2

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?

  • Can't this question "why is this site ..." best be answered by the creators of the whole site (stackexchange)? At least it has been their idea to install the current model of moderation... – Gottfried Helms Feb 3 '18 at 16:39
2

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.

  • Yes I was wondering why though -- in case not understanding "why moderation?" is a fundamental misunderstanding. I could think of several ways to explain why it's moderated -- some of those ways are I-centred ("I moderate because I etc." -- one of them a bit ontological ("This wouldn't or couldn't be the site it is, if it weren't moderated") -- some speculating on how people would react if it weren't -- I'm not sure of a lucid explanation though, the "place to stand" from which to explain it, especially given the suggested categories (i.e. is it "chandāgati", etc.?). – ChrisW Jan 22 '18 at 1:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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