# Clarification of the rules & guidelines



## maxiogee

On the CD forum, one of the rules states 
c) Please *do not* start threads
-- that can be answered by a simple yes or no; 
-- that would promote chat (i.e. "what should I get my French boyfriend for his birthday?);
-- that ask for *homework or research* help, or where to find a resource;​Have we any definition of what constitutes "research" -- and, is it research which is forbidden or research help?
I have asked a question about the election processes in different countries - and have indicated that it is a question about the sytems and not the personalities and I dread that it might sink into an "our system is better than yours" or "XYZism is the only what to go".
However, it has been pointed out that my question is very close to research, and I suppose it is - I am, after all, 'researching' the various systems..... but I'm doing so purely out of interest in the processes themselves, and not with a view to writing a paper based on anything I'd learn from my question, and am not hoping to impress some examiner with my grasp of world politics.

Chambers English Dictionary defines research as - a careful search; investigation; systematic investigation towards increasing the sum of knowledge.
Doesn't that define all questions asked in the CD?


----------



## zebedee

maxiogee said:


> On the CD forum, one of the rules states c) Please *do not* start threads
> -- that can be answered by a simple yes or no;
> -- that would promote chat (i.e. "what should I get my French boyfriend for his birthday?);
> -- that ask for *homework or research* help, or where to find a resource;​is it research which is forbidden or research help?



As the Rule says, it's research help. This rule came about after the CD forum was flooded with requests of the type:

_How much does a Eurorail ticket cost and what are the best countries to visit?

I'm going to study underwater basketweaving next year in the USA. Which is the best Uni to convalidate my credits?
_


----------



## winklepicker

maxiogee said:


> it has been pointed out that my question is very close to research


I hope I'm not offending anyone here, but that strikes me as utterly daft*. Is it being suggested that questions about the meaning of phrases in the language forums are not 'very close to research'? Of course they are. 

We rely on the mods to exercise common sense. Was it Churchill (that famous half AE half BE hybrid) who said that _common sense_ is so called, because it is neither common nor a sense?!

_* EDIT: Tricky thing, language. I mean the suggestion is daft, not your post, Maxiogee._


----------



## zebedee

winklepicker said:


> Is it being suggested that questions about the meaning of phrases in the language forums are not 'very close to research'?



No, winklepicker, it's not. We're not talking about the Language forums, we're talking about the guidelines for the Culture Discussions forum which is quite a different kettle of fish to the Language forums and, because of
its potentially boundless nature, it needs a clear set of guidelines to help people know what fits in there and what doesn't, which is what we're working on at the moment.

Thanks for your input though!


----------



## cherine

maxiogee said:


> Have we any definition of what constitutes "research" -- and, is it research which is forbidden or research help?



Hello Tony, 
 I'll use your thread about elections to clarify how I -as a moderator-think or "evaluate" research threads :


maxiogee said:


> Does anyone have experience of standing for election? Or for working for candidates or political parties which might shed light on the ways the different processes work?
> Can anyone tell us if their country changed its process and was that popular?
> Surely I'm not the only one more interested in the psephology than in the candidates?
> Is election-reform a topic in your country? What do the smaller parties in your country think of the fairness of the process?


The begining of your thread was about different elections processes. And I was just about to delete it as a research question until I found the last couple of questions.

Now, why did I think it's research? Because it's a question that can be answered by searching internet, looking up reference works or newspapers.
Why I came to think it's not a research question (though I still believe it's half research  ) ? Because of these questions :


> Is election-reform a topic in your country? What do the smaller parties in your country think of the fairness of the process?


These are questions of which answers are hard to find in reference works or the internet, and that need answers from people based on the experience.



maxiogee said:


> However, it has been pointed out that my question is very close to research, and I suppose it is - I am, after all, 'researching' the various systems..... but I'm doing so purely out of interest in the processes themselves, and not with a view to writing a paper based on anything I'd learn from my question, and am not hoping to impress some examiner with my grasp of world politics.


One more thing:
The purpose of a research question doesn't count in our decisions regarding such threads. It's beyond my abilities to determine why someone is asking to learn about XYZ subject, and I don't have the right to allow a research question because it's for purely informative purposes, and refuse another because it will earn the asker extra points in his/her exam. Fairness requires that the rule be applied equally. No ?


----------



## xrayspex

_It's beyond my abilities to determine why someone is asking to learn about XYZ subject, and I don't have the right to allow a research question because it's for purely informative purposes, and refuse another because it will earn the asker extra points in his/her exam. Fairness requires that the rule be applied equally. No ?_


No.  Because some of us are more equal than others.  Moderators have their own style and some appear to be more heavy handed than others.  Such moderators are probably unable to recognize themselves as being overzealous.   Lacking a meta-moderation system (see Slashdot.org if you don't know what I'm talking about) moderators really don't answer to anybody but themselves.  In my opinion this is a problem.


----------



## TrentinaNE

xrayspex said:


> Lacking a meta-moderation system (see Slashdot.org if you don't know what I'm talking about) moderators really don't answer to anybody but themselves. In my opinion this is a problem.


The moderators answer to each other and to the administrator.  If other forer@s find a moderator's decisions problematic, they need only contact Mike or a different moderator by PM to have the situation reviewed.  We do learn from each other.  

Elisabetta


----------



## Alxmrphi

Yeah but come on, I have heard of problems though the grapevine where a meta-moderating system might have stopped a lot of well......notniceness.
Surely this idea shouldn't be automatically dismissed?


----------



## Jana337

I visited the page mentioned by xrayspex and read something about their metamoderation system. From a FAQ page, I gather that their moderators actually rate messages (by labeling them as _informative_, _useless _and what not). That's very different from what we do. We basically maintain some order - informative titles, threads in correct forums, no spam, no flaming and so on. They have more than 400 moderators, we are approaching 40. In _their _system, I understand why they need another layer of moderation. Here, I don't. 


> Yeah but come on, I have heard of problems though the grapevine where a meta-moderating system might have stopped a lot of well......notniceness.
> Surely this idea shouldn't be automatically dismissed?


Senior members should know that moderators are a sufficiently heterogenous group for you to always find someone you can talk to when you have issues. In particular, a member who frequently talks to moderators privately should be perfectly aware of that. We cannot promise you will have it your way, though.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I don't mean to get my own way, I'm just wondering what other pros/cons about the idea might be.
I know there is such a wide variety of mods and plenty I will happily say anything I feel to (to their sometimes despair!) -
I was thinking in a more general sense of the concept it might end up everything being better tis all


----------



## panjandrum

The slashdot moderation and metamoderation system was born from a need to address high volume and a view that "25 people are easy to keep an eye on, but 400 is a different matter."  

The scheme is radically different, with posts displayed, or not, depending on the scores attributed to the posts by the temporary moderators and the threshold selected by the user.

In the same way that mods score posts - that's their role; metamods score the mods' scoring of posts.  Mods and metamods are transient roles.

It is a very different forum, operating in a very different environment.  There are different ways of working towards a clear and consistent moderation system.  Slashdot.org has one.  WordReference has one.


----------



## winklepicker

zebedee said:


> No, winklepicker, it's not.


Bum. Show me a stick and I'll get the wrong end of it. If I had a brain I'd be dangerous.


----------



## fenixpollo

zebedee said:


> As the Rule says, it's research help. This rule came about after the CD forum was flooded with requests of the type:
> 
> _How much does a Eurorail ticket cost and what are the best countries to visit?
> I'm going to study underwater basketweaving next year in the USA. Which is the best Uni to convalidate my credits?_


I agree that this is a bad thing and that the rule is a good idea. 





zebedee said:


> we're talking about the guidelines for the Culture Discussionsforum...needs a clear set of guidelines to help people know what fits in there and what doesn't, which is what we're working on at the moment.


 So it sounds like the current guidelines are being edited again. If that's true, then I agree with Tony that you need to define what "research" means to you in CD, so that the guidelines are clear.


----------



## fenixpollo

Jana337 said:


> Senior members should know that moderators are a sufficiently heterogenous group for you to always find someone you can talk to when you have issues. In particular, a member who frequently talks to moderators privately should be perfectly aware of that.


 We are perfectly aware that any member -- senior or not -- has the ability to find a mod that we can talk to when we have issues.  We are also perfectly aware that mods have the ability to find another mod to talk to when they have issues. What we are *not* perfectly aware of, however, is whether they do. Please understand that this is not a criticism of the mods, just an observation that the moderation system is in no way transparent to the members. Personally, I give you the benefit of the doubt that mods are making important mod decisions by discussing issues with other mods as a team, rather than decisions being made unilaterally... but the doubt still exists. 

The only way to reduce that doubt is (a) somehow make the mod decision-making process public, or (b) publish crystal-clear rules so that there's no doubt that the decisions made were fair.  I think that (a) is probably impossible, and you already do (b) very well... Tony's idea is just a suggestion for improvement of (b).


----------



## panjandrum

Thanks for that thoughtful post.

You're right about mods discussing issues with the mod team.  I suspect you would not believe just how much discussion sometimes goes on ... ... ... and on ... and on ...  

You're also right about (a).  It is very difficult to imagine how some of the processes could be made public.

On (b) crystal clear versions of all rules would be great.  We do try, but there also has to be a compromise between comprehensive and crystal clear rules, and quantity of text in the rules.

And there are some difficult issues - like context.  How much context is enough?  The real answer is that only those who know the answer to the question can tell you how much context is actually necessary to be certain of the answer.  You know when you haven't enough.


----------



## Vanda

Quoting Panjandrum:


> You're right about mods discussing issues with the mod team. I suspect you would not believe just how much discussion sometimes goes on ... ... ... and on ... and on ...


 
I second that. You have no idea!


----------



## TrentinaNE

panjandrum said:


> You're right about mods discussing issues with the mod team. I suspect you would not believe just how much discussion sometimes goes on ... ... ... and on ... and on ...


And all because we love *words* so much!


----------

