Seeding is, generally speaking, asking many questions quickly in a row.
The idea is that if you have a garden and plant some nice seeds in them, they will grow into many plants making the garden more beautiful. However, even if the seeds are top quality, if you plant them haphazardly (too close together) there will be problems; the roots will be concurrently fighting for the same resources, draining the terrain unevenly; the plants will ultimately not grow as tall and high as beautiful as they could've.
Of course there's seeding and there's seeding. This problem emerged one hour after the genesis of our site, when people started asking the same question as fast as possible changing maybe one word in the title. The picture's gone lost to the mists of time, unless Juan can resurrect it, but it looked like this:
I hope you can agree that this is extremely abusive (and dumb). I hope you can also agree that asking a question every few hours is probably fine; you're giving the site plenty of time to look at your questions, vote on them, edit them one by one. Sure, eventually even 1/month for many months gets tiring, but that's a different story.
So, it's obvious that there is a line here between what's okay and what's not okay. You might be asking what is it; I don't know. It depends really on a number of factors:
how good your questions actually are;
how different they are from one another;
whether it's part of a bigger, more organized, time-sensitive community seeding effort like one of our occasional contests;
whether the game is brand new and interest on the internet about the game is spiking.
- how active our site is in the tags you're asking about;
- how much activity is there on the site at the time;
- how close in time are the questions are together and
- how likely it is for legitimate votes across your questions to be detected as targeted voting and thus be incorrectly reversed;
- how disrupting it is from the various different time-sorted question lists, the ones most useful for answerers, such as (but not limited to):
- the homepage,
- the question list,
- the tag question list,
- the various different feeds,
- how likely it is that your questions fall down the cracks through sheer exhaustion of looking at many different questions in quick succession (mitigated by the review queue)
Your incident last week scores well in some of those metrics and not so well in others. Moderators are human exception handlers; our duty is not to come up with a line (that's left to the community to determine, usually), but to feel whether something is or not beyond the line and enforce, ultimately, what we think is the will of Stack Exchange and the community. I felt that you went overall beyond the line and warned you accordingly.
The lack of a specific line might make our action seem arbitrary and cause frustration in people who enjoy "playing in the grey", but it beats being paralyzed by the lack of a hard rule. If we were only to enforce hard rules, we could easily be replaced by a very small Bash script.
If you don't understand why a moderator thinks why you're going beyond the line, you should at least try and ask why (which you did, but only a few days after the fact), rather than declaring yourself unconvinced and keep going full speed ahead. Unheeded warnings may result in escalation.