When a general user posts something off topic a moderator can moderate it simply. In case moderators do it is not that easy as it requires many people to report it. Historically this has not happened in this site.

There should be a way to keep the moderators made to follow the rules?

Moderators blatantly breaking the rules and standards they try to impose on other is not a good example.

Some example content:

This discussion does not have to do anything with specific content thought this triggered the discussion.

  • I think this is a duplicate of Off Topic Content and How do you delete a moderator's answer? and maybe others. If you want to discuss the content of a single specific question or answer then please do that.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 3:10
  • 1
    This is about moderators following the standards they are supposed to uphold. Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 3:14
  • I see this as two topics: 1) how are SE sites governed, what is the role of moderators etc. 2) are these specific answers on-topic, and if not why not and how to improve them. And I think that 1) how are SE sites governed is already in other topics (so this a duplicate of those), and that 2) are these specific answers on-topic (if you want to discuss that) is better discussed in separate meta-topics, each using the specific-answer tag, with the discussion being specifically about the content of the answers in question (and not about "moderators").
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 3:34
  • Can you point to the other specific topics? Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 3:38
  • Off Topic Content is a general topic about how you can handle off-topic content. How do you delete a moderator's answer? (and others like How do you Initiate Moderator Removal?) answer questions to do with how to handle rogue moderators. I don't think it's useful to discuss those kinds of issues again here, but there is room for discussion about specific answers as you did here.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 3:50
  • 1
    This is not about removing or deleting but moderators adhering to the same standards. Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 4:13
  • Well the point of discussing specific answers is to discover (and agree or disagree on) what those "standards" are, and to discover why the answer in question does or doesn't meet those standards.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 4:16
  • Following the "rules" is a controversial topic but If a moderator acts as an abuser, criminal etc. and If has personal characteristics that is completely opposite of the "real moderator" characteristics, the site administration has to immediately remove that moderator without waiting one second. Otherwise people has to explain things with "details" that would cause more damage to the moderator
    – Murathan1
    Commented May 18, 2019 at 13:09

3 Answers 3


Please stop spamming the site with questions that are nearly duplicates.

Buddhism SE is not as strict as other SE's. We have compassion here:)

Answers/questions can be edited if needed, thats why we have an edit button.

I don't think any moderators here are either rogues or have any bad intentions. I do think that moderators and members here have a lot of compassion and only wants to help other beings. Thats the reason we post here.

Sometimes not all answers/questions are on-topic but then they can be edited if needed. No need to make a huge argument out of this. I think most people are willing to edit their posts if others think they need it.

In the end we are here to learn, share teachings, practice, develop, cultivate.

  • What grounds do you say this is spam? This is not being strict or not. It is being content here should reflect the Buddhist POV and should be presented in such a way. Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 7:02
  • 1
    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I am not saying Moderators have evil intention. But some one must take action, or at least protest, when something does not align with one's convictions. Emphasis on the last part of it. Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 7:05
  • 1
    The purpose of this is set a precedence on the moderators should also follow the community rules including being on topic (presented being in a Buddhist POV and / or perspective). Setting a precedence is helpful for the future and I do not think is Spam. Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 7:16
  • 1
    No need to make a huge argument out of this. The arguments resulted because ChrisW was not owning upto this mistake and making amends, hough later I see he has. If someone is not vocal about these matters things will just pass by with no action taken. Even if action is not taken, there at least should be a record, than being silent, as I feel. If you followed the argument, also I am the one who ended the argument when it seemed ChrisW was beyond reason and I was not getting through to him. Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 8:12
  • 1
    And if not body is vocal about something, things become the norm through practice. This is the way it always was or has been done. This is accepted as this has happening repeatedly. This is how things as always being. And as this mentality develops it reinforces itself and nobody eventually cares. To conclude the 2 points I wanted to make: 1) content should reflect it is coming from and Buddhism POV or perspective to the reader 2) stick by the standards you want other to follow. If you want other to follow something you should be stricter (at least the same) than what you try to impose. Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 8:27
  • 1
    Also if incident happens more than once and raised again. It should not be considered a duplicated. If no result of right result did not come before then there is no way to revisit it. Maybe it can be marked as a duplicate with the original posting happening in the marked posts, but based on necessity users should be raise similar issues again and again. When using past post to discuss might sometimes "muddy up" the history past record or time line should be done with caution. Also it might mean information may get lost in the clutter. So in cases post may be better. Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 9:19
  • Also if similar meta posts are not allowed this can be used as means to defend one's turf or status quo. It would be dangerous if this happens. Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 9:20
  • 1
    Also unrelated. Before asking about information others may take for grant do some research before hand. Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 9:22
  • Well I don't see any harm done. There were no unwholesome intentions involved. The answer can be edited. Let it go. No need to blow this out of proportions.
    – user2424
    Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 10:14
  • OK. Great. Let's move on. No need to blow this out of proportions. this happened because ChrisW did not wanted to answer which the would be readers cannot for see or does not look like coming from a Buddhist perspective / POV. I kept insisting and he was adamant to stand his ground than correct it. I had to do whatever needed make sure the avenues were exhausted, and was on record. I am not means saying about strictness (this is side tracking), though I think moderators should be stricter than the usual uses when they do something on the site. The site should be accommodating not alienating. Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 10:22
  • Basically whatever it takes to get some result. (See it through to the end.) If there is not from what you put in you have to intensify. Otherwise there no point in trying to make a point if you wear are not committed to go all the way. If a result has tuned up earlier, proportion of effort would have been less. Simplest thing would have been to make some edits to show how it link up or related to Buddhist concepts. If this had happened early the proportion and extent of effort of my engagement would have been less. It would have been a lot easier on me also if this was the case. Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 11:23
  • I'm not going to spend time arguing over such small things. A human life is too short and precious. Know that moderators and members here do their best for our community. No one is perfect, including you. That is why we practice. To cultivate and purify.
    – user2424
    Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 12:58
  • 1
    I also do not want to argue. When you cannot find a simple solution I feel you have to escalate it until you do. If someone does not do it then is also not in the communities best interest. Otherwise it will alienate uses and increase turnover losing participants. Apart from that when users see a mod does not do things by what he wants them to comply this will also cause bitterness. I feel this needs escalation, when things get solved in simple way. I am also doing the best for the community, admittingly not that successful and perfect, as yet. Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 15:30
  • Also unchecked power and authority can be dangerous. Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 15:55
  • Well that is your own opinion. It is your own Kamma. I don't think Chris have done anything wrong. His intentions were to help another being. Thats it. If the answer needs to have a Buddhist element too, then this can be added. Simple as that. No need to complicate Samsara more than it already is. As you know very well, in Buddhism intention is what matters. Everyone makes mistakes. I do, you do, everyone does. Thats why we are here trying to purify and cultivate. Its a learning process.
    – user2424
    Commented Feb 16, 2017 at 17:40

Afaik it's not up to any user here to determine what is and isn't Buddhism or what is and isn't tied to Buddhism as is done in OP examples.

Ie a user here might post about gods & ghosts and another user will proceed to downvote his post and explain that gods are wealthy people and ghosts are loose women.

This is fine.

I think mods are generally well behaved and therefore not reported much.

Also if u think a mod is out of line a lot then there is a process to complain & remove them if found in some serious violations.

  • Well, we have deleted obviously off topic answers like the preaching of the Christian gospel or spam or abusive content. But anything which is broadly related to Buddhism is accepted. If the users feel the answer is wrong, they can downvote it.
    – ruben2020 Mod
    Commented Feb 4, 2021 at 14:36
  • My point is that unless it is specified as not-buddhism then it is good for this site. Ie would you delete an answer which claims that loose women are hungry ghosts and devas are aristocrats according to Buddhism?
    – user8527
    Commented Feb 4, 2021 at 21:05
  • Perhaps you would otherwise delete an opposing answer which claims that hungry ghosts are a class of beings and that it is an unfortunate destination that beings go to after passing away from ie a human existence.
    – user8527
    Commented Feb 4, 2021 at 21:08
  • I know you [moderators] wouldn't delete any of it and both of these answers can't Buddhism as it was supposed to be taught.
    – user8527
    Commented Feb 4, 2021 at 21:11
  • Therefore my point is that moderators are here just to keep it civil and delete spam. Moderators aren't even supposed to delete Christian gospel preaching unless it is specified explicitly as non-Buddhism, it's not about the arbitration of truth or measuring one's Buddhism and that's fine.
    – user8527
    Commented Feb 4, 2021 at 21:13
  • I am not interested in beating a dead horse here. My whole point was that the OPs examples weren't good examples of misconduct in light of the efective policies.
    – user8527
    Commented Feb 4, 2021 at 21:24

All the moderators here are celestial Buddhas, so obviously hypocrisy and rules of behaviour etc. don't apply to them.

Sorry, that was the snarky answer. If anything, moderators should be fairer, more even handed, and politer, than anyone.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .