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.
Send the user a stern message with a link to the OpenStudy code of conduct: http://openstudy.com/code-of-conduct The link itself should make your point clear: I would venture to say that "Give Help, Not Answers" is written in large bold letters at the top of the page.
Yeah. I can understand giving the answer in some situations (like History, Lit, Bio, etc, where factual information is needed and there's no 'equation process') , but all definitely require some sort of analysis or explanation. Usually a small 'prod' with the CoC is enough :)
Hey Kainui, So, we don't frequently remove the answer in those situations. Perhaps we should consider starting since the removal of all of ones answers from a question results in those medals being removed. Something for us to think about. But deleting answers generally elevates the situation to being combative. We try more subtle measures first. If you don't see us act in the actual thread, that usually means we DM'd them or sent them an official warning instead. Or, possibly, suspended them. We try to avoid making a show of things when possible. Let me know if you have any further questions.
Another problem that comes from the lack of having enough moderators. The slow response time allows these users to continue giving answers away while no real punishments is given. After a while users give up in reporting the same user either from the lack of knowledge that something is being done or just getting tired of report every offense the user does. Another problem comes from the way OS handles reports and people who abuse the code of conduct. There is no way of knowing if there was any punishment given. This is actually normal and people should not be included in the punishment of the user. This should be solely the responsibility of the moderator or admins that are in charge of this site. The real problem comes from how the punishment is given out. The first level of punishment is a warning which is given to the user. This is simply an anonymous message given to the user. In many other different website or online services there are clear indications of why someone is given a warning but in OS where there is an extensive Code of conduct, there is no real source attached to the warning so the user is left clueless at times of why they were given a warning. Sure most of the times when warnings are given out there is a response from the mod or admin but the reason this is a problem is because of the response time. In severe punishments like bans or suspension the same idea carries over. What this does is give an image that the mods or admin might be abusing there powers without a knowledge of the community, The solution really is to make an extensive report that would be included in every punishment given that would be sent to the user that was given that punishment. That way it is clear to them why they are getting that certain punishment. Don't get me wrong you guys are doing the best job you can but you are not alone in the internet where other websites have trouble dealing with punishments such as bans suspensions.
"In many other different website or online services there are clear indications of why someone is given a warning but in OS where there is an extensive Code of conduct, there is no real source attached to the warning so the user is left clueless at times of why they were given a warning" This is a good point. I'm overhauling some of the moderator tools now. I'll see if we can include something to give our users a better indication of where the offensive content was. Perhaps it just needs to be SOP for moderators to include a link to the offending update? @cshalvey @shadowfiend Would love you guys to provide some input here.
Yeah, we'll discuss it. That's definitely a good idea. Notably, power abuse isn't really possible because all mods see all other mods' activity (as do all admins). So we see when someone is reacting to something incorrectly, and we generally deal with overreactions quickly.
While I tend to like the idea of linking the warning to the offense (if im reading that correctly), the offender should be cognizant enough to know what they have done in order to think back on the warning ... Some content is the result of chatroom postings, some content is in regards to inappropriate userNames and avatars, but by far I would say the most content for warnings comes from people just blurting out an answer choice or doing all the work for the asker. now i forgot what my train of thought was; if you find it, let me know :)
oh yeah, kainui said answers posted aint deleted. When I come across them I delete them and give a warning. But also once an answer has been given, and the asker is just seeking for the answer, the damage is done.