user254: These two recent questions appear to be phrased as a challenge:

How to tackle cold?
How to tackle a beautiful tantrik female/other?

I say that because:

The OP says so explicitly:

Good Luck theorist/s...(if there is anything like luck in this case)! Please feel yourself challenged to get to the details.

The OP seems to talk as if they know the "right answer", or at least able to know a "wrong answer" -- posting comments like this one in reply to an answer:

Nope, you thinking in wrong direction.

... and ...

You just spammed this question, shoo away.


There was also this comment ...

These 2 questions are a challenge and greatest contribution to buddhists/truth-seekers, till now on internet. Good luck(if luck exists)!.

... which reminds me of the saying that, "Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook."

My question is, are these questions welcome and/or should they be closed?
Are they a new category unwelcome question to be moderated -- a combination of "hostile", "seeded", and "preachy"?
Or is hosting questions like these one of the desired/beneficial use-cases for the site?

user254: I think it's disruptive -- and should therefore possibly be moderated.

Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.

Perhaps it's intended to be "disruptive" -- hence to OP's user name, i.e. "Ego Breaker".

user16635: I think these posts fall into the old, questionable camp of spiritual combat, and so are not mere trolling. I've run across spiritual combatants before; they claim that it's important to push hard on others they perceive as teachers in order to expose inconsistencies and misunderstandings; they justify it by claiming they are trying to weed out bad concepts and discredit poor sources, in order to protect innocent beginners from corrupted texts. It's of a part with ancient Greek Cynicism, which practiced intentional impudence: constantly questioning and uprooting the norms of society in order to force people to see the 'truth' of humanity.
It's a deep, deep attachment to a noble idea. That is an intractable combination; there's nothing is more difficult to unwind than a zealot.
The compassionate thing to do, I suppose, would be to sit down and have a talk with him: see if we can tease out a capacity for self-reflection that might mellow his approach. But I can't see a door into that kind of conversation yet. Right now these questions are just a game of king-of-the-hill, where he gets to define what the hill is and start with himself as king. Stepping into that kind of conversation means accepting his terms of combat, and, you know... Meh. But moderating him will merely reinforce his idée fixe: that we are all a bunch of corrupt Buddhist trying to suppress his clear vision. 
It's a pickle, and I don't have much of an answer to it, but it's worth pointing out that he's probably earnest.

user13375: I think the motivation of the poster is paramount.
Unfortunately, for those of us who are not enlightened it is not possible to know with 100% certainty what the motivation is.
However, I do feel that asking questions on this site that one already feels they know the answer to should be against the rules of the site. This is essentially giving out unsolicited advice and can often be harmful to others. Now, were an enlightened person to try and use the site to help another out of pure compassion and kindness by asking a question they already know the answer to... well by all means I would want them to do that!
Again, us lowly unenlightened folk can’t know who is enlightened and what others motivation is so I think the general rule should be against people asking questions they feel they already know the answer to and that mods should use their wisdom and common sense to try and moderate any infractions by closing the question or voting it down. And should reiterate that these questions go against the rules of the site.
So pretty much what is already being done :)

254: <p>These two recent questions appear to be phrased as a challenge:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/36741/254">How to tackle cold?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/36744/254">How to tackle a beautiful tantrik female/other?</a></li>
</ul>

<p>I say that because:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>The OP says so explicitly:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Good Luck theorist/s...(if there is anything like luck in this case)! Please feel yourself challenged to get to the details.</p>
</blockquote></li>
<li><p>The OP seems to talk as if they know the "right answer", or at least able to know a "wrong answer" -- posting comments like this one in reply to an answer:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Nope, you thinking in wrong direction.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... and ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>You just spammed this question, shoo away.</p>
</blockquote></li>
</ul>

<p>There was also <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/36741/how-to-tackle-cold#comment62862_36741">this comment</a> ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>These 2 questions are a challenge and greatest contribution to buddhists/truth-seekers, till now on internet. Good luck(if luck exists)!.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... which reminds me of <a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law#Earlier_sightings" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the saying</a> that, "Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook."</p>

<hr>

<p>My question is, are these questions welcome and/or should they be closed?</p>

<p>Are they a new category <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1558/254">unwelcome question to be moderated</a> -- a combination of "hostile", "seeded", and "preachy"?</p>

<p>Or is hosting questions like these one of the desired/beneficial use-cases for the site?</p>
 254: <p>I think it's disruptive -- and should therefore possibly <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators">be moderated</a>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps it's intended to be "disruptive" -- hence to OP's user name, i.e. "Ego Breaker".</p>
 16635: <p>I think these posts fall into the old, questionable camp of <em>spiritual combat</em>, and so are not mere trolling. I've run across spiritual combatants before; they claim that it's important to push hard on others they perceive as teachers in order to expose inconsistencies and misunderstandings; they justify it by claiming they are trying to weed out bad concepts and discredit poor sources, in order to protect innocent beginners from corrupted texts. It's of a part with ancient Greek Cynicism, which practiced intentional impudence: constantly questioning and uprooting the norms of society in order to force people to see the 'truth' of humanity.</p>

<p>It's a deep, deep attachment to a noble idea. That is an intractable combination; there's nothing is more difficult to unwind than a zealot.</p>

<p>The compassionate thing to do, I suppose, would be to sit down and have a talk with him: see if we can tease out a capacity for self-reflection that might mellow his approach. But I can't see a door into that kind of conversation yet. Right now these questions are just a game of king-of-the-hill, where he gets to define what the hill is and start with himself as king. Stepping into <em>that</em> kind of conversation means accepting his terms of combat, and, you know... Meh. But moderating him will merely reinforce his <em>idée fixe</em>: that we are all a bunch of corrupt Buddhist trying to suppress his clear vision. </p>

<p>It's a pickle, and I don't have much of an answer to it, but it's worth pointing out that he's <em>probably</em> earnest.</p>
 13375: <p>I think the motivation of the poster is paramount.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, for those of us who are not enlightened it is not possible to know with 100% certainty what the motivation is.</p>

<p>However, I do feel that asking questions on this site that one already feels they know the answer to should be against the rules of the site. This is essentially giving out unsolicited advice and can often be harmful to others. Now, were an enlightened person to try and use the site to help another out of pure compassion and kindness by asking a question they already know the answer to... well by all means I would want them to do that!</p>

<p>Again, us lowly unenlightened folk can’t know who is enlightened and what others motivation is so I think the general rule should be against people asking questions they feel they already know the answer to and that mods should use their wisdom and common sense to try and moderate any infractions by closing the question or voting it down. And should reiterate that these questions go against the rules of the site.</p>

<p>So pretty much what is already being done :)</p>
