There've been a bunch of discussion lately on meta.SO about this type of situation: someone posts that they think their downvoted/closed/deleted questions were ok, and they think it's mean/unfriendly/unfair, especially when they get banned from asking any more questions.
I'd summarize all that meta.SO discussion as follows:
- Downvotes and close votes are not harsh, unfriendly, snobbish, etc., but they're often misinterpreted as being that way.
- People who get downvotes and close votes get ample explanation presented to them about what those votes mean and what they can do about them.
- So while it would be nice if people who get multiple questions downvoted received some handholding to help them ask better question, it's not something that can be expected.
As to the advice this OP was given about "go and answer some questions"... It may not be an explicit SE rule, but it's an excellent guideline. It's an implied rule in two ways:
- The automatic question ban takes into account whether you've answered questions.
- Reputation is defined as "a rough measure of how much the community trusts you." The community will trust you more if you've earned some reputation by answering questions.
And for the SF'ers that don't want to wade through meta.SO looking for them, here are the best of the recent discussions:
Make users pass a review assessment as final stage before question banMake users pass a review assessment as final stage before question ban
Warn new users when they ask a question after a previous question is closed, downvoted, or deletedWarn new users when they ask a question after a previous question is closed, downvoted, or deleted
Please assume good faith whenever reasonable when dealing with post-banned usersPlease assume good faith whenever reasonable when dealing with post-banned users
