user254: The question "Loss of “faith” in buddhism" was closed.
Is there just one reason why it was closed (i.e. the word "bullshit" being used), or are there other good reasons too?
Could it be re-opened after suitable editing, if so then what edits are necessary and sufficient?

user295: Some observations:

We should not always assume a question will have the right assumptions as the users may not know completely about Buddhism. This gives the opportunity correct such view on Buddhism which might otherwise go unanswered. Best way to ask a question that may founded on incorrect assumptions, Should we have a tag for sceptical questions?
The question was marked as opinion based but @Lanka says it is ranting and hash words later in addition to this. This again is like pull the trigger 1st and find the justification later like some past incidents. When some moderation action is done, it should be proper clarification on why and with justification. It should list the all (not partial) reason for moderation and clear and comprehensive enough description to take corrective action by the OP and avoid such issues in the future. If the OP is wondering why is this happening or not clear at the time of moderation why something was done then it is not good moderation.
Also consistency and equitability moderation is important. I have seen @andrei-volkov and @ BlackFlam3 use the words before. (https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=bullshit, https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=BS, https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=Shit) So why was this not moderated and why @Lanka and why only this instance. (There was a discussion on comments also on this but no solid outcome. I cannot locate the discussion though.) Better would have been to open a topic on Meta on this instance and the past use and set a new precedence as treatment was different in the past. This comes to the question:
What level ranting and use of harsh language is acceptable on the site and what needs to be done on past content. Also note the user is expressing a disappointment hence the tendency is to slant towards hash language. Also this question has an element of doubt or validity of Buddhism, these would be a valuable way to correct these option either for the user or the world at large.
In instances where personal opinion on the reason may play a large role (moderation decision itself is opinion based) then perhaps meta consultation may be wise before moderation.


254: <p>The question "<a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/14010/254">Loss of “faith” in buddhism</a>" was closed.</p>

<p>Is there just one reason why it was closed (i.e. the word "bullshit" being used), or are there other good reasons too?</p>

<p>Could it be re-opened after suitable editing, if so then what edits are necessary and sufficient?</p>
 295: <p>Some observations:</p>

<ul>
<li>We should not always assume a question will have the right assumptions as the users may not know completely about Buddhism. This gives the opportunity correct such view on Buddhism which might otherwise go unanswered. <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1963/best-way-to-ask-a-question-that-may-founded-on-incorrect-assumptions">Best way to ask a question that may founded on incorrect assumptions</a>, <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1715/should-we-have-a-tag-for-sceptical-questions">Should we have a tag for sceptical questions?</a></li>
<li>The question was marked as opinion based but @Lanka says it is ranting and hash words later in addition to this. This again is like pull the trigger 1st and find the justification later like some past incidents. When some moderation action is done, it should be proper clarification on why and with justification. It should list the all (not partial) reason for moderation and clear and comprehensive enough description to take corrective action by the OP and avoid such issues in the future. If the OP is wondering why is this happening or not clear at the time of moderation why something was done then it is not good moderation.</li>
<li>Also consistency and equitability moderation is important. I have seen @andrei-volkov and @ BlackFlam3 use the words before. (<a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=bullshit">https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=bullshit</a>, <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=BS">https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=BS</a>, <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=Shit">https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=Shit</a>) So why was this not moderated and why @Lanka and why only this instance. (There was a discussion on comments also on this but no solid outcome. I cannot locate the discussion though.) Better would have been to open a topic on Meta on this instance and the past use and set a new precedence as treatment was different in the past. This comes to the question:</li>
<li>What level ranting and use of harsh language is acceptable on the site and what needs to be done on past content. Also note the user is expressing a disappointment hence the tendency is to slant towards hash language. Also this question has an element of doubt or validity of Buddhism, these would be a valuable way to correct these option either for the user or the world at large.</li>
<li>In instances where personal opinion on the reason may play a large role (moderation decision itself is opinion based) then perhaps meta consultation may be wise before moderation.</li>
</ul>
