user254: Further to this comment:

chandāgati? bhayāgati? lophāgati? mohāgati? sugatigamanam?

... read in context, I think Samana Johann is asking why the site is moderated:

chandāgati (love or desire, perhaps wanting to depend on people liking the site)
bhayāgati (fear, perhaps of people who dislike the moderation or lack of moderation)
lophāgati (greed or desire)
mohāgati (delusion or stupidity)
sugatigamanam (independent and neutral, perhaps willing to see a tiger for what it is i.e. ungrateful, and to say so, and not try to be generous to one)

In other words: is the site being moderated because of desire (for followers), aversion (unwilling to rebuke people perhaps for fear of what they might say, or fear of loss), or delusion and ignorance?
If a person prefers to say that a user might be greedy and lazy, because the user asked a question on this site instead of seeking good local monks, for what reason (e.g. desire, fear, etc.) do moderators intervene?

user-1: 
If a person prefers to say that a user might be greedy and lazy, because the user asked a question on this site instead of seeking good local monks, for what reason (e.g. desire, fear, etc.) do moderators intervene?

I think moderators should intervene. In this case, it's clear a simple suggestion to see local monks is enough and the extra colors added by "greedy" and "lazy" are unnecessary and rude, despite the justifications given to preserve it. Ultimately, it's against the rule. And I really think a rule that says "don't be rude" is important to respect and preserve.

254: <p>Further to <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/24760/speaking-falsehood-is-sinful-does-it-mean-speaking-is-the-truth-is-no-sinful#comment41805_24763">this comment</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>chandāgati? bhayāgati? lophāgati? mohāgati? sugatigamanam?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... read in context, I think Samana Johann is asking why the site is moderated:</p>

<ul>
<li>chandāgati (love or desire, perhaps wanting to depend on people liking the site)</li>
<li>bhayāgati (fear, perhaps of people who dislike the moderation or lack of moderation)</li>
<li>lophāgati (greed or desire)</li>
<li>mohāgati (delusion or stupidity)</li>
<li>sugatigamanam (independent and neutral, perhaps willing to see a tiger for what it is i.e. ungrateful, and to say so, and not try to be generous to one)</li>
</ul>

<p>In other words: is the site being moderated because of desire (for followers), aversion (unwilling to rebuke people perhaps for fear of what they might say, or fear of loss), or delusion and ignorance?</p>

<p>If a person prefers to say that a user might be greedy and lazy, because the user asked a question on this site instead of seeking good local monks, for what reason (e.g. desire, fear, etc.) do moderators intervene?</p>
 -1: <blockquote>
  <p>If a person prefers to say that a user might be greedy and lazy, because the user asked a question on this site instead of seeking good local monks, for what reason (e.g. desire, fear, etc.) do moderators intervene?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think moderators should intervene. In this case, it's clear a simple suggestion to see local monks is enough and the extra colors added by "greedy" and "lazy" are unnecessary and rude, despite the justifications given to preserve it. Ultimately, it's against the rule. And I really think a rule that says "don't be rude" is important to respect and preserve.</p>
