0

You can "flag" an answer for moderator intervention. What are the flags, and which flag should I use?

1 Answer 1

0

The available/predefined reasons for flagging are:

  • spam

    See also How to not be a spammer

  • rude or abusive

    People are usually polite and moderate, friendly, on this site.

    But a post may be considered "rude or abusive" if it explicitly criticises and names another user, or a different school of Buddhism or even a teacher or public figure. Generally the questions on this site don't ask you to criticise others -- so, you can answer without doing that.

  • not an answer

    This is for text which don't even try to answer to question, for example ...

    I've had this problem too. Does anyone else have an answer?

    ... or ...

    I don't understand this question!

  • very low quality

    This is for answers like ...

    lol, yes of course!

    ... or ...

    Of course you should, why wouldn't you?

    See also this meta-answer about what type of answer is conventional on this site.


Note:

  • wrong answers

    Flagging is probably not applicable to answers which you consider wrong or untrue -- i.e. which are answers, but which you disagree with or consider "not useful".

    Instead you may vote down this kind of answer (instead of flagging it).

    When you flag an answer you are asking a moderator to delete it (or perhaps to edit it if it's rude or abusive). But moderators aren't supposed to delete an answer for being wrong or untrue, so just downvote this kind of answer instead of flagging. I think that means it's normal on SE for a few "wrong" answers to be left on the site -- but they should be downvoted.

  • irrelevant or off-topic answers

    Sometimes an answer fails to address the topic of the question. If so I think that might be flagged as "not an answer".

    This is also true if a question uses a tag like to ask a question specific to that school, and an answer is based on doctrine of a different school.

  • non-Buddhist answers

    This is the Buddhism.SE site so answers should be based on Buddhist doctrine and/or practice.

    Answers based on other religions would be off-topic on this site, and should be deleted.

    This is also true of a few answers which are based on "science" -- e.g. physics etc. -- not that Buddhism is anti-scientific, but people are asking questions about Buddhism not about science.

28
  • Wrong answers are not Buddhist answers per definition. If you can't judge what is wrong view then how can you judge what is a Buddhist and what is not a Buddhist answer. These policies are trash, obviously moderators just want to censor some people by branding their answers as 'non-buddhist' but at the same time on record claim that this site is for all self-proclaimed Buddhists and for all Buddhist sects, even those that are heretic. This is a double standard and garbage policy.
    – user8527
    Jul 28, 2020 at 18:04
  • When we look at cases where this is actually enforced, it is clear that mideration policy is anti-scientific and judgemental af. You censor based on expression, you don't censor based on meaning.
    – user8527
    Jul 28, 2020 at 18:11
  • If an answer is based on Christian doctrine, for example quotes the Christian bible, then I think it's probably off-topic as an answer on this site. That's probably also true if it claims to be based on someone's speculating about quantum mechanics or astrophysics. Occasionally too someone asks a school-specific question, in which case answers based on a different school of Buddhism are off-topic.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Jul 28, 2020 at 18:12
  • You should make a list of forbidden words because clearly that's what is the qualifying criteria for having answers deemed "non-buddhist". Just make a rule stating that answers must comply with your standards for expression. I am serious, if you censor based on expression but not based on meaning you should make a list.
    – user8527
    Jul 28, 2020 at 18:15
  • It doesn't happen often. I see you too are a veteran of the "infinity" topic about six months ago. Your answer (like a few others, including mine) was deleted. Yours was talking about "conservation laws" and "comparing infinities".
    – ChrisW Mod
    Jul 28, 2020 at 18:24
  • Many if not most of the answers on this site contradict eachother, you clearly just want to censor what you and or Andrei disagree with. Nobody asked for this censorship, we need new mods that don't discriminate and censor what they disagree with or can't understand.
    – user8527
    Jul 28, 2020 at 18:27
  • Andrei is master censorar, only posts 'experience based' "wisdom" and deletes anything including the word 'soul' no matter context.
    – user8527
    Jul 28, 2020 at 18:32
  • Trash policy, double standards and blatant hypocrisy... Shamefully anti-science, anti-knowledge and anti-texts known to be true.
    – user8527
    Jul 28, 2020 at 18:35
  • @MAGA2020 Reviewing Andrei's moderation history it seems to me that he's deleted three questions and zero answers in the last six months -- and so, at a minimum it seems that whatever you're talking about hasn't been a frequent problem. If you disagree with any specific moderator decision you can always post that as a topic for discussion on Meta (use e.g. specific-question or specific-answer tag). I can't guarantee in advance that I'll agree with you but let's see. IMO the moderation on this site is already very light/permissive.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Jul 28, 2020 at 19:09
  • I was under the impression that he deleted some christian answer recently but it might've been you or it might've been a question. Fwiw you also recently deleted an answer based on Robert Lanza's stuff saying "it's not obviously Buddhist", well Robert Lanza gave talks at a zen mefitation center I think you are way out of line with these policies and censorship based on personal opinion. QM has been used to explain Buddhism and i can point to monks who have done it. You are way out of line.
    – user8527
    Jul 28, 2020 at 19:42
  • Bhikkhu Samahita on QM and Buddhism I don't get it why you take it upon yourself to censor this type of expression and tell people that Buddhism stops where science begins and where they do and do not overlap? I think this is completely unjust and very harmful.
    – user8527
    Jul 28, 2020 at 19:46
  • You totally have the burden of proof if you want to censor science based answers claiming they aren't buddhist. Who gave you that authority to decide what is and isn't Buddhism? It is extremely abusive and offensive.
    – user8527
    Jul 28, 2020 at 19:53
  • Deleting that Robert Lanza based answer you are censoring speech approved by the Zen center whilst claiming this site is for all Buddhists. I think you are completely out of line...
    – user8527
    Jul 28, 2020 at 19:57
  • You're referring to this answer (which I read as an example of Quantum mysticism).
    – ChrisW Mod
    Jul 28, 2020 at 20:08
  • Stop abusive moderation practices, ktnxbye.
    – user8527
    Jul 28, 2020 at 20:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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