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.
you keep typing...
According to the Code of Conduct: ''Don’t post only answers - guide the asker to a solution.'' We're supposed to guide the asker to a solution, *not* to give them the full solution. Giving answers to the questions of test/exam is not justified (that's obvious), but even for homework question, we shouldn't just give the asker the answer/full solution. This way, we don't know if the asker really learn something or simply just copy your work. That's not really learning. When you click the About Us page, you'll see this ''Our mission is to make the world one large study group, regardless of school, location, or background.'' Obviously, the aim of this site is to make a study group. I don't understand why you think it is unrealistic. And also, even though there are some users who just give out answer, that doesn't mean that it's justified to do so. When you see others are not doing right, you should report it or simply tell them don't do this, but not following them and make it as an excuse.
Because you haven't assured yourself earlier that you will prevent everyone from providing answers instead of guiding them. I agree with your mission 100%, but it's unrealistic to say that you will issue warnings to everyone who does provide answers to the user without trying to guide them at first. Don't get me wrong here, I have been on this site for quite a long time now and new rules and features are updated monthly. If this was your mission statement which is something that should have remained static, then you would have prevented everyone from providing answers in the beginning. It's unrealistic because you can't stop it. However, it's possible to impose this condition and stop everyone from showing their work. But full solutions are justified because not only does it show the user how to do the question, it also saves more time lost with interactions between the asker and the helper since you and I both know the asker will not understand the guidance first time around. It will take them at least three times to get what the helper is saying before drawing conclusions. In contrary to guidance, full solutions allow users to look through the answer numerous times before drawing conclusions. Saves more time for the helper and enables them to help someone else. Not only me but math, physics, chem, bio teachers even agree with this during lessons. During the intense part only tho. Because when there is time for questions from oblivious students, the teacher can guide them to the answer and help the whole class to understand the subject. But to be frank, our ideas mean nothing. There are cheaters in OS and there are also people who rely on answers to understand this subject. Guidance is the best way to teach the average student. So we're both right. Our claims have been justified.
Forgive me if I don't get your ideas correctly. It is not impossible to issue warning to everyone who violates this rule, yes. But that doesn't mean that we don't have the duties to warn the ones who have violated this rule. As far as I know, moderators and administrators are trying our best to let our users know giving answer is not allowed by commenting in the post, issuing warnings, and even suspension. We also encourage our users to read the Code of Conduct, which clearly stated that do not only give the answers and guide the asker to the solution. I understand we can’t stop preventing someone giving solutions/answers, which you called it as unrealistic, but that really doesn’t mean that we don’t have to do anything because the rule is so-called unrealistic. One analogy is that it’s unrealistic to catch all the thieves. Does that mean the police don’t need to catch the thieves and even when they can catch the thieves, they don’t need to take them to the court? I agree with you that by giving the full solution, we can save more time, and of course, it shows how to do the question. But, let me repeat our mission – we’re here to help others learn. There are some users who really want to learn. In this case, giving out the solution won’t bring any harm. However, we also need to consider the fact that there are always some users coming to this site, looking for the answers to the question and getting their work done but not learning. If we just give out the full solution, that’s what they exactly want (having their work done), but not something we want (helping them to learn). We need to avoid it. And not giving the answer, and even the full solution, at first will do. I don’t quite agree with you that the helper since you and I both know the asker will not understand the guidance first time around. It depends on how you communicate with the asker. And if you think that giving out the full solution can help the asker understand, I don’t understand why guiding the asker doesn’t work. To me, guiding the asker is like giving them some idea on how to solve it and let them finish their work. For example, solving x+y =4 and x-y=2 by method of elimination, I will do in this way 1. Label the equation: x+y =4 -(1) x-y=2 -(2) 2. Add equation (1) and (2) And ask the asker what does he/she get from it. And continue the process of solving the question. Practically, we are also ‘’solving’’ the questions, but split it into different steps and ask if the asker understand. If not, then explain to him/her. In this case, the asker can try to work out the answer with our hints/ step-by-step guidance. And for your argument that ‘’not only me but math, physics, chem, bio teachers even agree with this during lessons’’. There are some differences between the two cases. For teaching in school, teachers, as you’ve said, show us all the work all the work in the lessons. It saves time (we don’t have enough time to learn so many things in a year, really). They suppose we will review what we’ve learnt after the lessons, and if we have question, we will ask. And one way to know our learning progress is by giving homework – checking how much the students understand the learning material. But for us, of course, applying the case of learning in school, they are more or less similar. But one difference is that the teacher can still evaluate how well the student is learning by correcting his/her homework, but we don’t give homework. We don’t know if the asker can really understand if they don’t tell us. When we have someone who just want to get a pass by having the work done properly (by others), if we just give them the solution, and then ask if they understands, 99% of them will say yes and copy our work without really understanding the way to solve it. One way to confirm this is that they will ask similar questions again and again. This way, I won’t agree that saving time is more important than to avoid student cheating. As for the case when there are someone who really need the answer to understand the subject, as I’ve said in that post, they should at least show that they are not the type of users who just look for answer by showing their work in attempting the question. If the student makes it clear that he/she learns from the answer and he/she has tried to solve the question but fails, then I think it’s okay for you to show the solution if that’s really necessary.
As i said, it is possible to actually impose such a strong conduct on people to ensure that everyone knows they are giving guidance and not the full solutions. I personally like showing my work and explaining it the next time around. I'll give you the "guidance" argument for this one because yes, we really need to help others learn rather than helping them cheat but that's not always the case Sometimes i guess sometimes when guidance doesn't work we need to provide solutions. However, we can ask for their solutions this time around. I agree with that argument. Now, the only problem is that you're spending more time teaching one person than teaching the entire batch of people who ask questions everyday. And to me, there's not always someone willing to help but chat on our respective chat areas. Slacking off, sure. But there's a solution and I believe that is in the hands of the programmers. With respect to my warning, I cannot tell them the answer but i can tell them how to get there. Also, let me introduce a metaphor here: in an emergency situation, a pilot needs to know the nearest flight landing not the process to identify its location. Quite irrelevant huh, just like your analogy. Now cheating is a problem but hey it's discipline, if they don't have it, they will not get anywhere. Let's dumb this down a bit more, I believe 49% of the time someone needs help for homework while the other 51% is for a test they're currently taking. Now in respect to helping them get the answer, we're also helping them on a test, which is called cheating isn't it. Because on a test, it's no talking, no searching up answers, no asking for help. Online tests are vulnerable to that idea. Not all online education institutions monitor student's activity online. So even by guiding the user to the answer, we're also guiding them on a test. Sure they have a time limit for a reason but not all test give inadequate time for the student to search up all the answers online. This is why modern public schools are preferably better. So in the light of this, both methods are called cheating so it makes no difference to say that one is preferably better than the other. However, there's one that's systematically better and that's guidance. However, only for some cases. Now the whole idea of time consuming really is a problem in schools. Guidance is only used when you have adequate time to go over the steps a lot, mainly after class things. However, we cannot provide guidance all the time. When 300 users ask questions in a span of 3 hours with lengthy processes, it's better to give them the solution before the number of unanswered questions increase. I'm also assuming not everyone can help. But yes that number could be reduced eventually. Well, with respect to my warning, I believe I will provide guidance but I'll see how it goes. Given the arguments you have written, it may be better to provide guidance than offer full solutions. It only requires time and knowledge.
For those who value punctuation.. Second Paragraph, first sentence: Sometimes, I guess sometimes, *
OrthodoxMan , I agree totally about you say, clues are not enough many times
Exactly. Thanks for acknowledging that.
Sorry I disagree with @Callisto
Yes MathLegend , I respect yours.... so you respect mine
if one hint not enough, give out one step and explain how, not the entire solution.
He gave all the steps on how to solve it. Now its the person who posted the question choice to ask for more help or not. I'd have to agree with @OrthodoxMan
" ... we cannot provide guidance all the time. When 300 users ask questions in a span of 3 hours with lengthy processes, it's better to give them the solution before the number of unanswered questions increase." I have to fundamentally disagree with that. Let the number of questions increase to 1 million, I don't care, so long as those who *do* get their questions answered understand exactly how it was answered. What is wrong with letting a questions sit around for a few days, or even a week before they are answered? If people are in a rush to have their questions answered that is absolutely not our responsibility. What is our responsibility is to make sure that every student we engage with walks away with a better understanding of the material. It is a luxury that so many people can get almost immediate free help on this site, and if your question doesn't get answered today, tough cookies. If you are timed and that question is due for a test or homework assignment, also not our problem. Actually, letting questions sit around, and forcing them through the problem slowly is a good test of whether or not the person is taking a timed test, in which case they shouldn't be here in the first place. Helping on a problem set or homework is what the site is for, but if you know someone is taking the test it is against the CoC to provide any assistance. Of course, the main problem there is with the formatting of the online tests (as you point out yourself), not us. I also would like to support @Callisto 's analogy. We cannot stop all cheaters, or even all answer-givers on this site. Should we give up then? Let it be a free-for-all, do-your-homework-for-you site? That would cause the reputation of this site as a resource for cheaters to become far worse, which would cost OS its grants and likely lead to the end of OS entirely. The only way to combat this is to make sure that everyone who gets assistance must show that they are trying to learn in the process, which is only possible if the asker is *interacting with you*. If you give a hint, or ask a question, and the asker does not reply, just move on! If they aren't willing to engage then they don't deserve an answer, or even to be here. If they are afk, when they come back and reply you will get a notice, so you can return to help them. If they are confused, let them tell you how so and explain their exact query. If it takes 3 hours of 3 different tutors trying to explain something before the person understands, so be it. Far better for both the student, and the goal/reputation of OpenStudy than to provide even one complete answer (even with work shown) that can be copied, and requires no effort on the part of the asker.
::: wipes away a tear ::: I am soo proud of these purplers :) pippip!!
Alright a couple of things wrong with your statement @TuringTest I get what you're trying to say. But leaving a question to sit around for weeks or even months before they are answered is not the best approach to stopping cheaters. By saying: "If people are in a rush to have their questions answered that is absolutely not our responsibility," you basically degrade the whole purpose of Openstudy. That purpose is to allow students to understand the material by providing "guidance" so that they may do well on their test. However, there is one major problem. When you mentioned: "if your question doesn't get answered today, tough cookies," I was a bit disappointed. It is our responsibility to ensure that each and every question gets answered within a day. Say if the user has a test the following day, are you going to blame it on them for not asking ahead of time. You can't always assume the user does not know how to manage their time. You also can't always assume that every user on this site is a cheater. Because that's the basis of your argument. You said: "actually, letting questions sit around, and forcing them through the problem slowly is a good test of whether or not the person is taking a timed test, in which case they shouldn't be here in the first place." Yes, this is quite incorrect. Actually from my own experience, the only way to test them is guidance. I have encountered quite a lot of users who were taking a test and coming to this site while taking that test. When I give them guidance, they run out of patience and lose their mind. Let's be a bit more specific. If we let a question sit around for a few days, we have lost reputation if you hadn't guessed. Well if that user wanted homework help for a test within 3 days and you decide to answer their question after their test. What do you expect them to do? They'll stop using the site. I'm sorry but I don't get how you're a moderator who can think like that. At least Callisto and I argued on the basis of providing a method of solution while you insist we should just leave their question to sit around for a few days. Alright fine. Say if we do. Say if everyone stops answering questions for a day or two just to "test if the person is taking a timed test." We're literally going to stock pile on questions that we assume are attempts of cheating. You know I have to say, if you just wanted to support his argument, cut off the first paragraph for the good reputation of Openstudy. Now in addition, I do agree with your last paragraph. You can thank God for that. But I can't stress this more, by providing guidance on their question, we're still allowing them to cheat. Either way this is still going to be a site for easy answers to cheat an online test. Yep. However, guidance is the best way to solve this problem. However, my whole argument on providing full solutions is that we use it to an extent. That line is drawn when the user does not understand how to do the question or do a certain method (once we assure ourselves that the user is not making excuses of being too lazy) or a certain step. Basically, guidance would act as a diagnostic to test if the person is taking a timed test then full solutions would be summoned, however you have to break it down into several replies to ensure the user gets what you're doing. As long as we answer a lot of questions within a day and not let them sit around (which would also cost OS its grants), then we are able to "teach" people instead of "help" people. Because "helping" people is considered an idealistic way of assisting the user to cheat. Ps. @TuringTest , do not create secondary subtle arguments when we're discussing something else. It makes me lose all the respect I have for you as a Mod. Also, considering the fact I sent you a bunch of messages at times and neither did you decide to answer them that day or a week after, your argument is hypocritical. Besides, the irrelevant arguments suggest that you need to build up your argument skills. With respect to my warning, I can't tell you how can you improve it, but I can tell you only that you need to work on them. Goodluck.
" It is our responsibility to ensure that each and every question gets answered within a day. ". No, it is not.
A more realistic approach would be: It is our responsibility to ensure that each and every answer that we give enlarges the mind and confidence of the askers to do the work.
When i said that, I meant like yes getting help with the question. But not giving full solutions. Since I got a warning, I'm only giving guidance. Now, we're still gonna help them but to an extent. Dude, they are doing their work, well some of them. You can't assume everyone here is asking a question because they're too lazy to do it. So yes I said it right. However I agree with: "our responsibility to ensure that each and every answer that we give enlarges the mind and confidence of the askers." What you meant to say is confidence that they are able to solve these problems rather than doing their work. Big difference.
:) you translate pretty good
OrthodoxMan, Once again, your argument is solid I agree with you on every line.......Keep going....
Thanks for the support man. And well I have to wait till the next argument is constructed. In the meanwhile, I'll give some "guidance" like they want me to.
You seem to have seriously misunderstood me, I did not imply that all users were cheaters, nor did I imply that I let questions sit around in order to test if they are cheating, I just said that there is no rush. We have zero obligation to get through x-number of questions per hour. What matters is quality, not quantity. That is why giving a hint is the only thing to do at first. If they do not even reply to the hint, they aren't learning. Also, you seem to think that this free service we deliver is something of a job. This passage of yours seems to highlight the discrepancy between our points of view: "Say if the user has a test the following day, are you going to blame it on them for not asking ahead of time. You can't always assume the user does not know how to manage their time." Yes, I am most certainly going to blame it on them, who should I blame it on? Why do any of us have to assume the responsibility of making up for someone's inability to plan ahead? This a place where you can come with questions that you get help on by other users just like you. There is no guarantee that any user on at a particular moment can even answer your question. That is a game of chance, and so you are rather foolish if you think that you somehow deserve a quick, complete response, or that the tutors (who happen to be your peers) will adjust their schedules to your current crisis, all because you couldn't manage your time properly. If a student comes to you, @OrthodoxMan, and says "OMG, I have a test in 5 minutes, help me with these 20 practice questions or I'll fail!" do you think that it is somehow your responsibility to drop everything else you are doing and hurry along to help them? If it is not your responsibility, then who's is it? Answer: the student's. The reputation of OS should be as a place where you can get help with the subjects you need well in advance of any impending test, not a place you can scramble to because you procrastinated your studies. It is the students job to come to OpenStudy with enough time get help before it is urgent. The tutor's job: (quoting @amistre64 ) "our responsibility to ensure that each and every answer that we give enlarges the mind and confidence of the askers." If we give complete answers we are not ensuring that we are enlarging the mind of anyone; they may or may not be just copying what you write. The askers job: To participate in such a way that demonstrates the desire to learn the material, and to show nothing but gratitude towards those who would help them for free. This means no "hurry up, it's due soon! I need help now!" We don't need people like this on the site. They really don't even have any right to get upset about me giving them a wrong answer, so long as it isn't intentional, because again: we are helping for free, there is no guarantee that we can help you at this moment, or that we know the material. I, for one, would be quite glad if everyone that expected an immediate answer would quit using OS upon not receiving one, we don't need people like that here. Learning requires patience, as does effective teaching. Another point of discrepancy between us: "If we let a question sit around for a few days, we have lost reputation if you hadn't guessed. Well if that user wanted homework help for a test within 3 days and you decide to answer their question after their test. What do you expect them to do? They'll stop using the site." I think that scenario is rather infrequent in math (at least for questions that are not too advanced), but it is very common in other sections, yet they still exist. History, Language and culture, MIT Spanish; all sections that often don't see replies for days, yet users still come. More importantly, however, the reputation of this site would be far worse as a place to cheat than as a place where you may have to wait a day or so for help. You should note, however, that since full answer-giving has been prohibited the membership on this site has hit record numbers, so empirically there is no correlation there. The users that did leave when the rule was instated, we didn't want here in the first place. To clarify, we have no responsibility to answer questions at all (as many users do not). This is a free service that we users offer out of pure generosity, apart from our real lives. We have no obligation to do anything that is out of our convenience, except to abide by the code of conduct should you choose to be here. The fact that as many people get the help they need with this current system is testimony to how well it is working. The fact that some questions go unanswered is not reason to gloss over the issue that giving complete answers invariably leads to cheating. PS: I don't know what "secondary issue" you think I tried to divert to in my last reply; I thought we were talking about why our code of conduct goals are realistic, necessary and reasonable. I don't see how I diverted from that topic. I also apologize for not replying to the messages that you say that you sent me, but since I get about 20 messages per day from people I don't know saying "help me!" or something, it's likely that I just missed them. I don't see how that makes anything I said hypocritical though... Enough for me defending the code of conduct. How about this: how exactly would you like to see the policies changed @OrthodoxMan ? What would you have us do differently? It is easy to find flaws in things you observe, but much harder to find the solutions. What are yours?
just a thought, but i beleive full solutions are fine for questions that are "outdated". For the most part tho, the interaction between participants (in math at least) is real time and if the asker is simply not wanting to participate, then a full solution is not very warrented imo.
Hmm sometimes I think we fail to understand each other miserably. First off, I am not supporting cheaters as you clearly argued about. So questions that require urgent attention are basically assumed that they are taking a test. However, personally, I like urgent responses even though I go to highschool. It just allows me to get my mind off the question and move on. Frankly speaking, I don't really come here for help on an assignment or test in "5 min." I can't believe I have to be specific to you though. I overestimated you. Your status as a moderator just made me guess that you would know what I meant by my arguments and not even bother to pinpoint them. Why. Anyways, I clearly don't support cheaters. But I also do not support lazy people either. All I said is that we should make it an obligation to answer questions within a day that they are posted. Now, don't get me wrong here. As I said earlier, 51% of OS's population are considered to be cheaters. So technically, they are questions that require urgent attention. So if you think about it, that's not a lot of questions :) In addition, you translate an awful difference from what I write. A test in 5 minutes with 20 practice questions? And you expect anyone to help that person, personally I wouldn't. Urgent answers do not get attention, and so does urgent "learning." Wait, I thought we were arguing on the basis of which method is better and not which questions deserve attention. That's right, we were. Oh how you amuse me. I have to be really specific for you, do I? I have to like speak the same note for each letter pronounce right? Because you clearly do not understand the restrictions here. Let me start off with reputation for this one. Reputation will only decrease once a lot of people stop answering questions. Reputation will also go down once a majority of the people are not understanding what the answerer has told them. This is where you force me to be specific. Some people just don't know how to use guidance. Yes, I encountered a few of them. When you force people to use guidance and give them warnings like I received, not everyone will know how to give "guidance." Unless you give tips on how to give "guidance" to the asker. (THAT'S IMPROVEMENT NUMBER ONE) Managing time for course work is awfully difficult. Not everyone gets it right the first few times. Again, you can't blame them. However, say if they did know how to manage their time, you can't expect everyone to finish studying 3 days before the test right? There are some questions that the user discovers and tries (if you don't believe that they did, might as well ask them for their full solutions), and when they are not able to do it, they come here. Are you expecting them to wait out 3-4 days for a question to be answered. Is it still their fault that they asked 3 days before the test? Nope, so that argument you made is incorrect to an extent. I guess you shouldn't have focused on questions that are asked within 3 hours before a test. Yea. I guess you had to impose such a rule because of the amount of users that have manipulated this site to cheat. Generally speaking, some of your best users answer their question. I'm not surprised. Then again, people just want to help. (Argument regarding the amendment of such a rule (if there was an argument) is scrapped). Let me dumb this down so you can understand it a bit better. I hate cheaters, but I like to help others understand the material better. There are two ways to do that, and I'm pretty sure you can fill it in for me. Both work. It just depends on the user and how they interpret them. If they learn, well done. If they do not, should try next time. According to the reference situation, I showed proper form for communication marks and I also showed her a step by step solution. Now, what I find disappointing is that the user never learned. However, I did the exact same thing a few weeks ago and that user learned. How did I figure it out, I gave a practice question. (IMPROVEMENT # 2)...Maybe I should tell you what improvement number 2 is before you argue again. It is that, prior to sending a warning to a user that answered in full solutions, moderators should allow a practice question to be issued to the asker to ensure that they understood the material. Fair enough? In this way, the user can choose wisely between the choices of answering methods. Hmm, I still like the whole participation thing from the asker. Sad news is, there are a lot of people who lose their mind when I'm giving guidance. *sighs* Countless Cheaters. I guess that's it, we finally neutralized our arguments. I gave two suggestions on changing the policies. There are good ones and they do not support cheaters. Before you argue about my second one which I'm sure you will, let me tell you that it applies to a certain situation. We should use full solutions when: A) We are sure the user is not asking an urgent question. Although I like an urgent response or at least a hint, I guess I can be patience to dismiss allegations that I am a cheater. B) If the user did not put up a suspicious looking image that relates to a test material. C) When guidance does not work, but in any case, it should give a hint. D) When the user has shown their full solutions and require editing or check as to where they messed up. E) If the user did not ask the same question as the previous one that has either been answered or explained (within 4 weeks). Hmm, well that's pretty much it. Thanks for your time. I'm glad we had an active discussion. Feel free to counter this argument if you find anything you object.
Quick fix: As I said earlier, 51% of OS's population are considered to be cheaters. So technically, they are only some questions that do not require urgent attention. If you think about it, that's not a lot of questions that need to be answered by the end of the day :) Frankly speaking, quality beats quantity. Hence, the askers should understand the material if someone gets to their question.
Well, it's rather unpleasant to read a response so riddled with condescension that I can't see how I deserve. You seem to be quite hostile for some reason, and once again have read things into my statements that are not said. I did not accuse you of advocating cheating. I have also already addressed your concern about the effect of our current policies on reputation of this site, but you seem to have overlooked that. You suggest that "... we should make it an obligation to answer questions within a day that they are posted.". "Obligate" is an interesting word there, not sure how you intend to obligate volunteers to help at a certain pace. I could understand "try our best to" , but that's obviously our ideal anyway. Unfortunately, it's just not logistically possible, or even desirable if it requires undermining (perhaps you see it more as streamlining) the teacher-student interaction. From what I gather you present two potential improvements: 1) "...give tips on how to give "guidance" to the asker." So presumably that means that you are requesting some kind of section designed to tutor people on the proper way to help askers on OpenStudy, like how to be good at guiding without giving full solutions. That sounds like a fairly reasonable idea that you could propose here in feedback (preferably as a separate thread), and that may get some support. I personally think that the tutor actually learns a great deal through being forced to interact with the student more than they normally would want to. More of a trial by fire, but here we may agree to disagree. 2) "...prior to sending a warning to a user that answered in full solutions, moderators should allow a practice question to be issued to the asker to ensure that they understood the material" (with stipulations A-E having been evaluated) I'm not sure how you are imagining this working, but that sure sounds like asking us mods to do a lot of work just to let people post full answers in a (supposedly) cheat-resistant manner, and evade the requirement that they are making sure that the asker is actively involved in the learning process. Rather than keeping the current policy of engaging the asker and guiding them, you would have us allow full solutions (which we would have analyze in order to decide whether the work was shown with sufficient clarity), then ask us to dissect whether or not this person and their particular question fit criteria A-E, then ask a "practice question" (or wait for the helper to ask a practice question, not sure which you meant) and see how that plays out, then possibly start issuing warnings. Again, feel free to petition this on a separate thread on OS feedback and see if it gets support. I think you know how I feel about such an idea. To be fair, I do have my own criteria in which full answers could be acceptable. For instance, when someone already has the final answer and does not understand a step in the process, then often all you can do is directly explain it. Also Amistre's example of older and abandoned questions. If the asker is there though, the element of working with the student, hand-in-hand through each step and not just providing a complete solution is currently required.
Sorry for late reply… Regarding the OrthdoxMan‘s posts here, there are few points I would like to comment on. For the third post: 1. I don’t understand ‘’yes, we really need to help others learn rather than helping them cheat but that's not always the case’’ Why isn’t that always the case? You’ve mentioned that you don’t support helping others cheat, but you disagreed that helping others learn rather than helping them cheat should be always the case? 2. ‘’I guess sometimes when guidance doesn't work we need to provide solutions.’’ Oh well, that’s *only* when guidance doesn’t work when providing solution is the last method we can help. Then, in this case, at least both the asker and the answerer have tried to engage in this learning process. If thing doesn’t work out fine, then it’s okay. (But I don’t see how giving out the solution works while guidance doesn’t work). However, giving out the whole solution at first without engaging the asker is a different matter. 3. ‘’the only problem is that you're spending more time teaching one person than teaching the entire batch of people who ask questions everyday.’’ Hmm, you assume that giving out the full solution can help asker understand, so it saves time. But when the case is that the asker doesn’t understand and you have to guide them from the beginning, that actually takes you more time. Then you’re spending more time teaching one person… 4. ‘’With respect to my warning, I cannot tell them the answer but i can tell them how to get there.’’ Oh, you cannot tell them the answer without asker’s participation in solving the problem. If he/she has worked on it and just want to know if he/she is right or not, then you can tell him/her if he/she is right. And as for your metaphor, you know you’ve included a condition there: in an emergency situation. As for pilot case, it’s a matter of life and death and this is very serious. But for the homework case, it’s not as serious as that. It’s also not an acceptable excuse that it’s urgent and I have to get it done in X minutes/hours. 5. ‘’I believe 49% of the time someone needs help for homework while the other 51% is for a test they're currently taking. Now in respect to helping them get the answer, we're also helping them on a test, which is called cheating isn't it.’’ If you know it’s a quiz/test, you shouldn’t help. You should instead report it and leave it alone, until the quiz is over. And I would also like to know how you get that 49-51 percentage. 6. ‘’both methods are called cheating so it makes no difference to say that one is preferably better than the other.’’ As I’ve said, don’t help others do their quiz. When it comes to homework, it makes a difference, right? 7. ‘’When 300 users ask questions in a span of 3 hours with lengthy processes, it's better to give them the solution before the number of unanswered questions increase.’’ The point is in your viewpoint, giving them solution helps. But what aspect does it help? Throwing something and let the askers read themself, ask if they have questions? Or giving them the answer so that they can copy and get their work done and their ‘’problems’’ disappear? For the fourth post: 1. ‘’leaving a question to sit around for weeks or even months before they are answered is not the best approach to stopping cheaters.’’ Hmm… but giving them the solutions is not even a good way to stop them. This even makes it worse. If they are having the quiz, I’m sorry, no help is offered. If they have questions *after* the quiz and want to ask, personally, I think it’s okay. But the same rule, they should show their interest in learning (by participating in the process of problem-solving, or at least showing what they’ve got and where they’re stuck at.) 2. ‘’That purpose is to allow students to understand the material by providing "guidance" so that they may do well on their test.’’ As you’ve mentioned, ‘’by providing "guidance" so that they may do well on their test’’, that is not equal to ‘’by giving them solutions so that they can get their work done’’ 3. ‘’It is our responsibility to ensure that each and every question gets answered within a day.’’ It’s a tough job. You know there are some challenging problems which are left unanswered over months. How can we be supposed to ensure that each and every question gets answered within a day? I think all we can do is to try our best to give help, but that’s should not be our responsibility. After all, there is no guarantee that you can get help.. 4. As for the quiz argument, ‘’Yes, this is quite incorrect. Actually from my own experience, the only way to test them is guidance’’. If you give them the full solution (including the answers), then you have no way to test since they don’t need the guidance, they just need the answer and you’ve given them already. So, they’ll just close the question and post another. That’s why guidance is recommended before you really need to post the full solutions. Then, jump to the latest post 1. ‘’When you force people to use guidance and give them warnings like I received, not everyone will know how to give "guidance." Unless you give tips on how to give "guidance" to the asker. (THAT'S IMPROVEMENT NUMBER ONE)’’ As TuringTest ‘s has said, you can post it in the Feedback group. But even without a specific post for tips, you can see how others answer questions and get some ideas. Also, (for me) the first warning can be considered as a gentle reminder. If you don’t make the same mistake again/if you correct your misbehaviour, that would be fine. From the warning message, you see what our ‘standards’ are: 1. ‘guide the user to an answer rather than doing all the work yourself.’ 2. ‘discourage giving out answers without letting the asker at least take some part in the analysis’ 2. ‘’sending a warning to a user that answered in full solutions, moderators should allow a practice question to be issued to the asker to ensure that they understood the material.’’ As I’ve quoted before, ‘’we discourage giving out answers (or solution in this case) without letting the asker at least take some part in the analysis’’. It’s the way that you choose is wrong (since it leads to some drawbacks, you know), not because of the outcome which give us an excuse of issuing a warning. Let say, user A and user B both give solutions and practice questions to problems. For the problem which user A answers, the asker is willing to solve the practice problem while the asker of problem which user B answers is not. Should I just issue warning to user B, but not user A, simply because user B is so unlucky that he/she helps the wrong person who doesn’t want to learn? This seems not fair to user B at all. I agree that we have some conditions when giving full solution is acceptable, like what amistre64 and TuringTest have mentioned. But at least, don’t give out the full solution without asker’s participation in solving the problem.