At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I and other users are tired of new users using the excuse of "I didn't know" as the reason for giving answers. I am suggesting the issuance of automatic temporary bans in the event that a user knowingly or unknowingly gives answers without explanation. Here are my reasons: 1. The rules are clearly stated in the Code of Conduct for every user. 2. It alerts to users that OS is actually serious about enforcing the rules 3. It gives the user an opportunity to think about what he or she did 4. Temporary bans can increase exponentially over time depending on how many times the rule was violated i.e. 10 min for first time offense, 1 hour second time offense, 24 hours 3rd time offense, etc. 5. Violations of such rule would be severely limited. Any objections?
One: We do a particularly horrible job of presenting users with the CoC when they first join. This is something we need to work on, we just haven't had time. :\
I understand, sorry, I was dealing with a CoC issue and didn't get to respond fully. I think this is a good-ish idea. I'm a little bit weary of automating moderation, but this one could be clear cut. Hm. @cshalvey - thoughts?
That is a great idea actually! And I really like the fourth one - "Temporary bans can increase exponentially over time". It's totally like the bump. I support you. =)
They should not be banned from asking question but I think there should be a temporary ban on answering questions
Well, I for one am reticent to use suspensions as the first course of action for cases where there *are* legitimate situations of users not knowing the rules. The reason we have the warning (and direct message) system in place is to communicate these kinds of issues to users. Currently, we issue a warning to the user, but if the user does not change their behavior, we then take further steps (such as suspensions). Also, think about the use case for a first-time answerer with legitimately good intentions. They come to OpenStudy, they see someone asking for help, and they provide the answer to their problem. Which, in my opinion, is a perfectly logical response to seeing a question. OpenStudy's method is *different* from the norm. I don't believe it is necessarily that intuitive. Continuing this example, this user suddenly receives a suspension of ten minutes - I don't believe that person will 'think about what they did' - I think they leave OpenStudy and never come back. I believe that this would be a great loss to the community. If you look at our current community, most of our great helpers started out by simply providing answers until we changed our policy and Code of Conduct. There was some time of adjustment (one could argue that is still ongoing), but the vast majority of people, in my opinion at least, seem to have come around. Additionally, the whole concept of giving answers only is completely subject to interpretation. And what about questions where the user knows the answer but is looking for clarification on the method? I believe that this area is far too 'grey' to depend on automation, especially when that automation's first recourse is a suspension. However, I understand completely where you're coming from @Hero, and I do believe that there are steps we can take to implement more clear processes as moderators. I'm open to suggestions here also, and while I appreciate your idea, I feel that this area of OpenStudy is always going to be a case-by-case basis, and thus will always rely on human interpretation. Well, those are my feelings at least ;)
True thing right there too, because I started out by giving answers until I was told by a user not to directly answer questions.
Yeah, I think immediate auto-bans are pretty harsh.
ban em all, let AOL sort em out ;)
Dorothy was being belligerent fer sure, cant trust anyone who flies a house into witches