I find the question "Is Brahma a post" deeply offensive. There maybe sects for whom this would be fine - but the question should be explicitly limited to "Does sect X believe Brahma is a post"?
Similarly, answers or parts of answers that only represent the views of only some sects should be explicitly noted as such.
I think it's not feasible. When someone asks a question, it's possible that (s)he doesn't know which sect believes so. Personally speaking, I don't know which label to put in this question or which sect believes so.
The answer should clarify that if the belief is true only for some particular sect(s) or true for all sects or may be false at all.
Labelling any question with any kind of labels seem to be a very over-arching or extreme step. Mostly, I'd like to believe, that all users just ask the question out of curiosity and with expectations for better sourced and cited answers, rather than some "pre-determined" vested motifs/interests. Most of these users are not even frequent users of the site and are more like the blue-moons of HSE or SO.
Leave alone these new/ novice users, who might not be accustomed with the HSE and its rules, even many of us frequent users, don't seem to be framing many of our own questions in an appreciable language, which might show some research or keen interest of the OP. As a recent observation, which in my opinion is kind of not upto the mark for the HSE & SO standards, is the recent rise in the "one-liners questions", with no explanations for doubts by the OP. Now, when we - the frequent/ veteran users can't follow up with the general guidelines of HSE , how to expect anything with new novice users or users who might just be lurking on the MAIN and never found any META resources?
What I'd be more careful, protective, vigilant and expressive about, will be, the ANSWERS being posted. Those can and possibly should be, definitely labeled with appropriate tags (like controversial, cult/sect based, opinion based, etc.), in appropriate cases. Because, many a times, there is perceived bias by the OP which is very apparent when an unbiased reader will read the answer in logical ways and having unpartisan ideologies. The good & higly-rated answers given in here are generally by older members or veterans and when it shows some bias (in any way whatsoever), that needs some mechanism to be tackled with. Now, how to tackle that, is another discussion topic perhaps.
But, I hope my point is possibly clear. The posted question can have some curiosity based/ triggered ideology or sectarian biases. However, it our duty as a community to avoid (as much as possible) any kind of apparent or presumed biases or nonsense in the answers posted. Even if the answer seems controversial but true as per scriptures, the language or tone of the answer must be watched out for any kind of sectarian beliefs, if present and then maybe labelled with appropriate tags or salvaged by editing, if possible. But again, there is another clause made about the possibility of multiple interpretations of Sanskrit verses, which itself lead to several equally valid & acceptable translations of these verses and thus, myriad of ideologies. However, even then the framing of the language if in any way points out to sectarian beliefs or similar apparent biases, it might be salvageable through appropriate TAGS or editing.
Following up on YDS's suggestion.
if the question has a strong statement along the lines of "temporary & created beings like Brahma or Agni"
(1) If I can answer - I can add the caveat "other sects of Hinduism may believe differently".
(2) If I can't answer - add the caveat to any other answer.
Moderating for knowledge, not truth
Our contributions have to be made in the spirit of "this is what I know" instead of "this is the truth."
