user-1: Can we ask questions which could be meant to teach one a lesson? What is the rule, the purpose of questions in Dhamma-Practice?
Given that there have been ideas that "teaching" answers could harm the purpose of questions and answers, how about teaching-questions? 
This includes questions where certain agendas, even for the benefits of those who are asked, could be supposed. Are such question good and supportive for you and for others? 
Good for the community's purpose, whatever it might be?
Maybe it would be better to supply an example of what is meant by this.
So is there any fear that questioning each other back and forth, could maybe lead to loss of anything? Is it usual? Or is there a certain idea of "real" question in "real" world, with an "real" agenda? Or should it maybe be always clear, who is lacking (asking) in a certain issue and who is giving (answering)? Maybe a kind of receiver-giver, or teacher-student phobia could limit such ways.
And yes, also this question has many agendas on many levels.
Purpose of questions?
Practicing of questions in Dhamma-Practice?
General, seen for one self, guessed of others, traditional, possible use.

user254: I'm not sure I understand; the question might be clearer with some examples.
However I think there are at least three kinds of question which the community isn't eager to answer (nor, even, very willing to see asked, and answered by someone else):

Should Buddhism.SE be seeded with entry level questions?

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.
I don't think we need to have answers to every question about Buddhism; we need answers to expert questions that one can't find by simply googling. I think we should keep pointing out when questions are LMGTFY-worthy, and encourage only questions that are truly looking for expert answers.

Actually the site does welcome beginners' questions too: but from beginners -- the consensus has been to discourage experts' seeding the site with questions.
Are we here to preach and make converts?
This answer which says,

Yes, we all are here to preach and make converts.

... was heavily downvoted. So questions whose purpose is to let you say,

My view of Buddhism is better than other views of Buddhism, isn't it?
My school of Buddhism is better than another school of Buddhism, isn't it?
Buddhism is better than other philosophies/religions/cultures, isn't it?
Buddhism wrong and is worse than another philosophy/religion/culture, isn't it?

 
... is likely to be closed.
See also What types of questions should I avoid asking? which includes, "your question is just a rant in disguise". 
May I share my research, by posting questions on this site and self-answering them?

My vote would be "no": that this site is to ask questions and to get answers from other people.


To "enforce" or implement this policy we have to guess at the users' motives for asking a question.
In general, if you already know the answer then you shouldn't post the question.
These guidelines are not currently included in the site-specific Moderation policies for Questions; but they could be, in the future (if the community continues to agree with these policies / meta-answers).

-1: <p>Can we ask questions which could be meant to teach one a lesson? What is the rule, the purpose of questions in Dhamma-Practice?</p>

<p>Given that there have been ideas that "teaching" answers could harm the purpose of questions and answers, how about teaching-questions? </p>

<p>This includes questions where certain agendas, even for the benefits of those who are asked, could be supposed. Are such question good and supportive for you and for others? 
Good for the community's purpose, whatever it might be?</p>

<p>Maybe it would be better to supply an example of what is meant by this.</p>

<p>So is there any fear that questioning each other back and forth, could maybe lead to loss of anything? Is it usual? Or is there a certain idea of "real" question in "real" world, with an "real" agenda? Or should it maybe be always clear, who is lacking (asking) in a certain issue and who is giving (answering)? Maybe a kind of receiver-giver, or teacher-student phobia could limit such ways.</p>

<p>And yes, also this question has many agendas on many levels.</p>

<p>Purpose of questions?</p>

<p>Practicing of questions in Dhamma-Practice?</p>

<p>General, seen for one self, guessed of others, traditional, possible use.</p>
 254: <p>I'm not sure I understand; the question might be clearer with some examples.</p>

<p>However I think there are at least three kinds of question which the community isn't eager to answer (nor, even, very willing to see asked, and answered by someone else):</p>

<ol>
<li><p><a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/170/254">Should Buddhism.SE be seeded with entry level questions?</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/171/254">Personally</a>, 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>
  
  <p>I don't think we need to have answers to every question about Buddhism; we need answers to expert questions that one can't find by simply googling. I think we should keep pointing out when questions are LMGTFY-worthy, and encourage only questions that are truly looking for expert answers.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Actually the site does welcome beginners' questions too: but from beginners -- the consensus has been to discourage experts' seeding the site with questions.</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1763/254">Are we here to preach and make converts?</a></p>

<p><a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1764/254">This answer</a> which says,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Yes, we all are here to preach and make converts.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... was heavily downvoted. So questions whose purpose is to let you say,</p>

<ul>
<li>My view of Buddhism is better than other views of Buddhism, isn't it?</li>
<li>My school of Buddhism is better than another school of Buddhism, isn't it?</li>
<li>Buddhism is better than other philosophies/religions/cultures, isn't it?</li>
<li>Buddhism wrong and is worse than another philosophy/religion/culture, isn't it?</li>
</ul>

<p>&nbsp;<br>
... is likely to be closed.</p>

<p>See also <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask">What types of questions should I avoid asking?</a> which includes, "your question is just a rant in disguise". </p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1784/254">May I share my research, by posting questions on this site and self-answering them?</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1785/254">My vote</a> would be "no": that this site is to ask questions and to get answers from other people.</p>
</blockquote></li>
</ol>

<p>To "enforce" or implement this policy we have to guess at the users' motives for asking a question.</p>

<p>In general, if you already know the answer then you shouldn't post the question.</p>

<p>These guidelines are not currently included in the site-specific <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1558/254">Moderation policies for Questions</a>; but they could be, in the future (if the community continues to agree with these policies / meta-answers).</p>
