Question

Having moderators harass long-term helpers with threats of suspension for providing "answers" on some questions does not seem productive. BTW, I am very good at identifying who just seeks answers. May be they should be the target of moderator ire.

Answer 1

Ah, the unanswerable problem of how to eliminate/limit cheating.

Answer 2

ya i think u r right!

Answer 3

Hi @GT . Agree with you on a few points. 1. We need to be more clear about the moderation policy, and warnings should not really have any additional snark, threats, or personality than outlining which part of the policy was violated. 2. BTW - warnings are private, only the user that is warned and the moderators can see them. 3. I agree that those that just seek answers hurt the site - we've limited them in other ways in a first pass and will generally look at more. However as a first pass on the supply side, we've also tried to limit the ease that those types of users just get quick answers, and discouraged answerers from supplying them. As long as we have a supply of quick answers it will be a harder problem to solve. 4. You and I have personally discussed other potential measures, we're looking at implementing those too as a more long term solution. Thanks again for the feedback, the intent of moderators is not to frustrate but rather do their best with the policy we give them without prejudice.

Answer 4

even the "long-time helpers" can get careless in their responses. It is not the moderators job to be respecters of persons in regard to how long they have been helping; but to point out breaches and violations that occur. imo

Answer 5

case in point:

http://openstudy.com/study#/updates/4f9eddcbe4b000ae9ed3167b

Answer 6

Uh... he's got you there, GT.

Answer 7

@amistre64 I will give answers to people who are continuously just seeking answers. I don't believe in "forcing" someone to learn. And, certainly don't see any point in spending a lot of time on such questions only to be repeatedly asked to "just give me the answer". And, I give answers on occasion to also test and see if the students asks "why" and "how". This is good way to figure out the motivation of students to learn. Anyway, I have been here long enough to apply good judgment.

BTW, to point out one example (or a few) out of the tens and hundreds of questions I help on a routine basis is ridiculous on its face.

If the point you are making is that you would rather warn me, suspend me and do other things, based on far and few "violations of the code of conduct", I can't stop you from doing that. You are the moderator after all.

Answer 8

My point is, dont get a persecution complex over moderators that are simply doing their duty when they come across people violating the code of conduct. We all get the reports on who gets warned and such. There was only one warning that had your name attached to it, and that was the one.

Your "long-time helper" status, or "I did it cause I was somehow compelled to" excuses, or your "its was only one time" justifications are rather moot.

Now if the warning you had received was derogatory, or snide, or carrying an undertone of deprecation; then by all means it would have been uncalled for. But as is, your "pity party" seems a bit uncalled for. In my opinion.

Answer 9

Pity party? Persecution complex? Hmmmm......

I simply wrote feedback asking to "target" repeat answer seekers. Not repeat helpers. I stand by that feedback.

Answer 10

Target both. Both repeat answer seekers and repeat answer givers undermine the positive learning environment of the site.

Answer 11

Hi All =) You're both right naturally.

Amistre - you're an awesome moderator and are indeed in the right for enforcing the policy we have without consideration - it's always evolving and @cshalvey will work with you all to find a balance. However, I do hope you realize "pity party" is a bit snide in itself, and you're still a moderator while answering questions :p

GT - You're right in that the best way will be to discourage those just seeking answers, as mentioned we're looking at the right carrots and sticks on both the supply and demand side. However I think we can agree that those that just give answers encourage those that just seek the answer, and not giving just the answer in itself helps discourage them.

I would also hope there are other ways to gauge what askers want without feeding them the entire carrot (such as starting to explain and getting no response).

In any event, you're both highly regarded members of the community. Feedback taken on discouraging askers instead of punishing answerers, I hope feedback heard on snide communication or expectation of warnings if code is violated. In all, let's not make it a big deal, warnings aren't meant to be harassment, just notice, so let's not feed that fire with two of our best users.

Answer 12

Well stated. What a diplomat. =D

Answer 13

@chris , yeah, i couldnt think of a more benign term for it. Im sure I can make a logical argument to pin it on Myin - she is such a bad influence on the rest of us. lol

@GT , rest assured that we moderators are "harassing" answer seekers and answer givers on an equal footing, and we are "threating" them in like manner with suspensions and bans (since that is our only real recourse), and that our "ire" is equally spread out to fulfill the task. As is, you only receive the warnings addressed to you, and if you feel that someone is simply singling you out of the pack; that is simply not the case. All in all, I believe you have done a remarkable job at helping people with questions, and that you are fully capable of discerning between the answer seekers and those who really want to learn.

Have fun ;)

Answer 14

It is never about me individually. It is about the class of users with similar status on this site currently and in the future. Yes, "warnings" and "threats" of suspension directed at such users are not productive. Because, such users are the best of the crop by definition. So, all I am suggesting is finding a better way to tackle the "problem". The shortest term tactical answer could be to have a "toned down" message, at least for people on the higher percentile rank. Threats are not a great motivator. Ask my mom and dad. :)