody should perceive insult in this question.
Please cite the rules that are violated by this question, resulting in its being put on hold. If it is considered a duplicate to any question, which question might that be?
My views as a questioner: Each question needs to be discussed or debated on its own merit. Perceptions about the questioner should not influence the moderators' treatment of a question. Let the participating community speak their own mind by upvoting or downvoting, answers or comments. If they cannot relate to a question, they will completely ignore it. Even negative answers and downvotes indicate that the question connects with the community of site users; why censor such a question or the reactions to it?

This is not a platform to debate. If that's the spirit in which you're posting questions, you ought to find a different forum for sharing your views :)

For what reason is this question on hold?
As I said at the time, I decided you were arguing rather than asking a question.
You also previously posted this comment:

@yuttadhammo -- Guilty as charged. I do of course hold many opinions, and I am of course trying to promote my own ideas, and looking for intelligent and well-reasoned arguments. Presumably, I am not alone in such an activity. and presumably, such an activity is at least as legitimate on this forum as posing questions to which there are definitive answers. Am I wrong in so presuming?

Let the participating community speak their own mind by upvoting or downvoting, answers or comments
People could vote to reopen the topic (question or argument) if they wanted to.
I voted to close because (I have read everything that's been posted on this site for the last year and) I don't think that "the participating community" want to use this site to have that kind of argument.

Or any argument :)

Ok Chris, fair enough. As you said, if the participating community can see this topic, and if they can vote to reopen this topic, I'm ok with that.

I think Krishnaraj Rao should be temporarily banned off the site. Some of his questions may be alright, but their tone and his overall behavior in the comments create too much turbulence and harm the community. Having some time off should work well to help Krishnaraj contemplate his attitude, and for others to understand where the boundary lies between the respectful and the disrespectful inquire.
Before he comes back, I would insist that he 1) admits there was a problem, and 2) accepts that he can change his engagement style to prevent the similar issues in the future.

After some.reconsideration, and meditation, I feel perhaps we should consider other options :)

It is a slippery slope, I know, which is why I did not want to invoke it, but there is gotta be the line somewhere.

Perhaps you are right. I was viewing the situation from the perspective of how my practice personally would relate to an disagreeable person; but this is an issue of an individual creating discord in a community, among people who might not even practice meditation, and repeatedly breaking the rules even after being corrected on them.

Exactly my point, yes

I don't think he is quite there yet. Banning might be a bit much at this point.

I think the question was off-topic, because rationalism was implied to be correct, and was used as a yardstick to judge Buddhism and the Buddha.
Rationalism is just one philosophical theory, just as others under the umbrella of epistemology like empiricism, idealism and constructivism. They too are open to debate and discussion.
There should not be an assumption, implicit or otherwise, that rationalism must be correct, when phrasing the question. There should not be the insinuation that if the Buddha was not practising rationalism, then he must have been irrational or flawed.
Imagine a theist writing such a question:

1) Was Siddhartha Gautama a God-believer before he attained
  enlightenment?
2) Did Siddhartha Gautama ever look to God as his means or method for
  salvation? Or did he discard seeking God in favour of some other means
  or methods for salvation?
3) After enlightenment, when Gautama Buddha started preaching, did he
  speak in favour of seeking God's mercy? Or
  alternatively, was the message of his preaching against seeking
  God's mercy?
4) Did Gautam Buddha ever say or imply that God's Words guides one
  towards the truth? Alternatively, did he say or imply that the Words
  of God misguides one, and leads him astray?

Such a question would surely be off-topic, because it implies that the existence of God, seeking God, needing salvation and God's words all must be correct, and that turning away from God is implied as flawed behaviour. Similarly with rationalism.
So, the better way is to rephrase the question, for example:

Do Buddhist methods and practice include rationalism as a means to
  seek the truth? Comparatively, techniques such as vipassana, seem to
  lean more towards empiricism. Is rationalism compatible with Buddhist
  methods?

Ruben, please show me which line exactly leads you to feel that rationalism was implied to be correct. Also, please point out the exact line that insinuates that if Buddha was not practicing rationalism, he was irrational or flawed.

Let me put it on record that I believe that rationalism is one of several complementary methods of seeking or finding whatever it is The Buddha was seeking. And also that rationalism alone could never take anybody to the pinnacle that The Buddha scaled.

No question is perfectly "balanced" between different schools of thought. Each question may carry its own load of assumptions -- each favouring a different school of thought. I don't see how a perceived assumption is a decent ground for closing a question or putting it on hold.

A more appropriate question would be whether Buddhist methods and practice include rationalism as a means to seek the truth apart from techniques such as vipassana, which seem to lean more towards empiricism? For what it's worth, I think Buddhism is more empirical than rationalist.

Ruben, still waiting. Please show me which line exactly leads you to feel that rationalism was implied to be correct. Also, please point out the exact line that insinuates that if Buddha was not practicing rationalism, he was irrational or flawed.

It's the overall tone of the question. Why does Buddhism have to be for, or against rationalism, when it can simply be different? Why does the Buddha have to "discard" rationalism, in order to seek other methods? The other methods may have something to do with rationalism or not, but it may not be for or against it. In other words, nobody else cares about rationalism, and your question seems to imply that somebody should. Instead, the question should approach Buddhism and ask is there rationalism in it? And whether rationalism is compatible or not, with Buddhist methods?

Ruben, this is an eloquent answer, and possibly a good defense of the Buddhist perspective. You could just as well have given this answer in response to the question being raised. But I fail to see how this answer gives a good reason for the question itself not to be allowed on the forum.

And that is why it was voted to be closed @krishnaraj, because you choose to disregard what others here have told you to be acceptable and unacceptable

What the senior members of this community are trying to tell you, is that you should ask questions, as though you are seeking information or clarification, in an open-minded way, from genuine experts in the field of Buddhism. The questions should not sound as though you want to argue or debate with them and try to prove them wrong. The questions also should not sound contemptuous. The questions should be for seeking info, not for trying to prove your point. This is not a debate forum. Buddhism SE is for exchange of expert information.


text:
Is there a moderation-guideline to be derived from our experience with these questions?
Two questions that initially caused great alarm among moderators and others are now considered OK, judging from upvoting, number of reasoned answers, and number of views. They are:
1) Is Mind in Buddhism connected to Brain (the physical organ)?
2) Can another being/thing be credited or blamed for causing your emotions?
Initially, these questions caused great discomfort and unrest because they were understood as being in the context of my other questions, answers and conversations in comments space. But with time, the context has faded away and now I feel the questions are being read and answered on their own merits. I feel that today, they stand on their own, and are contributing something of value to the intellectual content of this forum, and they have become independent of me or anybody else who participated in the writing and editing exercise. (I hope you will agree with this assessment.)
I would humbly submit that there is a lesson here to be learned, namely: It would be in the greater interest of this forum that questions are viewed in isolation, without reading too much into the previous interactions of the questioner on the forum, and without reading between-the-lines to divine the intent of the questioner. I would in fact suggest framing an appropriate rule or guideline for moderation.
People, I am keenly aware of your negative perceptions of who I am and what I am trying to do here on this forum. And also that I am within a whisker of being banned. Nevertheless, I shall request you all to consider this suggestion on its own merit in all honesty, disregarding if possible the source (i.e. myself) or the context (real or imagined) of the suggestion.

Two questions that initially caused great alarm among moderators and others are now
I don't see evidence (even when I look for deleted comments) that either of those two caused "initially caused great alarm among moderators".
I feel that today, they stand on their own, and are contributing something of value to the intellectual content of this forum, and they have become independent of me or anybody else who participated in the writing and editing exercise. (I hope you will agree with this assessment.)
You asked those questions, so I could only hope that you at least derived benefit from the answers.
It would be in the greater interest of this forum that questions are viewed in isolation, without reading too much into the previous interactions of the questioner on the forum, and without reading between-the-lines to divine the intent of the questioner.
That's true to a certain extent: i.e. a defilement could make someone read too much into a question. However "intent" (and perception of intent) also matters.
One example of that is already in the Moderation Policy, as a result of this answer:

Personally, I find seeded questions irksome; it's generally easy to see that the asker isn't really looking for an answer, so there is no sense of accomplishment in answering. It feels more like a chore, like editing Wikipedia or something.

You say things like,

I am more keenly interested in thought processes of Buddhists who are alive and kicking today

I may be alive but I don't want to be made to kick like a frog.
I would in fact suggest framing an appropriate rule or guideline for moderation
If it's any consolation to you I think this is true ...

Please show me which line exactly leads you to feel that rationalism was implied to be correct.

... i.e. I agree that your question about rationalism was inherently "empty".
I think it was framing an argument though.
The fact that it's not offensive doesn't guarantee that it's a question which people want to answer; doesn't guarantee that it's a question about Buddhism; doesn't even guarantee that it's a question.
Also I read a comment like this with the phrase "defense of the Buddhist perspective" ...

Ruben, this is an eloquent answer, and possibly a good defense of the Buddhist perspective.

... as implying a hostile or offensive intent. Yuttadhammo's last post on this site included,

Personally, I haven't the time for or interest in debating Buddhism on the Internet - forums abound where one may do so elsewhere; I didn't think that would be the purpose of this site.

Most users here seem to agree that "is Buddhism correct?" is off-topic.
your negative perceptions of who I am and what I am trying to do here on this forum
For me the question isn't "who are you" but what are you trying to do on this Q+A site (not a forum)?
For example IMO this answer is not an exhaustive whitelist of what's correct use of the site, but at least an example of what users want the site to be used for.
It seems to me you're trying to debate. Trying to challenge people's beliefs (or views). You seem to be treating the users of this forum as a subject of discussion (but the subject of the site is meant to be "Buddhism" not "forum members").
Do you have any especial interest in Buddhism? Why? What? Any knowledge of it? Any specific form or school of it?
Maybe users here believe there's no satisfaction to be found in debate. If Q+A can help you resolve obstacles towards enlightenment then so much the better, but if it's just samsaric then what's the point?
You're making (the subject of) this conversation all about you and other users; whereas the subject ought to be about Buddhism. Perhaps that's because you don't know enough about Buddhism to ask questions about it.
Nevertheless, I shall request you all to consider this suggestion on its own merit in all honesty
To be clear about what "this suggestion" is, again, I think it was this:

View each question in isolation without divining the intent of the questioner

Having considered it I think it's impractical:

IMO people may need to divine the intent of the questioner in order to answer their question.
For example if you asked a simple question like, "Where are you going?", then I'd need to make a quick guess about why you're asking in order to understand what you're asking.
If someone asks "What is dukkha?" then to answer that appropriately we need to infer whether the questioner is a novice with no previous exposure to Buddhism, or a scholar trying to set the record straight, or what.
Similarly I find it helps to understand the answers if you know who's answering.
Also implementing that moderation rule would make it impossible to suspend user accounts for repeatedly being a nuisance. So either you couldn't do it at all, or you'd have to suspend their account as soon as they're a nuisance for the first time.

Chris, I read this here (http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1718/the-direction-of-buddhism-se/1735#1735): "I came to know of this site through Ven. Yuttadhammo's posts. Soon after my arrival here, I saw his post declaring his quitting this forum. This was closely followed by his sentiments echoed by other senior members, whose past activity I had really liked..." Can I request you to give me the link to Ven. Yuttadhammo's post declaring his quitting the forum? And also links to "sentiments echoed by other members"? I would like to read these, and introspect.

I had added a link to Yuttadhammo's post in the most recent edit to this answer; i.e. http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/1711/254

Chris, I had earlier read Yuttadhammo's post. I re-read it in the context of the earlier mentioned post by Ka Ko, and then I re-read that in the context of Yuttadhammo's post. I am touched, and I am moved to remorse. I have nothing to say except, I am sincerely sorry. I appear to have caused a very real loss to persons like Ka Ko. From the bottom of my heart, I apologize. And as reparation for what I have done, I quit. For what it is worth, kindly convey my sincere apologies to Ven. Yuttadhammo and Ka Ko. Best Wishes for the future.

And Chris, kindly delete whatever you wish to delete in the interest of this community.

@KrishnarajRao I fetched my bicycle from the shop yesterday, it had been in for two days. I like the guy there: once when I went in, I found what I wanted on a shelf, took it to the counter and he said to me (in French), "Have you found your happiness?" ;-) Anyway, this time around he replaced my brake pads: told me (and showed me) that the pads had been worn down right to the metal (which was true, I confirmed, the front brake had been starting to make a creaking/grinding/squealing noise, when it got hot on a down-hill).


text:
Explanations of Buddhist "thought-provoking dissonance" in dialectics?
I'd like to ask something like the following question on the main site.
Is this a good and acceptable question? Should it be edited in some way?
Are the tags correct? Should we also add the tantra tag?
(Please don't try to answer the following question here -- this meta-question is about whether the question is acceptable and can be moved to the main site to be asked and answered there.)

Title: Explanations of Buddhist "thought-provoking dissonance" in dialectics?
Zen question-and-answers and talks like the ones described here (also mentioned in books like this one) don't seem like orthodox 'right speech'; yet, they are believed or intended to trigger spiritual progress.

What's the mechanism by which such interactions are beneficial (for example is it meant to be thought-provoking dissonance and anger, therefore ultimately dissatisfaction with conventionally-held positions)?
If used on a site like this one, such interactions might attract down-voting and deletion, etc.

Can you recommend any writings or talks, by relatively recent (say in the last 50 years) Buddhist teachers, about such interactions?

Have the teachers specified how to distinguish or identify such dissonance-causing dialectics, as opposed to gratuitously-offensive "wrong speech"?

This was partially a question about asking questions on this site: but I am more interested in asking it as a question about Buddhist dialectics in the real world.
Tags: zen tibetan-buddhism reference-request

Please consider deleting this question here, as I have posted an edited version of this (after considering suggestions of Chris and Robin) on the main forum. I trust this will not be taken amiss.

We've no policy which encourages deleting answered questions from meta. I think it might as well as stay as one of the innumerable [meta-tag:specific-question] topics. After you accepted an upvoted answer this question is unlikely to attract further activity (further answers). FYI when you ask questions on the main site, unless you're ultimately satisfied with an answer you could refrain from "accepting" it for a few days, leave the question without any accepted answer for few days as a signal that you're still soliciting answers, and finally accept the most satisfying answer a few days later.

@ChrisW - Thanks for that tip. Will be slower on the "accept" button in future.

This seems overall a genuine question to gain understanding of how such speech is used and why.
There is one suggestion I would make and that is to remove the line that says, "If used on a site like this one, such interactions might attract down-voting and deletion, etc."
That line detracts from your genuine inquiry and shifts your post to yet another criticism of the site. The site is as it is; a community of people interested in Buddhism in one aspect or another who graciously answer questions asked.
If you genuinely care for guidance in understanding such things as the main topic of your post; it may be best to stick to the question without additional commentary which critiques the site. Be well.

Your point is well made. And I think ChrisW also has suggested some alternative ways. I will apply my mind to both of your points and criticisms, and try again tomorrow. Maybe I will divide it into two or three smaller and simpler questions.

I don't think this will make a good question, for several reasons:

It is three different questions in one. This has been your pattern all along, asking a number of questions under a heading - which is not the preferred format for this site.
The first subquestion, about the mechanism, has already been addressed by me in the original question about humor.
Recommending resources (writings or talks) is explicitly off-topic on most StackExchange sites, I don't think this one should be an exception.
The last part is a question about teachers' methodology - not something they easily share with students or share at all - which will make the answers rather speculative and opinion-based.

Perhaps the question can be saved by rephrasing it to say something like:
"If Mahayana teachers are allowed to break the precepts for the benefit of their students, why is that not appropriate for students themselves?" -- still sounds too opinionated to me, so no.
or
"What are the main Zen and Mahayana techniques for murdering the ego?" -- survey-type questions are not a good fit for this site, so no again.
The fact that the questions you ask end up being either off-based or too broad usually means that you have not done sufficient homework before asking them.
I suppose what would work better is for you to spend some time learning about Buddhism off the site, let's say for a month, and then to come back with more specific and relevant questions.

The first of those questions is a result of my rephrasing the original post, to re-cast some speculation (it said, "... progress, possibly by creating thought-provoking dissonance etc.") as a question. Might it be answerable if the first question (i.e. the first list item) were removed, or if my edit were reversed?

Perhaps when editing questions we should boil them down to a single point, instead of exploding? Could mess up the OP intent though...

The tag wiki for [tag:reference-request] says, "A question asking for a single text or a set of texts. This can be from a general request on a subject area or (etc.)": so, recommending resources might be on-topic (I don't remember that's it's actually ever been used for a "general request"; or actually I do, sometimes Yuttadhammo used to allow such a question as 'community wiki', which implied they were on-topic, though I think that this topic is so narrow/specialized that it shouldn't be CW, i.e. this question would be lucky to get even one or two good answers).

For me [tag:reference-request] is different, that's asking for the source of a quote or a specific idea... I don't think it should be used for general requests for broad areas.

a) Re-reading the original version of the OP, the whole possibly by creating thought-provoking dissonance etc. clause seems a discursive aside i.e. inessential and could be dropped without changing the literal questions which follow. b) I agree that "source of a quote or a specific idea" is the usual use of reference-request (that's why I looked at the tag wiki to see whether it was meant to have "general request on a subject area" as a secondary use). That could be a separate meta-topic, I guess. Re this specific question, in summary I think you're not keen on it nor on any variety of it.

You're right, I'm not too keen on it and I'm trying to be polite.

There is an interesting question here in that Zen tradition sometimes holds 10 precepts, multiple of which concern right speech and one concerning anger and yet the responses of Zen teachers can seem harsh or provocative and seemingly not in keeping with the precepts to outsiders. It was my assumption that this is where the question was leading. But maybe it's too broad as written?

IMO a key clause from Andrei's answer (which this question was quoting) was, if a Zen master notices that his student lost his fundamental sanity and has "gotten drunk on the shravaka wine" to use Dogen's parable. Texts returned by a Google search for e.g. Dogen sravaka wine suggest the context in which that type of speech was used (i.e. the context to which that speech might be an antidote). Given that context it might be obvious that's it's likely to be more effective if and because it's from a teacher.


text:
Shouldn't Buddhist discussion use modern metaphors (instead of metaphors from the ancient past)?
In response to my earlier question about the nature of "remedies" offered by Buddhism, I got many replies that quoted parables and similies, such as "The burning house" and "the raft".
I understand that people try to stick to the original teachings of the Buddha and other great gurus; but the ancient gurus gave their answers in parables and similes appropriate to their times and circumstances (and so they talked about rivers, rafts, burning houses, children fascinated with wooden toys, etc.).
Why aren't modern-day gurus comfortable creating original parables with modern imagery: for example a hitch-hiker who takes a lift from a trucker, and repays him by gifting him a smartphone?
Isn't Buddhism about imbibing spiritual teachings, applying them in one's life, and as a bonus, imparting those teachings convincingly in an age-appropriate and context-specific (i.e. modern) way?

Actually I did try to use modern metaphors in this answer. There's nothing wrong with that. And I think other people who answer questions here may also do that, though I can't recall specific examples. Of course, more than half the answers use traditional metaphors and examples.

Thanks for pointing it out. Much appreciated!

"So, why are modern-day gurus still stuck with imagery from the middle-ages? Why aren't they comfortable creating original parables with imagery such as a hitch-hiker who takes a lift from a trucker, and repays him by gifting him a smartphone?"
Do you know for sure there aren't Buddhists that do this? Substitute the wooden toy with a smartphone if you want, it makes no difference. I think that quoting from a source just adds more credibility, it shows that the person has done his research and isn't just speculating. If a person invents her own simile there is a chance that that person has misunderstood the point, but if the person quotes from scripture and gives his interpretation, you can always look at the same quote and either agree or disagree and when you discuss you will always be on the same page, so to speak.
"No offence, but I am led to ask whether people currently involved in Buddhist discussions are stuck with showing how thoroughly they have read the ancient Buddhist scriptures, rather than how deeply they have imbibed the teachings."
The scriptures are part of the teachings, the source of the teachings. It makes sense that to learn the teachings, what you call true Buddhism, they must go to the source material. When they go to another person's teachings, are they still Buddhists or followers of the new guru? New religions are created this way.

Your question has two parts, one is "These people here they..., am I right or am I right?"
The other part of the question is, "Why haven't people upgraded the metaphorical language to reflect modern society?"  This has an answer in the context of a StackExchange site.
People are expected to ask questions that could potentially have a single correct, best answer. This is just a byproduct of the SE history as a software development Q&A that grew beyond it's original topic. For an answer to be somewhat objectively correct, eventually it will need to cite sources and that puts us not only in the symbolic imagery of 2000 years ago, but the exact surviving words.
Every thing else is "unverifiable personal gnosis," a hand phrase I borrow from the Asatru community. If I rewrite the Lotus Sutra so that it takes place in modern times, then it is just me talking. If I make claims that this was revealed to me, then it needs to meet the same standards as other texts that got into the Taisho, Kangjur or Tripitaka. In the Mahayana case, a text was admitted because it was so similar enough to earlier sutras and used the same symbolic imagery, including elephants and lions, even though people from Tibet and China hadn't ever seen either.
The better place for unverifiable personal gnosis is a blog, an example would be the meaningness project, who I greatly enjoy reading, but his blog posts wouldn't make for authoritative answers on a Q&A site.

It doesn't matter if the teaching approach is modern or not. Students would do well to let go of original thought-processes. Students should just listen to dhamma, experience just what is moment by moment and let go of coming up with ideas that can bring conflict with the teacher and the student's practice. There are plenty of teachers that are original and modern anyway like Ajahn Chah and his similes about  guns, hypodermic Needles, tape recorders and balloons. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/chah/insimpleterms.html

I think the responses to this question and the voting against it as a question are symptomatic of fundamental problems with this site at present. Buddhism stack-exchange is dominated by traditionalists who block vote for each other's questions and answers. Often quite trivial questions and answers receive high votes if they are couched in Traditionalist terms, and receive low or negative votes if they depart from tradition. Voting seems to reflect approval for the person, rather than the merit of questions and answers.
And yes, the most active members do tend to answer questions in terms that are antiquated and traditional. Of course we can see some positive value in tradition and many of the old stories do still resonate emotionally for some people. But acceptance and repeating the old stories is also an expression of group membership and identity. The constant citing of blocks of (often poorly translated) quotes from suttas with no consideration of the content also seems to be connected with this phenomenon.
Some of the answers note that some prominent Buddhist "teachers" do use modern images and symbols, so the question is why such innovations are not evident here as well - why is the Pāḷi Canon, and the Access to Insight website, the accepted authority?
I agree that the answers frequently "are stuck with showing how thoroughly they have read the ancient Buddhist scriptures".

Thanks, Jayarava. I am a newbie on this forum, and I'm not admirably well-read either. Whatever my reading has been (in Hindu, Christian, Islam, Sufiism, Buddhist scriptures -- plus other philosophers -- is not reference-worthy. It's a mismash of concepts sitting in my head and imbibed into my life. I'm not proud of this, but I'm not entirely ashamed of it either. Just a candid confession made in the heat of the moment.

'why is the Pāḷi Canon, and the Access to Insight website, the accepted authority?' It's because the Buddhists take refuge in Buddha, Dhamma and Sanga, not scholarly articles.  Pāḷi Canon, and the Access to Insight represent the Dhamma.

I got many replies that quoted parables and similies, such as "The burning house" and "the raft"
It was me who mentioned those two parables, about "the burning house" and "the raft".
Because I am not a guru I wouldn't want to answer a question which asks about Buddhist doctrine (a.k.a. "dhamma preaching") by quoting myself: instead I want to answer by quoting a Buddhist guru (and in my case, preferably by quoting doctrine attributed to the historical Buddha).
It's a mistake to equate my answers with the answers of "modern-day gurus".
Another reason why I quote or reference existing text is so that you can read more of it (more of whatever I referenced) if you want to. For example I linked to Wikipedia's article about Upaya because I thought, based on your question, that was a subject that would interest you.
It's also a mistake to conflate my answers with the answers from other users of this site. For example another user might have chosen to answer your question with a definite "yes", saying that there are several kinds of Yāna for different people.
And (I don't know why) most of the site's users chose not to answer your question, nor to upvote any of the answers.
I find this tendency to stick with outdated imagery somewhat disturbing, because it suggests a lack of original thought-process
Sorry about that.
being able to impart those teachings convincingly in an age-appropriate and context-specific way
You're probably right; I don't know how old you are or how much you know about Buddhism already.
In one of your comments you wrote, "my philosophy is informed by Hinduism", and this was your first question on the site; so I tried to be conservative in my answer, i.e. ensure that my answer mentioned some of the most essential/central Buddhist doctrines.
And actually I'm not trying to be "convincing": instead I'm trying to be "authentic".
I remember this from Confucius' Analects,

Tzu-lu made Tzu-kao the prefect of Pi. The Master said, 'He is ruining another man's son.'1
Tzu-lu replied, 'His job will be to lead the common people and the officers, and to honour the altars to the spirits of the earth and grain. In order to be considered learned, is it necessary for him to study the books?'
The Master said, 'It is for this reason that I dislike men who are plausible.'
because Tzu-kao had a lot of talent but he hadn't yet studied.

(Apparently Confucius was a fan of having studied and being learned.)
So if I write an answer on this site, I try to write something that is true, not just plausible or convincing.
Elsewhere there are many other people's attempts to render the intent of Buddhism or their understanding of Buddhism in accessible, modern language. If you compare http://fakebuddhaquotes.com/ with http://www.realbuddhaquotes.com/ you might (I don't know) prefer the more authentic quotes.
Buddhism is NOT about being able being able to sound like a reincarnated Indian or Chinese sage, or like his favourite student.
I think there are several schools of Buddhism. One is Theravada which is somewhat defined by (and which studies) the Pali scriptures.
There are also other schools (Zen for example) which has a literature of its own, such as this or this.
And there are living people who can try to answer your questions, some of whom will do better than others.
stuck with showing how thoroughly they have read the ancient Buddhist scriptures, rather than how deeply they have imbibed the teachings
I was trying to do neither: I was trying to answer your question.
Maybe next time you could be more specific (in your question) about what you're looking for (in an answer), e.g. "please don't quote scripture". A problem though with trying to do that here might be that asking, "What do you think?" is usually treated as off-topic on this site: because if there are 100 users reading the site then asking "What do you think?" might result in 100 different answers, which isn't exactly the purpose of this site. The purpose of this site is to answer questions; a question which invites an infinite number of answers is, in some sense, a question which cannot be answered (it has no single answer, no single answer is sufficient, it is unanswerable). So instead of "What do you think about X?" you're encouraged to ask more impersonal questions like "What does Buddhism say about X?" or "What is a solution to my problem with X?". In turn, impersonal questions like "What does Buddhism say about X?" encourages people to reference Buddhist literature.
One more thing is that Buddhism doesn't always respond to "yes or no" questions. So if you ask "Can there be one Dharma for all stages?" a Buddhist answer might be "yes and no" (or, the answer might be a criticism of the question). I wonder whether the "wholesome roots" might be a good answer if you are looking for a-single-dhamma-to-suit-all-occasions.

Once again, thanks, Chris, for your objectivity and tolerance. And sorry for being somewhat prickly in the way I worded that question. I didn't aim to offend people, but that is evidently what I did.

FYI the three vote-to-close reasons were all that the question was "primarily opinion based 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." It's unusual that people vote-to-close a question (I can't easily explain why they did, the site's usual policy at least for the moderators is to accept almost any question).

There are a few phrases you could delete from the question to make it seem less "offensive" especially anything about people-on-this-site instead of Buddhism-beyond-this-site (e.g. "lack of original thought-process" and "I am led to ask whether people currently involved"). And if you're asking a delicate question perhaps remove your own opinion e.g. "I feel that true Buddhism is", so that you only ask a neutral question (the current question may imply that you know what "true Buddhism" is and that other people don't ... even if that were true that sounds more like an argument than a question).

Anyway, welcome to the site! I hope in future you find a way to ask questions that you want to, without people voting to close them. Apparently you need to be a bit careful, because it only takes a handful of (i.e. 5) users to vote to close a question. I think people are probably willing to answer questions and to share what they can, but maybe less eager to face (or reply to) criticism.

Phrases like "I feel" indicate that I am aware that what I write is not an absolute truth, but only an opinion. Still, I shall introspect, and look for gentler ways to word everything.

@KrishnarajRao I'm sorry I'm a bit mystified about why people were voting to close, so slight tweaks like this to the literary style are all I'm able to suggest. Hopefully it won't be disastrous though. Even if some future question does get closed, as long as it has a salvageable core and you're patient, we ought to be able to discuss that question here on meta, to figure out how to edit it and reopen it.

Another tweak might be to phrase the question as a positive instead of as a negative: not "why don't Buddhist teachers use modern metaphors" but "which Buddhist teachers (can you recommend some Buddhist teachers who) do use modern metaphors?"

Buddhists are followers of The Lord Buddhas teachings.

...how deeply they have imbibed the teachings.

To gain this they should check, learn and practice the Teachings of ancient past.
To communicate with others (give the message/ show the path) they use ancient texts, when appropriate. If someone needs a specific answer for a specific problem, the question should be specific.

Is Buddhism discussion and thought-process stuck in the ancient past?

It should be. Otherwise that is something else.


text:
Quotations from Pāli
It's a common practice to cite long passages from Pāḷi without commentary as though this was sufficient to make a point. This is an example of argument from authority (a kind of logical fallacy) in which the answer relies on the scriptural passage being "true", but the only reason to consider it true is religious belief. In answer to a question I pointed out many reasons to doubt the authenticity of the Pāḷi texts.
How does one indicate, without giving offence, that an argument from authority is weak? Or is this a case of offering a different kind of answer and letting the public decide?

Interesting, also re text sources in general; another aspect is that translated text may contain translation inaccuracies/ exact term nonequivalences etc, and selective quotation/ out of context/ piecemeal quotation etc; on the other hand, however, a quote or quotes may be very appropriate and helpful; and if a matter of opinion, then that is opinion, if a matter of fact, then it would either be correct or incorrect: may be good to consider to an extent each discussion individually

Apologies for another too-long post from me, and apologies again if I've misunderstood or taken your question out of context.

How does one indicate, without giving offence, that an argument from authority is weak?

Doing that (without giving offence) can be difficult.
I think the only time I suggested that a Pali text might be weak is when I did that by quoting other (expert) people who said so (i.e. I referenced their long published paper which compared a Pali sutta to a Chinese version).
And depending on the question, an argument from authority might be on-topic: if the question is "what is the Buddhist doctrine about X?" and the Pali texts are Buddhist doctrine, then so long as the quoted Pali is on the subject of X then it seems like a reasonable answer.

Or is this a case of offering a different kind of answer and letting the public decide?

I like to distinguish between "negative criticism" and "constructive or prescriptive criticism."
For example mere (negative) criticism might be a comment like, "that's a bad answer, it's just an argument from authority" or "that's a bad answer, the Pali texts aren't authoritative."
A better criticism is at least informative, adding or leading to further information: "I see you quoted the X sutta. Given that you're interested in it, you might lead to read paper Y by researcher Z who argues that this sutta is often misinterpreted" (or "... a forgery", or "... written by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about", or whatever the criticism is). In that case you're informing as well as criticizing, offering to expand rather than simply to destroy someone's view.
Dare I suggest you consider "right speech" in deciding whether and how to criticize? Do you think your criticism will be welcome, timely, true, useful, etc.?
I don't often downvote (about 7% of my votes are downvotes), but I will downvote if I think that an answer is misleading or worse than useless; and if I downvote, then I also try to post a critical comment (to explain the downvote or to give the author a chance to improve their answer). If my leaving a comment leads to an argument with author and apparent anger and getting personal (complaining about the person instead of discussing the answer) then I may avoid posting comments to that person in future (i.e. I might do anonymous downvotes without leaving a comment).
An anonymous downvote is the simplest and most friction-free (albeit also the most meaningless or least informative) way to criticize.
Before you comment, do you consider whether you expect that the author will be able to improve this answer? This answer for example, I thought it was obvious (because he said, "I don't have personal knowledge of this branch of Buddhism, but I've made use of a search engine to find these sources") that he couldn't easily alter his answer, so this one was a take-it-or-leave-it as-is answer.
I try to be conscious that we're writing for two audiences, i.e. the current users of the site and future readers. I don't want to antagonize current users for the sake of "the public".
And "yes" to offering a different answer, if you want to write something other than what other people have written.
What's better than argument from authority? Possibly argument from experience? That's not always an infallible guide either though (e.g. because there's also lack of experience), and neither is logic (e.g. because it depends on what axioms you choose and on how you simplify reality to describe it).
So IMO answers do "make a point", and hopefully the points they make are true, even when not the whole truth. And one of the points is apparently that the Pali text says X. A fuller answer might explain how X is relevant to the question (but that better might be the enemy of the good).
One more thing, I do think we ought to be reserved about criticizing other people's beliefs. Look at an answer like this one for example or this one -- if a single user or a single group of user becomes relatively abrasive about complaining about other people's views (no matter really whether they're a minority or a majority view) then that may make other people averse to participating at all. This is meant to be a general forum and people should be allowed to participate at present diverse views ("Mahayana says this..." and "Theravada says this..." etc.); but negative views ("Mahayana is a heresy" and "Theravada is a forgery" etc.) are difficult.

the only reason to consider it true is religious belief

Maybe you don't have a religious belief but if "secular Buddhism" is one form (not the only form) of Buddhism then I hope it will co-exist on (and not try to dominate) this site.
Perhaps I should point out this topic: Answers vs Advice
It isn't necessarily anyone's job, on this site, to criticize other people's religious beliefs.
I suspect that the StackExchange model is primarily to post a good answer, and to upvote other answers you agree with (or to upvote instead of posting if other answers have already said what you would have wanted to).

Ah yes, the voting model. As I've already said, I have major doubts about how this system functions in this branch of stackexchange.