user16489: As I've understood this forum is govern by the community. The moderators get elected in forums like SO. But here it seems some are selected as moderators, which has no issue as they are maintaining the ethics and other practices in this forum. But the main problem I saw is, even Budhha come and answer a question here, some of the moderators and highest scored profiles will reject him. Why? Because all the people here who think they know everything, are not open minded.
So let me tell this, Buddha didn't write a book on buddhism. He preached this verbally not using english. So the words which today dhamma is explained has deeper meaning which doesn't understand by translating to another language. As an example 'anicca'. I saw someone has said this is an opposite of 'nicca' but not the opposite of 'icca'. We still use the word icca in our day today life.
Anyway, what all specially the moderators should keep in mind is this Buddhism is not a game as mentioned by Buddha if someone tries to interpret something falsely and saying this is said by Buddha, it's 'anantariya papa karma' which means a worst sin a one can do which will cause them to suffer in hell. (Killing parents is also one of 5 among those sins). So I'm writing this with millions of Metta to the moderators and high score users do not close the path to Nivana with tge life you got as a human. The main reason, I'm posting this is to make everyone understand how serious this is. It doesn't matter whether a child doesn't know a poison drink kills him or not; if a child drinks a poison he will die. Whether you know this or not you may do these sins. Buddhism is not programming, buddhism is not maths just to understand the theories and answer. Buddhism is not simple as just to meditate and keep the mind calm and answer. Because Nivana is far beyond this. If you've heard Alarakalama, Uddakarama putta (Siddhartha's teachers) were also capable of reaching dhyana but they didnt know the Nivana. So just because someone has dhyana it doesn't mean he is in right path. Only the first entrant is in right path whether he has dhyana or not it doesnt matter.
So the question is, are you sure is this the correct way of governing buddhism related knowledge? I was asked once not to put some site reference as it conflicts with some high score profile here who even doesn't know whats the meaning of 'uggatithagna'. All these are said with Metta, not to harm anyone or not to make myself a high profile here. Because each and everyone of us are alone in our journey of sansara, don't block your path to Nivana when its the time of real dhamma has risen.

user254: I've just now understood what this post is about.
In a now-deleted comment under this question you posted the following comment ...

This is a good example to prove the buddhism's core is not impermanence which some mistkenly interpret the meaning of the word 'anicca'. Its correct meaning is 'insatiable'. When something is insatiable it always cause dukkha. This is not tge exact noble dukkha. But its (anicca, which is not the impermanence) the the root cause to noble dukkha. In this forum explaining this would just adds down votes.

... which I deleted.
You then commented ...

see my previous comment is deleted. This community is not open minded. Without knowing they are doing a big sin to them selves. They may see the right path some day. With Metta

... and I replied ....

Here is a description of how to use the site's "comment" feature. If you want to answer the question then please post it as an answer (not a comment) -- or if you don't want to answer the question then don't. A comment on the question is for e.g. when you don't understand the question or want to suggest an improvement to how it's worded.

Your comment was related to this post -- Is "impermanence" a bad translation of "anicca"?

Anyway, if you refer to The Tour it says,

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

My function here as moderator is not to decide what's Buddhist or orthodox -- it's not because I know a lot about Buddhism that I was asked to act as moderator -- instead I should help to explain ...

The policies defined by Stack Exchange (for all SE sites) -- see e.g. the Help pages
And defined by the "community" of users (for this site) -- see e.g. FAQ index (summary of site policies)

... (and to implement those policies, sometimes by deleting posts).
Apart from the Help page about comments which I already linked to, see also:

When my answer is short, shall I post it as a comment instead?
When should comments be deleted

Regular users can't delete other users' comments, but as a moderator I can and may -- I assume that:

Someone -- who may be a regular user of the site, and/or a naive reader -- might find the Is Jhana considered dukkha and/or conditioned? page because they're interested in that specific topic
They don't know you nor what you've posted previously
Your comment as posted is therefore more-or-less incomprehensible -- a distraction

If you want to answer the question then post an answer:

Don't try to answer by posting a comment
Don't assume that the person reading has already read what you posted previously
Also avoid criticising other users -- see Code of Conduct and Be nice
And, avoid making "this site" the topic of your post -- talk about the site belongs on Meta

Anyway I deleted the comment because:

It wasn't a clear answer
It was a reference to a previous topic which most readers might not have read
It was commentary about the site, and voting, and so on

You could post an answer if you wanted to -- but, you said you didn't want to, because ...

In this forum explaining this would just adds down votes.

That seemed to be saying "I could answer this but I refuse to explain it" which isn't a comment that might help the OP.
I guess that -- "why is a post down-voted and does it matter?" -- is a different topic altogether.
For what it's worth if I try to post an answer, then I hope that what I post might be true and on-topic. If it helps a reader that's more important than how users vote on it. I don't answer every question, and when I do I usually include a reference (e.g. a quote from a sutta or other writing).
As for your original thesis, people seemed to agree that the various views like ...


Inability to Keep What We Like
Repeated Arising/Destruction
Worthlessness of Worldly Things


... were not untrue, and were a useful and orthodox understanding -- I think they're paraphrases from various suttas. The less popular part of the message, in case you do want to avoid downvotes in future, was saying "Everyone who translates anicca as 'impermanent' is wrong".

user471: I can understand that you have a different opinion on what "anicca" means.
But to rant here that we're going to hell for saying "anicca" means "impermanence" is forcing your views upon the community and trying to censor others.
How Buddhism.SE works, is that if you think an answer is wrong or of low quality, you can vote it down. If you think an answer is right or good, you can vote it up. There is freedom of speech in Buddhism.SE in this way.
For e.g. this answer received a lot of downvotes because the community thought that it's not good. But that answer did not get deleted, because it is not really hate speech or spam etc. The moderators did not censor this legitimate answer even if it was not a good one. The moderators should only censor answers that are not an answer (e.g. comment), hate or abusive speech, spam, very low quality (e.g. one-liners) etc.
This answer expressed the view that "anicca" means "insatiable", but it was still allowed, although downvoted, because it is a legitimate answer even if the community did not agree with it.
In fact, I think Buddhism.SE supports freedom of speech more than other Buddhism sites. For e.g. expressing the view that "anicca" does not mean "impermanence" is not allowed on SuttaCentral.
On the SuttaCentral page "Extremist views are banned on this forum", Bhikkhu Sujato, a well-known translator and scholar of the Pali Canon, wrote the following text (see below). This means that if you try to express the view that "anicca" does not mean "impermanence" on SuttaCentral, you may get banned because SuttaCentral considers that a non-hateful extremist view. Also see this comment by Bhikkhu Sujato.
This does not apply here on Buddhism.SE. I think you should be grateful that you can freely express your opinions here and not try to censor the fellow members of Buddhism.SE.
From the SuttaCentral page "Extremist views are banned on this forum":


Advocating extremist views is banned on this forum.

Anyone advocating hateful views will be banned without warning.
Anyone advocating non-hateful extremist views will be warned, and if they persist, banned.


What is an extremist view?
Generally it refers to views that blithely reject well-established
  facts. The views themselves may or may not be hateful, but they are
  always delusional. Such views seem like an innocuous theory, but they
  often aim at creating a nationalist, sectarian fundamentalism.
It is not possible to define these with precision, so I will decide on
  a case by case basis, with consultation if necessary.
We are concerned primarily with Buddhist extremist views, but other
  forms of anti-reality extremism are included, such as climate change
  denial.
Examples of hateful views include anti-semitic, homophobic,
  misogynist, racist, and pro-nazi ideas.
Examples of non-hateful extremist views include:

The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka.
Anicca doesn’t mean impermanence.
The original Pali manuscripts at Aluvihara exist.
Pali fundamentalism (Chinese texts are all Mahayana, etc.).



16489: <p>As I've understood this forum is govern by the community. The moderators get elected in forums like SO. But here it seems some are selected as moderators, which has no issue as they are maintaining the ethics and other practices in this forum. But the main problem I saw is, even Budhha come and answer a question here, some of the moderators and highest scored profiles will reject him. Why? Because all the people here who think they know everything, are not open minded.
So let me tell this, Buddha didn't write a book on buddhism. He preached this verbally not using english. So the words which today dhamma is explained has deeper meaning which doesn't understand by translating to another language. As an example 'anicca'. I saw someone has said this is an opposite of 'nicca' but not the opposite of 'icca'. We still use the word icca in our day today life.</p>

<p><strong>Anyway, what all specially the moderators should keep in mind is this Buddhism is not a game as mentioned by Buddha if someone tries to interpret something falsely and saying this is said by Buddha, it's 'anantariya papa karma' which means a worst sin a one can do which will cause them to suffer in hell. (Killing parents is also one of 5 among those sins). So I'm writing this with millions of Metta to the moderators and high score users do not close the path to Nivana with tge life you got as a human. The main reason, I'm posting this is to make everyone understand how serious this is. It doesn't matter whether a child doesn't know a poison drink kills him or not; if a child drinks a poison he will die. Whether you know this or not you may do these sins. Buddhism is not programming, buddhism is not maths just to understand the theories and answer. Buddhism is not simple as just to meditate and keep the mind calm and answer. Because Nivana is far beyond this. If you've heard Alarakalama, Uddakarama putta (Siddhartha's teachers) were also capable of reaching dhyana but they didnt know the Nivana. So just because someone has dhyana it doesn't mean he is in right path. Only the first entrant is in right path whether he has dhyana or not it doesnt matter.</strong></p>

<p>So the question is, are you sure is this the correct way of governing buddhism related knowledge? I was asked once not to put some site reference as it conflicts with some high score profile here who even doesn't know whats the meaning of 'uggatithagna'. All these are said with Metta, not to harm anyone or not to make myself a high profile here. Because each and everyone of us are alone in our journey of sansara, don't block your path to Nivana when its the time of real dhamma has risen.</p>
 254: <p>I've just now understood what this post is about.</p>

<p>In a now-deleted comment under <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/33893/254">this question</a> you posted the following comment ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This is a good example to prove the buddhism's core is not impermanence which some mistkenly interpret the meaning of the word 'anicca'. Its correct meaning is 'insatiable'. When something is insatiable it always cause dukkha. This is not tge exact noble dukkha. But its (anicca, which is not the impermanence) the the root cause to noble dukkha. In this forum explaining this would just adds down votes.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... which I deleted.</p>

<p>You then commented ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>see my previous comment is deleted. This community is not open minded. Without knowing they are doing a big sin to them selves. They may see the right path some day. With Metta</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... and I replied ....</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment">Here is a description</a> of how to use the site's "comment" feature. If you want to answer the question then please post it as an answer (not a comment) -- or if you don't want to answer the question then don't. A comment on the question is for e.g. when you don't understand the question or want to suggest an improvement to how it's worded.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Your comment was related to this post -- <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/33629/254">Is &quot;impermanence&quot; a bad translation of &quot;anicca&quot;?</a></p>

<hr>

<p>Anyway, if you refer to <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/tour">The Tour</a> it says,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat.</p>
  
  <p>Just questions...<br>
  ...and answers.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>My function here as moderator is not to decide what's Buddhist or orthodox -- it's not because I know a lot about Buddhism that I was asked to act as moderator -- instead I should help to explain ...</p>

<ul>
<li>The policies defined by Stack Exchange (for all SE sites) -- see e.g. the Help pages</li>
<li>And defined by the "community" of users (for this site) -- see e.g. <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2106/254">FAQ index (summary of site policies)</a></li>
</ul>

<p>... (and to implement those policies, sometimes by deleting posts).</p>

<p>Apart from <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment">the Help page</a> about comments which I already linked to, see also:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1589/254">When my answer is short, shall I post it as a comment instead?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19757/139866">When should comments be deleted</a></li>
</ul>

<p>Regular users can't delete other users' comments, but as a moderator I can and may -- I assume that:</p>

<ol>
<li>Someone -- who may be a regular user of the site, and/or a naive reader -- might find the <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/33893/254">Is Jhana considered dukkha and/or conditioned?</a> page because they're interested in that specific topic</li>
<li>They don't know you nor what you've posted previously</li>
<li>Your comment as posted is therefore more-or-less incomprehensible -- a distraction</li>
</ol>

<p>If you want to answer the question then post an answer:</p>

<ul>
<li>Don't try to answer by posting a comment</li>
<li>Don't assume that the person reading has already read what you posted previously</li>
<li>Also avoid criticising other users -- see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/conduct">Code of Conduct</a> and <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/help/behavior">Be nice</a></li>
<li>And, avoid making "this site" the topic of your post -- talk about the site belongs <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/help/whats-meta">on Meta</a></li>
</ul>

<p>Anyway I deleted the comment because:</p>

<ul>
<li>It wasn't a clear answer</li>
<li>It was a reference to a previous topic which most readers might not have read</li>
<li>It was commentary about the site, and voting, and so on</li>
</ul>

<p>You could post an answer if you wanted to -- but, you said you didn't want to, because ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In this forum explaining this would just adds down votes.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That seemed to be saying "I could answer this but I refuse to explain it" which isn't a comment that might help the OP.</p>

<p>I guess that -- "why is a post down-voted and does it matter?" -- is a different topic altogether.</p>

<p>For what it's worth if I try to post an answer, then I hope that what I post might be true and on-topic. If it helps a reader that's more important than how users vote on it. I don't answer every question, and when I do I usually include a reference (e.g. a quote from a sutta or other writing).</p>

<p>As for your original thesis, people seemed to agree that the various views like ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <ul>
  <li>Inability to Keep What We Like</li>
  <li>Repeated Arising/Destruction</li>
  <li>Worthlessness of Worldly Things</li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

<p>... were not untrue, and were a useful and orthodox understanding -- I think they're paraphrases from various suttas. The less popular part of the message, in case you do want to avoid downvotes in future, was saying "Everyone who translates <em>anicca</em> as 'impermanent' is wrong".</p>
 471: <p>I can understand that you have a different opinion on what "<em>anicca</em>" means.</p>

<p>But to rant here that we're going to hell for saying "<em>anicca</em>" means "impermanence" is forcing your views upon the community and trying to censor others.</p>

<p>How Buddhism.SE works, is that if you think an answer is wrong or of low quality, you can vote it down. If you think an answer is right or good, you can vote it up. There is freedom of speech in Buddhism.SE in this way.</p>

<p>For e.g. <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/14772/471">this answer</a> received a lot of downvotes because the community thought that it's not good. But that answer did not get deleted, because it is not really hate speech or spam etc. The moderators did not censor this legitimate answer even if it was not a good one. The moderators should only censor answers that are not an answer (e.g. comment), hate or abusive speech, spam, very low quality (e.g. one-liners) etc.</p>

<p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31503/471">This answer</a> expressed the view that "<em>anicca</em>" means "insatiable", but it was still allowed, although downvoted, because it is a legitimate answer even if the community did not agree with it.</p>

<p>In fact, I think Buddhism.SE supports freedom of speech more than other Buddhism sites. For e.g. expressing the view that "<em>anicca</em>" does not mean "impermanence" is not allowed on SuttaCentral.</p>

<p>On the SuttaCentral page "<a href="https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/extremist-views-are-banned-on-this-forum/13312" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Extremist views are banned on this forum</a>", Bhikkhu Sujato, a well-known translator and scholar of the Pali Canon, wrote the following text (see below). This means that if you try to express the view that "<em>anicca</em>" does not mean "impermanence" on SuttaCentral, you may get banned because SuttaCentral considers that a non-hateful extremist view. Also see <a href="https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/distracted-buddhist-community/10086/5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this comment</a> by Bhikkhu Sujato.</p>

<p>This does not apply here on Buddhism.SE. I think you should be grateful that you can freely express your opinions here and not try to censor the fellow members of Buddhism.SE.</p>

<p>From the SuttaCentral page "<a href="https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/extremist-views-are-banned-on-this-forum/13312" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Extremist views are banned on this forum</a>":</p>

<blockquote>
  <blockquote>
    <p>Advocating extremist views is banned on this forum.</p>
    
    <ul>
    <li>Anyone advocating hateful views will be banned without warning.</li>
    <li>Anyone advocating non-hateful extremist views will be warned, and if they persist, banned.</li>
    </ul>
  </blockquote>
  
  <h1>What is an extremist view?</h1>
  
  <p>Generally it refers to views that blithely reject well-established
  facts. The views themselves may or may not be hateful, but they are
  always delusional. Such views seem like an innocuous theory, but they
  often aim at creating a nationalist, sectarian fundamentalism.</p>
  
  <p>It is not possible to define these with precision, so I will decide on
  a case by case basis, with consultation if necessary.</p>
  
  <p>We are concerned primarily with Buddhist extremist views, but other
  forms of anti-reality extremism are included, such as climate change
  denial.</p>
  
  <p>Examples of hateful views include anti-semitic, homophobic,
  misogynist, racist, and pro-nazi ideas.</p>
  
  <p>Examples of non-hateful extremist views include:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka.</li>
  <li><strong>Anicca doesn’t mean impermanence.</strong></li>
  <li>The original Pali manuscripts at Aluvihara exist.</li>
  <li>Pali fundamentalism (Chinese texts are all Mahayana, etc.).</li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>
