user5866: Two questions that initially caused great alarm among moderators and others are now considered OK, judging from upvoting, number of reasoned answers, and number of views. They are:
1) Is Mind in Buddhism connected to Brain (the physical organ)?
2) Can another being/thing be credited or blamed for causing your emotions?
Initially, these questions caused great discomfort and unrest because they were understood as being in the context of my other questions, answers and conversations in comments space. But with time, the context has faded away and now I feel the questions are being read and answered on their own merits. I feel that today, they stand on their own, and are contributing something of value to the intellectual content of this forum, and they have become independent of me or anybody else who participated in the writing and editing exercise. (I hope you will agree with this assessment.)
I would humbly submit that there is a lesson here to be learned, namely: It would be in the greater interest of this forum that questions are viewed in isolation, without reading too much into the previous interactions of the questioner on the forum, and without reading between-the-lines to divine the intent of the questioner. I would in fact suggest framing an appropriate rule or guideline for moderation.
People, I am keenly aware of your negative perceptions of who I am and what I am trying to do here on this forum. And also that I am within a whisker of being banned. Nevertheless, I shall request you all to consider this suggestion on its own merit in all honesty, disregarding if possible the source (i.e. myself) or the context (real or imagined) of the suggestion.

user254: Two questions that initially caused great alarm among moderators and others are now
I don't see evidence (even when I look for deleted comments) that either of those two caused "initially caused great alarm among moderators".
I feel that today, they stand on their own, and are contributing something of value to the intellectual content of this forum, and they have become independent of me or anybody else who participated in the writing and editing exercise. (I hope you will agree with this assessment.)
You asked those questions, so I could only hope that you at least derived benefit from the answers.
It would be in the greater interest of this forum that questions are viewed in isolation, without reading too much into the previous interactions of the questioner on the forum, and without reading between-the-lines to divine the intent of the questioner.
That's true to a certain extent: i.e. a defilement could make someone read too much into a question. However "intent" (and perception of intent) also matters.
One example of that is already in the Moderation Policy, as a result of this answer:

Personally, I find seeded questions irksome; it's generally easy to see that the asker isn't really looking for an answer, so there is no sense of accomplishment in answering. It feels more like a chore, like editing Wikipedia or something.

You say things like,

I am more keenly interested in thought processes of Buddhists who are alive and kicking today

I may be alive but I don't want to be made to kick like a frog.
I would in fact suggest framing an appropriate rule or guideline for moderation
If it's any consolation to you I think this is true ...

Please show me which line exactly leads you to feel that rationalism was implied to be correct.

... i.e. I agree that your question about rationalism was inherently "empty".
I think it was framing an argument though.
The fact that it's not offensive doesn't guarantee that it's a question which people want to answer; doesn't guarantee that it's a question about Buddhism; doesn't even guarantee that it's a question.
Also I read a comment like this with the phrase "defense of the Buddhist perspective" ...

Ruben, this is an eloquent answer, and possibly a good defense of the Buddhist perspective.

... as implying a hostile or offensive intent. Yuttadhammo's last post on this site included,

Personally, I haven't the time for or interest in debating Buddhism on the Internet - forums abound where one may do so elsewhere; I didn't think that would be the purpose of this site.

Most users here seem to agree that "is Buddhism correct?" is off-topic.
your negative perceptions of who I am and what I am trying to do here on this forum
For me the question isn't "who are you" but what are you trying to do on this Q+A site (not a forum)?
For example IMO this answer is not an exhaustive whitelist of what's correct use of the site, but at least an example of what users want the site to be used for.
It seems to me you're trying to debate. Trying to challenge people's beliefs (or views). You seem to be treating the users of this forum as a subject of discussion (but the subject of the site is meant to be "Buddhism" not "forum members").
Do you have any especial interest in Buddhism? Why? What? Any knowledge of it? Any specific form or school of it?
Maybe users here believe there's no satisfaction to be found in debate. If Q+A can help you resolve obstacles towards enlightenment then so much the better, but if it's just samsaric then what's the point?
You're making (the subject of) this conversation all about you and other users; whereas the subject ought to be about Buddhism. Perhaps that's because you don't know enough about Buddhism to ask questions about it.
Nevertheless, I shall request you all to consider this suggestion on its own merit in all honesty
To be clear about what "this suggestion" is, again, I think it was this:

View each question in isolation without divining the intent of the questioner

Having considered it I think it's impractical:

IMO people may need to divine the intent of the questioner in order to answer their question.
For example if you asked a simple question like, "Where are you going?", then I'd need to make a quick guess about why you're asking in order to understand what you're asking.
If someone asks "What is dukkha?" then to answer that appropriately we need to infer whether the questioner is a novice with no previous exposure to Buddhism, or a scholar trying to set the record straight, or what.
Similarly I find it helps to understand the answers if you know who's answering.
Also implementing that moderation rule would make it impossible to suspend user accounts for repeatedly being a nuisance. So either you couldn't do it at all, or you'd have to suspend their account as soon as they're a nuisance for the first time.


5866: <p>Two questions that initially caused great alarm among moderators and others are now considered OK, judging from upvoting, number of reasoned answers, and number of views. They are:</p>

<p>1) <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11585/is-mind-in-buddhism-connected-to-brain-the-physical-organ">Is Mind in Buddhism connected to Brain (the physical organ)?</a>
2) <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11617/can-another-being-thing-be-credited-or-blamed-for-causing-your-emotions">Can another being/thing be credited or blamed for causing your emotions?</a></p>

<p>Initially, these questions caused great discomfort and unrest because they were understood as being in the context of my other questions, answers and conversations in comments space. But with time, the context has faded away and now I feel the questions are being read and answered on their own merits. I feel that today, they stand on their own, and are contributing something of value to the intellectual content of this forum, and they have become independent of me or anybody else who participated in the writing and editing exercise. (I hope you will agree with this assessment.)</p>

<p><em>I would humbly submit that there is a lesson here to be learned, namely: It would be in the greater interest of this forum that questions are viewed in isolation, without reading too much into the previous interactions of the questioner on the forum, and without reading between-the-lines to divine the intent of the questioner. <strong>I would in fact suggest framing an appropriate rule or guideline for moderation.</em></strong></p>

<p>People, I am keenly aware of your negative perceptions of who I am and what I am trying to do here on this forum. And also that I am within a whisker of being banned. Nevertheless, I shall request you all to consider this suggestion on its own merit in all honesty, disregarding if possible the source (i.e. myself) or the context (real or imagined) of the suggestion.</p>
 254: <p><strong>Two questions that initially caused great alarm among moderators and others are now</strong></p>

<p>I don't see evidence (even when I look for deleted comments) that either of those two caused "initially caused great alarm among moderators".</p>

<p><strong>I feel that today, they stand on their own, and are contributing something of value to the intellectual content of this forum, and they have become independent of me or anybody else who participated in the writing and editing exercise. (I hope you will agree with this assessment.)</strong></p>

<p>You asked those questions, so I could only hope that you at least derived benefit from the answers.</p>

<p><strong>It would be in the greater interest of this forum that questions are viewed in isolation, without reading too much into the previous interactions of the questioner on the forum, and without reading between-the-lines to divine the intent of the questioner.</strong></p>

<p>That's true to a certain extent: i.e. a <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/11711/254">defilement</a> could make someone read too much into a question. However "intent" (and perception of intent) also matters.</p>

<p>One example of that is already in the Moderation Policy, as a result of <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/171/254">this answer</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Personally, I find seeded questions irksome; it's generally easy to see that the asker isn't really looking for an answer, so there is no sense of accomplishment in answering. It feels more like a chore, like editing Wikipedia or something.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11736/was-buddha-a-rationalist#comment19552_11736">say things like</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I am more keenly interested in thought processes of Buddhists who are alive and kicking today</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I may be alive but I don't want to be <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Galvani#/media/File:Galvani-frogs-legs-electricity.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer">made to kick like a frog</a>.</p>

<p><strong>I would in fact suggest framing an appropriate rule or guideline for moderation</strong></p>

<p>If it's any consolation to you I think <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1765/for-what-reason-is-this-question-on-hold-was-the-buddha-a-rationalist#comment3480_1767">this is true</a> ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Please show me which line exactly leads you to feel that rationalism was implied to be correct.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... i.e. I agree that your question about rationalism was inherently "empty".</p>

<p>I think it was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">framing</a> an argument though.</p>

<p>The fact that it's not offensive doesn't guarantee that it's a question which people want to answer; doesn't guarantee that it's a question about Buddhism; doesn't even guarantee that it's a question.</p>

<p>Also I read <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1765/for-what-reason-is-this-question-on-hold-was-the-buddha-a-rationalist#comment3484_1767">a comment like this</a> with the phrase "defense of the Buddhist perspective" ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Ruben, this is an eloquent answer, and possibly a good defense of the Buddhist perspective.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... as implying a hostile or offensive intent. <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1711/254">Yuttadhammo's last post</a> on this site included,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Personally, I haven't the time for or interest in debating Buddhism on the Internet - forums abound where one may do so elsewhere; I didn't think that would be the purpose of this site.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Most users here seem to agree that "is Buddhism correct?" is off-topic.</p>

<p><strong>your negative perceptions of who I am and what I am trying to do here on this forum</strong></p>

<p>For me the question isn't "who are you" but what <em>are</em> you trying to do on this Q+A site (not a forum)?</p>

<p>For example IMO <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1735/254">this answer</a> is not an exhaustive whitelist of what's correct use of the site, but at least an example of what users want the site to be used for.</p>

<p>It seems to me you're trying to debate. Trying to challenge people's beliefs (or views). You seem to be treating the users of this forum as a subject of discussion (but the subject of the site is meant to be "Buddhism" not "<em>forum</em> members").</p>

<p>Do you have any especial interest in Buddhism? Why? What? Any knowledge of it? Any specific form or school of it?</p>

<p>Maybe users here believe there's no satisfaction to be found in debate. If Q+A can help you resolve obstacles towards enlightenment then so much the better, but if it's just samsaric then what's the point?</p>

<p>You're making (the subject of) this conversation all about you and other users; whereas the subject ought to be about Buddhism. Perhaps that's because you don't know enough about Buddhism to ask questions about it.</p>

<p><strong>Nevertheless, I shall request you all to consider this suggestion on its own merit in all honesty</strong></p>

<p>To be clear about what "this suggestion" is, again, I think it was this:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>View each question in isolation without divining the intent of the questioner</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Having considered it I think it's impractical:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>IMO people may need to divine the intent of the questioner in order to answer their question.</p>

<p>For example if you asked a simple question like, "Where are you going?", then I'd need to make a quick guess about why you're asking in order to understand what you're asking.</p>

<p>If someone asks "What is dukkha?" then to answer that appropriately we need to infer whether the questioner is a novice with no previous exposure to Buddhism, or a scholar trying to set the record straight, or what.</p>

<p>Similarly I find it helps to understand the answers if you know who's answering.</p></li>
<li><p>Also implementing that moderation rule would make it impossible to suspend user accounts for repeatedly being a nuisance. So either you couldn't do it at all, or you'd have to suspend their account as soon as they're a nuisance for the first time.</p></li>
</ul>
