Feedback on making a useful Faq

I have recently updated the Faq.
It would be good if we can get some feedback for this.

  1. Is it too strong?
  2. Should it be stronger?
  3. Is it too wordy?
  4. Does it need more explanations?
  5. Did I miss anything?
  6. Headings to remove?

I think that is not a FAQ but rather a community guidelines.

There are some things which are usually included

  • What is the purpose of the forum
  • What topics can be discussed
  • What topics should not be discussed
  • What members should not do (unacceptable behaviors)

Also in my opinion

  1. Rather than strong I think it is a bit confusing. It is better to describe the background of the issue here, what is classical theravada, what is early buddhism, why accept the abhidhamma and commentaries
  2. Rather than being strong it is better to be more welcoming to new members
  3. Yes, in modern times people’s attention is severely limited. More concise and more structure is better
  4. Less is better but not less than necessary

Personally I am not fond of separatism. Segregation only lead to conflict. We are not CT, we are Buddhists. Classical books which include the abhidhamma and the commentaries are topics of discussion, not personal identities.

1 Like

I even got the Read Guidelines badge for reading the “faq”.

This badge is granted for reading the community guidelines. Following and sharing these simple guidelines helps build a safe, fun, and sustainable community for everyone. Always remember there’s another human being, one very much like yourself, on the other side of that screen. Be nice!

Even the url is called /guidelines.

1 Like

Well … this is why we have a separate CT. It was just too much being a fringe group. Some times people come here looking to challenge what is said here, just like they do in Dhammawheel. I left and then joined forces with Robert to build this. Several members have come from Dhammawheel looking for a better place. I want to protect that and I’m not interested in having hundreds of members. We have 75+ real members now. Currently, there is enough to get good dialog. We are definitely different than dhammawheel and suttacentral which welcome all types Buddhists.

I’ll look into guidelines and faq differences.

It seems that there are two pages:

Terms of service seems to be some legal thing.

I took a look at suttacentrals marathon Faq. The guidelines are built into the same page.
I think we are okay compared to them. :slight_smile:

I didn’t know this before, but I think they now identify as EBT.
Suttacentral is misleading because it is a pali word.

I understand. But I suggest to refrain from labeling. For reasons:

  1. Label creates groups. Group focus on differences. Focusing on differences tends to create conflict. For example we can see what happen when a vegan and meat lover meet. But if we call them gourmet lover then there might be less conflict, because we focus on the unity not difference. People have different preference and it’s OK.
  2. People opinions are complex and not black or white, so a person labelled EBT might not completely reject the commentaries and vice versa.

It is okay… i’m happy without ebt’ers who like commentaries. They have suttacentral to play with. The website is called ClassicalTheravada for a reason. The Website was also created as a separation move.
CTdotOrg is filling a need and filling a void.
There are DhWheel and SuttaCentral for other types of conversations and people.
So far, so good in terms of the visitors and how things issues with others were handled. I’m happy.

I took a look at suttacentral “faq” and yes it is long and it looks like a cross between a faq and community guidelines.

Github community guilines seems quite good:

A faq from its name are collections of frequently asked questions by [usually new] members.

1 Like

Not always.
Consider the segregation of Monks and Laymen.
Equality in every matter is Akusala. It is a Wrong-view.

You say you are not CT.
CTers are the only Buddhists accepted by CT.

Strictness is Kusala in necessary things like Orthodoxy and Sila.

Not always.
Knowing Correct-view and Wrong-View is the Correct-view.
Ill-will is the Akusala.

It’s not OK, if they are Non-CT views inside CT.

Complex with black and white.


No Muslim or Christian can destroy the Sasana.
Non-CTers are the ones who destroy the Sasana.

The Counterfeit of the True Teaching

It’s not the elements of earth, water, fire, or air that make the true teaching disappear. Rather, it’s the foolish people who appear right here that make the true teaching disappear. The true teaching doesn’t disappear like a ship that sinks all at once.

1 Like

Actually , Islam does destroyed buddhism in India but got revived .
Outside forces do have the capacity in destroying all buddha’teachings if conditions meets . Dont underestimate it .