Moderators Partiality

[former_member188028]

Hi,

Moderators are showing partiality especially in Financial forums.

They are closing the threads at thier own Discretion(Assumed by moderator)

Also they are blocking the threads and giving the reasons just this is a Basic question.

And at the same time they are giving the replies just basic questions and getting the points.

Somany users facing this problem especially in Financial Forum.

Rgds

Murali. N

[ThomasZloch · Accepted solution]

Please post some links as examples for further discussion.

I generally agree that moderators locking one basic question and answering another one (other than in the points-free quarantine area) don't look good.

Thomas

[former_member188028 · Accepted solution]

Hi Thomos,

Thanks for the reply.

Please check the below threads which replied by me and blocked by moderator with the cause of Basic questions.

Where please check also the below threads which are answered by a moderator. How they are allowing and answering to this basic questions. Why the following questions are not basic?

These are just examples, if you check Financials forum, there are so many like this.

Rgds

Murali. N

[atif_farooq · Accepted solution]

Hi Murali:

I will hundred percent agree with you. This has happened to me on many occasions and moderators are not showing rational behavior in assessing the question worth. Please have a look on the link given below

I do not find the link which could answer the link given below but still moderator saying avoid asking basic question

The link given below was marked "Assumed as answered by a Moderator" but later on upon complaint of original poster it was given attention by Matt. What does this show now

Link given below was a genuine question but it was locked

Moderation should inculcate other to post and contribute on SDN forum but what is being done is not justifiable. Perhaps one reason could be that moderators try to assess question using using their own caliber . This is just a thought, actual reasons may vary.

Regards

[ThomasZloch · Accepted solution]

The examples sound indeed all basic (I'm not the functional FI expert though), so the correct procedure is to lock or move to points-free area ("Test & Playground" in lack of a better place at this point). When this is being done, the reason and moderator name should be obvious, the latter is missing in the examples.

I do remove points in threads that were being moved to the points-free area (which is technically not points-free, very unfortunately), in order to keep point hunting (focussing on redundant, basic, frequently asked questions just for the sake of gaining points) and spoon feeding in check.

I want to make one thing clear at this point, moderators cannot adjust their own points, this is technically ensured (no radio buttons available for our own posts) and should be morally obvious anyway.

I will see if I can direct more attention to this thread.

Thomas

[former_member188028 · Accepted solution]

Hi Thomos,

Thanks for the reply.

Here I am talking about the threads which are replied by a moderator.

How can he reply to such basic questions and on the other hand he is blocking the threads replied by users.

don't have a choice/option to users to continue their thread when they are not clear about the provided solution?

So many threads, moderators are blocking at their own discretion.

Rgds

Murali. N

[iklovski · Accepted solution]

Hi Murali,

I think we have been through this already. Six months ago you were complaining that moderators lock the threads after you have posted your replies. You have been saying that moderators should be awake and intercept such threads before other users answer them. I might add that these complains were made in a quite sarcastic way.

You were explained then that SDN forums have certains rules and certain type of questions should not be answered, but rather reported via 'Abuse reports'. Further, you were told that moderators are not following the forums 7/24 and might intervene at any moment.

In spite of these warnings, I have to state, that many of your postings still violate this concept. I hope, you'd agree that question

 i have one problem. i want to assign the tollerence group with the user group 

should be considered as non-serious and basic. In the threads, that you have pointed as answered by moderators (myself, I believe), you didn't notice that, by doing so, I also marked these messages as answered, i.e. don't worry - I won't collect any ponits for this

Your contribution is very important on FI forum. If you just try, when posting a response, think whether the user has made the necessary search before posting his/her question. I'm sure that if you do so, the quality of your postings, and therefore the benefit for the community, will only gain.

Best regards,

Eli

[iklovski · Accepted solution]

Hello Atif,

As mentioned by Matt, locking is a subjective thing, and moderators (and even SAP mentors ) can make mistakes exactly as other users. Errare humanum est. However, if I analyze the threads in your post I don't see any drustic errors there:

-isn't it basic? It's a standard SAP error and a little search on SDN will give you several threads about this process (some of these threads are even mentioned in the replies)

- it has been discussed 1000 times

- what's genuine here? it's a standard SAP process, which is well explained in SAP manual

etc., etc.

Your contribution is very important to FI forum. I just assume that it will be even better if you try to stick more to SDN rules, avoiding answering basic questions (and even report them via Abuse report).

Best regards,

Eli

[stephenjohannes · Accepted solution]

I would agree there has been and continues to be a disconnect in moderating styles and judgement calls in terms of what should be allowed. However there is an on-going effort to develop some universal guidelines for moderators and training so that things are more consistent. The good news is that moderators want to be consistent, the bad news is that it will take a while before it is accomplished.

Now the only the other thing to keep in mind is that rules that moderators enforce works more like the strike zone in baseball. For my friends who don't follow baseball, the strike zone is an area that determines whether the pitch throw is a strike(counts against the batter) or a ball (counts in favor of the batter). A pitch is when the ball is thrown towards a person holding who attempts to hit the ball with his/her bat to put the ball into play. The problem is that the strike zone even though is well defined via rules, it is never the same because each umpire can see it in a slightly different fashion.

There are some umpires whose calls make it larger and some who make the zone smaller. Most of the time its not because they are in favor towards the hitter, but because its a limitation of their physical senses. Likewise with moderation there are always going to be cases where two moderators will view the same post differently in terms of whether it should be allowed or not.

Finally if a moderator answers a basic question and then locks it for response, it usually means they are trying to be "nice" and provide and answer but avoid the appearance they are looking for rewards. It's lot easier to just delete the question or lock it instead of trying to provide a little nudge in the right direction. I much rather see some moderator imparitiality in trying to occasionaly provide some direction via locked threads with no rewards than just a pure lock and delete scenario.

Take care,

Stephen

[iklovski · Accepted solution]

Stephen, I quite agree with you.

[marilyn_pratt]

I've been following this conversation and trying to get a feel for whether your complaint is being addressed.

There looks to be a good attempt to respond to your concerns and to counter-balance them with additional information. If you have further issues you are welcome to address me directly.

Marilyn

[former_member188028]

Thanks to all

[matt]

I don't see any partiality. There is no reason to suppose the moderator who is alledgely answering basic questions is the same as the one who is locking/marking as assumed answered. I do not have the specific knowledge to determine whether the questions are basic or not.

The determination of a question as basic is, naturally, subjective. What's basic to one person, won't be to another. Moderation is an art, not a science. You might disagree with a moderators decision, and you're entitled to raise that disagreement. Ultimately though, someone has to make the call. And if not a moderator, then who? And if not by his own discretion, then by what means?

I do think that anonymous moderation should be prevented. Unfortunately, the current system has no audit function that enables us to find who deleted posts, or marked them as answered/not answered or locked them.

> So many users facing this problem

Can you quantify your assertion. Out of the 400 posts (or so) made per week in Financials, how many are affected by, in your eyes, unfair moderation?

[former_member188028]

Finally I understand, no use to post our suggestions/comments here to improve the community.

Obviously moderators doesn't see any partiality because they are moderators.

[matt]

I'm trying to be constructive. Perhaps you could make that attempt as well.

I can only applaud a desire to improve the community. However, I reject totally your statement that I do not find partiality among moderators because I am one. That's really very offensive. If I truly wanted not to have this discussion, I could simply delete or reject your thread. That has not happened, so I think it's safe to assume there's a genuine wish on our side to engage with our community, and take your posting seriously.

As I understand your complaint:

1. Many posts are being locked/marked as assumed answered on the basis of being basic questions.

2. Moderator posts that you consider basic are not being dealt with in the same way.

I assume that you are aware that a principle long-established in this forum is that basic, easily answered, frequently asked questions are not wanted. Do you agree with this? Your complaint then is about the way that this principle is implemented. Do you agree with this?

Moderator judgements over what's basic and what isn't are subjective. Given there are multiple moderators, with different criteria, it seems inevitable to me that some moderators will reject or answer posts that others wouldn't. That does not in and of itself imply any partialitiy on the part of moderators - just different standards.

Do you have any proposals how your concerns could be addressed. I freely admit that at the moment, I don't see a problem. But I'm always open to suggestions for improvement.

>So many threads, moderators are blocking at their own discretion.

I'm puzzled by this statement. Moderators lock threads. How else are we supposed to do except at our own discretion?

matt

Edited by: Matt on Aug 4, 2011 2:04 PM