user-1: Householder Andrei, those who feel in charge or wishing to assist, those who wish not to burden for no long term benefits,
"You are posting too many questions. Please slow down.", was said by Moderator Andrei.
Which should be no problem to follow, according his wishes.
Nevertheless, since such may sometimes trouble some, or it might trouble those holding something dear or wish to have some control over it, when someone ask much, it might be good to have clear rules, if wished to limit others.
Just a suggestion, nothing claimed.
From a later similar event ("repeat offending" of power misuse without community consensus (rules)?):


You are posting too many questions too fast, please show down. No more than three questions from same user on the first page, please. – Andrei Volkov♦ 1 hour ago
meta on meta-page ("please") buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2342/… (meta=not direct related to certain topic) but a good sample of insecure bet. – Samana Johann 1 hour ago     
You commented there, "Strict and simple rules give no place for arguments" -- saying, "No more than three questions from same user on the first page" fits that well: strict and simple. – ChrisW♦ 38 mins ago
Why not, if such would be a valid community transaction with approve of the owner (given that BSE lack on daily question and sticks in Beta). Meta on board, on board on meta... If one stays near a community then, is a matter of how much wisdom they have or act on pointless bias against liberation. – Samana Johann 7 mins ago    
One has to understand clearly of what is interest in a Q&A undertaking and "nation socialism/communism", community/identification defense/increase. To learn or to socialize with lowest equal... if after long term happiness, on seek for right refuge. – Samana Johann 21 mins ago
I didn't understand any of this question, by the way -- what is "relation" or "to gain relation", what is the difference between "refuge" and "right refuge". What's "most worse" meant to mean, canonically I guess that's "killing your parents" or "killing an arahant" but I hope that's very far from being a realistic/practical problem that "ordinary people" face? I guess you you want people to say something, but I don't know what, about relating with the sangha. – ChrisW♦ 13 mins ago
Wrong view is the 6 (pernicious false beliefs (niyata micca ditthi). of most worse, good householder. But why not making a new question. Or is "only when I could answer, a question is valid" possible the subjective measure? "We" are great on topic here, actually. So how act in a good bet? Right view, and now enough food to be able to answer with metta. :-) meta => meta, topic => topic. Deviding thoughts. – Samana Johann 3 mins ago    
People often ask questions which I couldn't answer -- it worries me if I can't even understand the question, maybe that means other people can't understand it either. And if you then appear to disparage the community and all its members, because you didn't get a "good answer" -- e.g. the first paragraph here -- then I suppose there's some problem with language or expectations or something. – ChrisW♦ just now


Further here, since all meta, even if top sample of what the question is about:


All just speculations and founded on personal, even equal bias. Cherry-picking to get destroyed what is preoccupied as not-mine, enemy on mine. Right? Therfore simple rules, if such is not actually a "shoot into ones own knee" given BSEs situation.


From Area51:

3.3
  questions
  per day
Needs Work – 10 questions per day on average is a healthy beta, 5 questions or fewer per day needs some work. A healthy site generates lots of good content to make sure users keep coming back.

It's total pointless to bet on those resting in a state, but any undertaking grows health by change of "stammgaeste", sticking firm to certain food, here Dhamma.
Another point, thought it should be clear why... but maybe lost in own interests:

...A great site benefits people outside the community. Eventually, 90% of a site's traffic should come from search engines.

(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment but as means to escape this wheel)

user254: it might be good to have clear rules, if wished to limit others
There is no clear rule about how many questions (or questions-per-week) are welcome.
The closest there is to a rule like that (that I know of) is is implied by one of the pre-prepared moderator template messages, which is titled "consistently low quality questions over time", and which begins,

We've noticed that you've asked many questions, a large number of which were not well received by other members of our community.
Specifically, many of your questions were downvoted and closed because they seemed to be hastily written, or of the type that we'd prefer users refrain from asking. This is a troubling pattern; we'd like to make sure that you've read the help that we have available for asking questions.

So I guess that "too many" might imply "too many low-quality", where "low-quality" is a pretty subjective and not clearly defined, but might sometimes be inferred e.g. from users' votes.
The question which Andrei closed in this case, with that comment, was "Advocating hateful views are banned!", is intending such possible without hateful (wrong) view?
At the risk of "putting words into your mouth", perhaps you'd say that people shouldn't have an "aversive reaction" to what's posted -- and if that is what you'd want to argue, there's plenty of support for that view in the suttas.
Nevertheless only a limited form of conversation is supported on the site -- not even "conversation" really, only question-and-answer. So a question which requires a discussion, to adequately see it from all sides, is difficult to answer.
I think part of Andrei's theory-of-moderation is expressed in this comment:

The fact that question can be answered well, does not mean it will be answered well. A good question has an incline, so its answers naturally turn out good. A bad question is inclined toward flamewars, and takes extra effort and wisdom to answer well.

I think this question was one of those, i.e. "takes extra effort to answer well".
And, speaking now as a user not as a moderator: although I am willing to attempt a question like that occasionally, if I feel I have to, or if I think it might benefit the OP, I'd prefer it were really infrequent.

-1: <p>Householder Andrei, those who feel in charge or wishing to assist, those who wish not to burden for no long term benefits,</p>

<p>"You are posting too many questions. Please slow down.", was said by Moderator Andrei.</p>

<p>Which should be no problem to follow, according his wishes.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, since such may sometimes trouble some, or it might trouble those holding something dear or wish to have some control over it, when someone ask much, it might be good to have clear rules, if wished to limit others.</p>

<p>Just a suggestion, nothing claimed.</p>

<p>From a <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/34232/whats-the-safe-bet-the-secure-practice-to-gain-relation-toward-the-right-refu">later similar event</a> ("repeat offending" of power misuse without community consensus (rules)?):</p>

<blockquote>
  <ul>
  <li>You are posting too many questions too fast, please show down. No more than three questions from same user on the first page, please. – Andrei Volkov♦ 1 hour ago</li>
  <li>meta on meta-page ("please") buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2342/… (meta=not direct related to certain topic) but a good sample of insecure bet. – Samana Johann 1 hour ago     </li>
  <li>You commented there, "Strict and simple rules give no place for arguments" -- saying, "No more than three questions from same user on the first page" fits that well: strict and simple. – ChrisW♦ 38 mins ago</li>
  <li>Why not, if such would be a valid community transaction with approve of the owner (given that BSE lack on daily question and sticks in Beta). Meta on board, on board on meta... If one stays near a community then, is a matter of how much wisdom they have or act on pointless bias against liberation. – Samana Johann 7 mins ago    </li>
  <li>One has to understand clearly of what is interest in a Q&amp;A undertaking and "nation socialism/communism", community/identification defense/increase. To learn or to socialize with lowest equal... if after long term happiness, on seek for right refuge. – Samana Johann 21 mins ago</li>
  <li>I didn't understand any of this question, by the way -- what is "relation" or "to gain relation", what is the difference between "refuge" and "right refuge". What's "most worse" meant to mean, canonically I guess that's "killing your parents" or "killing an arahant" but I hope that's very far from being a realistic/practical problem that "ordinary people" face? I guess you you want people to say something, but I don't know what, about relating with the sangha. – ChrisW♦ 13 mins ago</li>
  <li>Wrong view is the 6 (pernicious false beliefs (niyata micca ditthi). of most worse, good householder. But why not making a new question. Or is "only when I could answer, a question is valid" possible the subjective measure? "We" are great on topic here, actually. So how act in a good bet? Right view, and now enough food to be able to answer with metta. :-) meta => meta, topic => topic. Deviding thoughts. – Samana Johann 3 mins ago    </li>
  <li>People often ask questions which I couldn't answer -- it worries me if I can't even understand the question, maybe that means other people can't understand it either. And if you then appear to disparage the community and all its members, because you didn't get a "good answer" -- e.g. the first paragraph here -- then I suppose there's some problem with language or expectations or something. – ChrisW♦ just now</li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

<p>Further here, since all meta, even if top sample of what the question is about:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ul>
  <li>All just speculations and founded on personal, even equal bias. Cherry-picking to get destroyed what is preoccupied as not-mine, enemy on mine. Right? Therfore simple rules, if such is not actually a "shoot into ones own knee" given BSEs situation.</li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

<p>From <a href="https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/45110/buddhism">Area51</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>3.3
  questions
  per day</p>
  
  <p><strong>Needs Work</strong> – 10 questions per day on average is a healthy beta, 5 questions or fewer per day needs some work. <strong>A healthy site generates lots of good content to make sure users keep coming back.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>It's total pointless to bet on those resting in a state, but any undertaking grows health by change of "stammgaeste", sticking firm to certain food, here Dhamma.</p>

<p>Another point, thought it should be clear why... but maybe lost in own interests:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>...A great site benefits people outside the community. Eventually, 90% of a site's traffic should come from search engines.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><em>(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment but as means to escape this wheel)</em></p>
 254: <p><strong>it might be good to have clear rules, if wished to limit others</strong></p>

<p>There is no clear rule about how many questions (or questions-per-week) are welcome.</p>

<p>The closest there is to a rule like that (that I know of) is is implied by one of the pre-prepared moderator template messages, which is titled "<strong>consistently low quality questions over time</strong>", and which begins,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>We've noticed that you've asked many questions, a large number of which were not well received by other members of our community.</p>
  
  <p>Specifically, many of your questions were downvoted and closed because they seemed to be hastily written, or of the type that we'd prefer users refrain from asking. This is a troubling pattern; we'd like to make sure that you've read the help that we have available for asking questions.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So I guess that "too many" might imply "too many low-quality", where "low-quality" is a pretty subjective and not clearly defined, but might sometimes be inferred e.g. from users' votes.</p>

<p>The question which Andrei closed in this case, with that comment, was <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/34061/254">&quot;Advocating hateful views are banned!&quot;, is intending such possible without hateful (wrong) view?</a></p>

<p>At the risk of "putting words into your mouth", perhaps you'd say that people shouldn't have an "aversive reaction" to what's posted -- and if that is what you'd want to argue, there's plenty of support for that view in the suttas.</p>

<p>Nevertheless only a limited form of conversation is supported on the site -- not even "conversation" really, only question-and-answer. So a question which requires a discussion, to adequately see it from all sides, is difficult to answer.</p>

<p>I think part of Andrei's theory-of-moderation is expressed in <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/393/which-type-of-buddhism-is-for-me#comment635_394">this comment</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The fact that question can be answered well, does not mean it will be answered well. A good question has an incline, so its answers naturally turn out good. A bad question is inclined toward flamewars, and takes extra effort and wisdom to answer well.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think this question was one of those, i.e. "takes extra effort to answer well".</p>

<p>And, speaking now as a user not as a moderator: although I am willing to attempt a question like that occasionally, if I feel I have to, or if I think it might benefit the OP, I'd prefer it were really infrequent.</p>
