I've been asked to explain my policy for suspending user accounts. The thought is that perhaps the policy is too forgiving and should be more severe: and so I'm posting it here for discussion and for feedback from the you, the site's community.

I'd appreciate it if you'd help to clarify -- by posting your opinion as an answer here, or by voting on an existing answer -- whether you think this existing policy is about right, or whether we and I had better change it.

The problems

There are few kinds of problem; and the most difficult problem seems to be "hostile comments"?

  • Someone posts spam -- i.e. an advertisement for a commercial service unrelated to Buddhism -- or perhaps pornography

    A moderator will delete the post and destroy the user account immediately.

  • Someone posts an off-topic question or an off-topic answer -- i.e. one which is unrelated to Buddhism

    A moderator will delete the post but not take action against the account.

  • Someone posts a "bad" answer -- i.e. one which is misleading or incorrect.

    This is not a job for moderators to handle (moderators aren't expected to be expert authorities/judges). Instead it's for the community of users -- i.e. it's for you to vote on (possibly downvote) the question, or to post a polite comment to question what was posted or to suggest an improvement.

  • Someone posts a "hostile" question -- i.e. one which invites criticism of a school of Buddhism

    A moderator will close the question but take no action against the account (unless you do it persistently).

    The same is true for a few other types of question which the community has voted to be unwelcome -- e.g. preaching disguised as a question, and so on, listed here.

  • Someone posts a "hostile" answer -- i.e. one which criticises a school of Buddhism, or explicitly criticises or quotes the answer posted by another user

    A moderator may edit the answer to delete the little "hostile" bit from it, or delete the whole answer if the hostile bit was all there is.

    You can of course post an answer which is different than or happens to contradict another answer, but this isn't a site for debate (e.g. "my answer is right and user X's answer is wrong"). Instead this is a site where users may post independent answers, which reply to the OP's question (don't reply to other answers).

  • Someone posts a "hostile" comment

    Most users don't comment at all, or they comment in a polite and helpful way that seems unobjectionable and helpful, which is not a problem and is welcome. A few users comment in a way that other users may find rude, unfortunately -- and this is (in my opinion) the most troublesome (labour-intensive) aspect of having to try to moderate this site.

Soon after it was created the founders of SE defined "disruptive behaviour" as follows:

Disruptive behavior

  • Other users tend to react poorly to this user’s contributions, posting negative responses in kind and generally causing a commotion.
  • There is a broad sense of community resentment over this user’s behavior, and they are frequently cited in discussion about the community.
  • There is a dark storm cloud of moderator flags that seems to follow this user around wherever they go.
  • The moderators get email complaints about this user’s behavior.
  • This user makes overtly snide, rude, or hostile comments to their fellow users.

… these problem behaviors have to be dealt with. When they aren’t, it takes up excessive moderator time that could be used for something more productive — and, even worse, these behaviors begin to actively turn people away from our community, stunting its growth and harming everyone.

So starting tonight, there will be consequences for patterns of problem behavior.

If we think you are reachable, and the behavior is one that we feel can change, we will try to warn you via email first when there are behavior problems — so that we can address them before they become deeper problems. But I make no guarantees; the community moderators are very, very busy and there are a lot of things that need their attention. The odds of moderators contacting you with a warning first will be in direct proportion to how much evidence you’ve given us that you are, in fact, a potentially valuable and contributing member of the community.

Depending on the severity of the problem behavior — and at the complete discretion of the moderator — your account will be placed in timed suspension for anywhere from 1 to 365 days. That means:

  • Your account will be locked at 1 reputation.
  • Your user page will have a visual indication that you are in timed suspension, and for how long.
  • You will be unable to vote, ask, answer, or comment.

At the end of this timed suspension period, your reputation will be recalculated, and your account will resume as normal. We don’t hold grudges. The point of all this is to address the behavior. If the behavior improves, you are welcome back.

(This should probably go without saying, but if the problem behaviors do continue beyond the timed suspension, your account is very likely to be permanently deleted.)

SE recommends the following suspension periods by the way:

  • 7 days for first serious issue
  • 30 days for second serious issue
  • 365 days for third serious issue

Here's the question -- the current policy for suspending high-reputation accounts is more or less as follows -- is this OK, or should it be stricter involving longer suspension periods?

There are at least two user accounts on this site, with a high reputation (several 1000), which have been suspended half a dozen times or more.

Some users -- and moderators of other SE sites who I've chatted with -- suggest that this shouldn't be possible, because the third suspension should have been for a year, after which a permanent ban.

So these user accounts still exist (and the users are still active on the site) because I and other moderators (e.g. Lanka) have been suspending for shorter than the recommended period.

Here is are my reasons for that:

  • The suspensions in question are for posting comments which are critical and impolite.

    That needs to be stopped when it's contrary to the Code of Conduct -- which says "kindness, collaboration, and mutual respect" and "unfriendly language".

    But I'm mindful of the Robustness principle ...

    Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others (often reworded as "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept").

    ... so I'm inclined to try to be tolerant of what other people post and of how they word it.

    Or in a Buddhist context you might perhaps "not accept" it (i.e. not participate).

    What I don't know exactly is how tolerant you all are -- perhaps you agree, or perhaps you'd like me to be less tolerant.

  • The fact that these are high-reputation accounts implies that they post answers which help the OP.

    I think that's the most important thing, so I'm reluctant to prevent that (by suspending the account for a year, or banning it permanently).

  • If someone were abusive again a few days after their previous suspension ends, then I'd suspend again for an increased or greatly increased suspension period.

    But if it has been like half a year or more since the last time they "stepped over the line" then I'm inclined to suspend for a 'normal' period, like for just another month again rather than a whole year this time.

  • This is a small site which I have been able to watch closely/frequently. If someone posts something hostile, and if I then quickly see that and delete it and suspend their account for a month, then I think that's quite effective at keeping the site mostly clean.

    I hope you see that as an occasional and minor inconvenience, not as a permanent annoyance.

    I try to read everything but please also flag something that you think a moderator ought to look at.

  • If someone's natural style of dialog is uninhibited then some of it might be rude and some polite, it's a range. Bits of it which "cross the line" are likely to be deleted (by a moderator) and maybe cause a suspension.

    The result of that may be that, instead of their dialog ranging from polite to rude, it will range from polite to "borderline". So eventually many of their comments might be "borderline" -- not quite rude enough to get them suspended but just rude enough to annoy some users.

    That's a problem, but I don't know what I can do about that (suggestions welcome).

  • Some of you may know some other users from other non-SE sites on the internet, and have formed some opinion of them based on what they posted there. I am inclined to ignore that -- it says "we don't hold grudges" -- and if a user is more polite on this site than they are on other sites, that's alright by me.

  • I figure that maybe moderating users is more of a nuisance for me than it is for anyone else -- suspending a user gives me a break and some free time from having to moderate them and the user dialogs and controversies they stir up -- so perhaps, as long as I am willing to keep moderating these users, other members of the community will tolerate it also.

    Also I'm not sure I should ban an account (or suspend it for a year) just because I personally lose patience.

    But I'm here to help to implement the site you want, so, let me know what moderation policy you prefer.

  • People are upvoting the question -- not voting for an answer one way or the other. I guess that means "this is a well-asked question" or "thanks for explanation" and perhaps "continue as you see fit".
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented Apr 30, 2020 at 20:11
  • 1
    Upvotes should be interpret as recognizing that there might be an issue
    – user8527
    Commented May 7, 2020 at 15:50
  • I am very glad that DD is gone, if this is yet another thread secretly about him. I was definitely one of the people who left the website when he started trying to hijack it. Moderation was very lenient with him. I remember an episode where we went on a bizarre unhinged rant, calling me a Jew and a witch, because I disagreed with his terrible Buddhism-based advice to persons dealing with substance abuse issues. He regularly poisons any forum-adjacent Buddhism discussion community he is a part of.
    – Caoimhghin
    Commented Nov 22, 2021 at 11:16
  • @Caoimhghin I'm sorry to hear he was offensive, to you (and that you left the site). Generally and in future,, on this or any other SE site, you can "flag" any comment or post you find offensive -- I hope you know all about flagging but if not feel free to ask -- or you can bring it to a moderator's attention more publicly if you wish to, by posting here on Meta.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented Nov 22, 2021 at 19:40
  • @Caoimhghin in case this will make you feel any better, all that time you felt moderation was lenient we had an internal debate going on, trying to weigh banning him against losing a user that has more than a passing knowledge of Buddhism. We were hoping we could keep him on and slowly bring up to the right level of discipline but that did not work out. Now we are taking a more drastic position which he apparently doesn't want to cooperate with (which is exactly what we feared would happen) but at this point I suppose we came to terms with losing him as contributor.
    – Andriy Volkov Mod
    Commented Nov 24, 2021 at 18:59
  • I hope this explains what it looked like from our perspective. I'm still convinced we did the right thing by trying to get him to cooperate rather than outright banning him last year, even if we still had to do it later.
    – Andriy Volkov Mod
    Commented Nov 24, 2021 at 19:04
  • @AndreiVolkov I am not convinced we did the right thing. I found it (being a moderator) an ordeal, stressful, which maybe it isn't supposed to be. Still I signed up for that, with stress of course a result of my own projections and expectations. I'm not sure whether to feel "remorse" about it -- on one hand we act as we do for reasons that seem right enough at the time, but on the other maybe we should know better or be more naïve and willing to apply SE's "rules as written" instead of bending or slowing them leniently. I am sorry though that as I feared, this caused stress to other users too.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented Nov 24, 2021 at 19:20
  • Right, and this was the essence of our internal debate. I suppose if I listened to you, things would be different but whether they would be better is something I'm not clear about.
    – Andriy Volkov Mod
    Commented Nov 24, 2021 at 19:50
  • 2
    I disagree that he was particularly knowledgeable, but we can agree to disagree. It sounds like moderation here was run through the same ringer all moderation is run through when he darkens the door of a forum.
    – Caoimhghin
    Commented Nov 26, 2021 at 13:57
  • This issue is back. Once again. buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2679/…
    – user13375
    Commented Dec 2, 2023 at 20:31

5 Answers 5


I find it unfair towards other users if a high reputation score makes it easier to get away with repeated rulebreaking.

Also, if a user gets off the hook for repeatedly bad behavior it risks sending the message that others doesn't have to bother following the rules either.


I for one think you are too permissive and that it does a lot of harm.

An upvote just means that someone likes a post, that it is agreeable, these things can still turn out useless, wrong and harmful, sometimes people upvote wrong stuff.

If you allow a user with high rep to behave differently than you would otherwise tolerate, that is a quite big red flag.

When you choose to give out half a dozen shorter suspensions you then risk failing to discipline the person and they just might become willing to take the temp suspension seeing that they don't really have to change anything.

You are basically communicating that the consequences for their behavior will either be a slap on the wrist or at worst a longer than usual suspension.

This is very different to communicating that this community has standards and you either fit in or you are placed on the outside.

There is no telling how many people get turned away from the community when seeing disagreeable behavior, this bickering and lowly standards. It makes the community look bad and takes away from the credibility of the discourse.

  • I guess there are three possible issues: 1) Allowing people to post answers which you disagree with 2) Allowing people to post hostile comments ("disagreeable behaviour") without suspending them 3) Deleting hostile comments and suspending them but only for a few weeks i.e. not for long enough.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented Apr 28, 2020 at 14:21
  • I'm not sure there's anything I can or should do to change 1).
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented Apr 28, 2020 at 14:21
  • I think you say I'm doing 3). Are you also saying I'm doing 2) -- e.g. do you think there are many examples of disagreeable behaviour, which moderators don't prevent and delete and which make the community look bad?
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented Apr 28, 2020 at 14:24
  • Is your complaint principally about 1) and whether it's possible to have credible discourse on the topic of answers which you disagree with?
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented Apr 28, 2020 at 14:29
  • Im not sure what #1 has to do with this.
    – user8527
    Commented Apr 28, 2020 at 14:32
  • My complaint is that instead giving out the recommended suspensions you are being guided by principles of your own and we therefore have tolerate continious disruptive behavior.
    – user8527
    Commented Apr 28, 2020 at 14:36
  • To categorically answer the question in the title, yes, the current policy is too permissive as i see it.
    – user8527
    Commented Apr 28, 2020 at 14:40
  • Thank you for your input. I asked about #1 because your mentioning "upvoting a post" in the 2nd paragraph made me wonder if you were also referring to the quality and "credibility" of a user's answers -- as well as whether their dialog (comments) with other users was agreeable. I hope that if I delete and suspend the user if they cross a line, then #2 isn't a major problem. That leaves #3 as the main topic of my meta-question. Unless you think that #2 is a problem also (i.e. "I don't suspend for long enough" AND "my trigger is not sufficiently sensitive to what you consider disagreeable").
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented Apr 28, 2020 at 14:52
  • 2
    I mentioned the upvote in reference to the impression i got from your post, wherein you seemingly express that a person who has accumulated reputation is therefore a resourceful person with extra priviledge. It is my impression that this might have been a guiding factor in your decision making of past. Therefore i tried to say that this reputation is hardly an indicator of a user's value.
    – user8527
    Commented Apr 28, 2020 at 15:13
  • Understood now, thank you.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented Apr 28, 2020 at 15:19
  • 3
    +1 - I wholly agree. @ChrisW I also see no reason for lenience. The rules are the rules. I say this as somaone who sometimes pushes them too far. One problem is that perserverance alone can earn a high reputation, so it's not a reliable kite-mark of quality,
    – user14119
    Commented May 5, 2020 at 16:40
  • 2
    A further problem is that providing references to the sutras doesn't add scholarly-weight to an answer when the interpretation is dubious, but it may appear to do so.
    – user14119
    Commented May 5, 2020 at 16:43
  • On reputation i can say that it is far from a good measure of value because reputation can simply be grinded by anyone learned enough to appear intelligent, posting broad appeal content or just by providing buddhist-ish answers to faq. What tradition one represents and how many people find that doctrine and the op expression&meaning agreeable matters a lot as well.
    – user8527
    Commented May 7, 2020 at 23:20
  • Basically anyone can get high rep and a new user can be very good but without rep, not getting upvotes from other schools, if his doctrine isn't the one of majority and is hard to understand, their stuff won't get a lot upvotes but a steady rate about same as most active users. In theory if at this point one would start explaining the dhamma near perfectly here it wouldn't be better than the sutta and would therefore not be understood by those who do not undestand the sutta
    – user8527
    Commented May 7, 2020 at 23:34
  • 1
    I think we should not blame sectarianism in voting trends. Andrei Volkov and Crab Bucket mostly write from the Mahayana perspective, while Yuttadhammo and Suminda mostly write from the Theravada perspective. However, these four persons have high reputations. I cannot see sufficient evidence of a sectarian divide in voting trends.
    – ruben2020 Mod
    Commented May 8, 2020 at 4:35

You can also up the temp suspensions to 3/6/12 months. I doubt the week here and there makes much of a difference.


Depriving one from his existance is killing, or at least stealing, taking away ones conditions to resist (= destruction of ones resistance).

What does a doubter, knowing the Buddhas advices, think that those having certain faith or admirable friends, would tell him on his try to seek for ways to suffer lesser from remorse and hoping that kamma, if approved by not so smart wouldn't bear it's fruits?

My person trusts that good householder can decode this answer in simple expression, to short to get accepted.

(Note that this isn't given for trade, exchange, stacks or what ever binds one here, but for release from it)


This is happening again. The same user. The same pattern. When is enough enough?

Repeated and flagrant harassment and disparaging of Mahayana, obsessive occupation and aversion towards any topic related or not to rebirth.

He's basically saying "go to hell" with this "answer" which has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

You must log in to answer this question.

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