How to report a Moderation Notification?

[former_member195402]

Sometimes we may get a moderation notification of type

Your content "xyz" has been rejected by an SCN moderator and is no longer visible in the community. Please see the Rules of Engagement for more information on why content is rejected.

This is followed by a line with a reason.

For example today I've got the

Reason: Don't post just links. Don't answer FAQs. Report to moderator and abide by moderator instructions.

• First I didn't post just a link, but a complete sentence answering the question including a link.
• Second I've searched SCN myself for the question and wouldn't label it as a FAQ, maybe it's an AQ.
• Third  neither posting links nor answering FAQs is described in the Rules of Engagement document.

Therefore I'm thinking, that some moderators have their own Rules of Engagement and don't know the real existing rules themselves.

But how to report those misguided moderators? For I can't see the name of the mod, I can't contact him directly. So I hope there is a way to stop those abnormal moderator activities. Otherwise it won't make sense, trying to help other SCN members.

Samples:

The reason codes can't be found in the Rules of Engagement document.

What can I do now?

Regards,

Klaus

[matt · Accepted solution]

The correct place for discussions concerning moderation is here. 

There is no facility within the moderation tools to add a link to my profile so you know who you are dealing with. There are only 255 characters available to supply an information. To compensate for this, I monitor this part of the site, so I can respond to any requests for clarification - where the simple request or information isn't seen as sufficient.

I rejected your post because the core content was a link - even if it was surrounded by some text. The question itself was, in my view, a FAQ. This is most often evidenced by the fact that the question garners answers comprising mainly links to found results. The logic is - if it can be answered with a link, then the OP could have found it. Even if it is an AQ not a FAQ.

The Rules of Engagement are not definitive. They are basis for what is permissible. Moderation is not bound solely by the RoE, but is aimed at any activity which causes harm to the community as a whole. Therefore moderators may engage members through the moderation tools to correct what they perceive as harmful behaviour, even if it isn't explicit in the RoE. Moderation does not happen in vacuum, with each moderator operating autonomously (or megalomaniacally) within their own space. We have our own section where we (moderators and administrators) regularly discuss approaches to moderation.

I have not just recently started rejecting posts that answer FAQs, really basic questions and/or comprise mainly links. I've been doing this since strict moderation was implemented some 8 or so years ago. I also will on occasion reject answers that are factually incorrect or misleading.

[former_member195402 · Accepted solution]

Hi Matthew,

I often read the Rules of Engagement, also before answering the "current issue", and there was nothing within that prevented me from answering the question.

Additional fact is, that the SCN search is very misleading. You get tons of answers, but the right one may be missing. For example if I search this thread with the title words REPORT MODERATION NOTIFICATION I get six pages of links without the right one, while an external search engine (with glasses) brings it as the first result with SCN REPORT MODERATION NOTIFICATION.

So I'm trying to help users finding the right SCN link without using SCN search myself for better and matching results.

On the other hand there are FAQs coming every week and they are not rejected. also they can be answered with a single link. Answering the question with the solution from the link and without the link is not allowed because of the copyright rules.

The reason codes of the Moderation Notifications cannot be found in the Rules of Engagement in most cases, however this document is linked in the answer with the demand note to read it. But after reading it, the result is, that there is no reason for rejection available there.

Only conclusion: I was following the rules, but the moderator did not.

If there are additional rules from the moderator and administrator group, please embed them into the rules of engagement or add some understandable scenarios.

Until now I can't understand your current rejection reason reading the RoE again and again and again ...

Or you can add an explanation for such an Moderation Notification in the RoE like:

After receipt of an Moderation Notification throw a pencil at your colleague, cry out loud, damn all mods and dismiss the MN after that.

Best regards,

Klaus

Dear Mods, please leave the dark side of the Force !

[JL23 · Accepted solution]

Here are the rules for us moderators, you can see that there are a few more actions.

While it often talks about locking, I think it is much better to reject those to avoid that this kind of questions even add  more confusion in the search.

I am actually only using the SCN search, and I really like it, I often get the right answers among the first 10 hits shown.

In any case, you are living in this house too, which means if you see others  leaving dirt (FAQs) then report them yourself instead of leaving it for others. Moderators are not employed by SAP to do the work here, they have their normal job like you. It is pretty tough to read through any post and any answer, so we need people like you who are often here and know what is a FAQ helping us to fight against the laziness.

In a few months we will have a different platform, we will see partly different rules then.

[matt · Accepted solution]

I think point 2 is of particular importance for you, so I've highlighted it for your convenience.

1. The main goal of moderators is to prevent activity that harms the site.

FAQs, basic questions covered in training, links etc. harm the site.

2. The Rules of Engagement are not exhaustive.

As the community evolves, moderators of particular spaces are free to challenge behaviour that, in their view, harms the site.

3. Instructions concerning moderation are communicated in three ways.

i. Rules of Engagement

ii. The SCN Support space

iii. Rejection notifications

4. There is room for improvement.

But we have to work with the tools that we have, and within technical and temporal constraints.

5. There is an implicit obligation on all members of this site to follow moderator direction.

There have been cases where members have been suspended for failing to do this. But only ever as a last resort.

6. We rely on members helping to keep things clean.

While I and other moderators work hard to keep the site clean, given the volume of posts it is inevitable that we will miss posts that should be rejected. Hence my message to you "don't answer FAQs - report to moderator".

You may disagree with any or all of these - but that's the way it is currently working. If you wish to discuss any specific topic, I suggest you open a thread for each one, rather than role your complaints and suggestions into a single thread. Personally I'm all for transparency and open discussion.

Final though: Moderation is necessarily a subjective art - not an objective science. I.e. someone will always disagree with any moderator decision.

[former_member195402 · Accepted solution]

Hi Jürgen,

thank you for the link to the Moderator RoE. One interesting point in the General Moderator Guidelines is

FAQ discussion threads: Create answered discussions' FAQ.

A link to this document will be more helpful in a Moderation Notification than a link to the RoE, when the reason can be found in the FAQ document. I don't know this document, but it should be located near or under the link to the RoE on the ABAP Development start page.

Regards,

Klaus

[former_member195402 · Accepted solution]

Hi Matthew,

point 2 looks like a whitewash paragraph. But also the General Moderator Guidelines contain a text part

Be a Role Model: Your actions should reflect the rules of engagement and behavior that is expected from all SCN users. As a moderator, your actions will be taken as examples of conduct by members so behave in the same way you'd expect them to behave.

For a normal user only knows his RoE and not your Moderator Enhancements, your decisions won't be understandable in several cases regarding the RoE.

And if you want to close all questions, that never had been answered before, then you have to reject more then 90 percent of them in the ABAP Development forum. Otherwise for a solution from 2010 there might be a better one in 2015, so answered FAQs may need an update as well.

I honour your activities for the community (all mods) and like most of your answers (especially yours).

But several times there were questions rejected, where the mod didn't recognize the open issue never answered in SCN before, reading the question in a flyby mode. Not all questions looking like FAQs are FAQs, and some are only frequently asked but never answered. 

And just to think for all ABAP Development moderators: An newbie to ABAP normally is also a newbie to SCN. And if he has an issue, he will not have weeks to learn SCN before he can ask his question (when SDN turned into SCN I left it for about 18 months, because I couldn't find anything here including my own posts!). Moderators can not reject all newbie questions, and if you would do so, you would scare them away. The forums are here to help users, not to frustrate them.

So now I've finished blowing off steam (sometimes needed).

I'll close with a "thank you for all your dedication to the forum work", have a nice weekend and don't be angry with grateless community users (especially me). 

Regards,

Klaus

[matt · Accepted solution]

It's not whitewash. Rather a reflection of the reality of moderation. I am a member of (and moderate) several forums. If you attempt to have a definitive list of rules, then there are some people (and no, I don't think you're one of them) who will try to sail as close to the wind as they can, and then whine and argue when their activites are curtailed. You also find you get into arguments over the interpretations of the rules.

That is why in my considered opinion and experience, guidelines are more effective, with further guidance coming from the moderators. In the previous forum software we had sticky posts that could (and did!) contain this information. There are a few blogs, but the trouble is still that people have to find them. Maybe this situation will improve in future.

Yes, there will always be incorrect mod decisions. Given the volumes and time constraints, this is inevitable.It's a judgement call. All we can do is offer avenues of appeal, and try to make them as obvious as possible. I occasionally get emails from the administrators asking my why I rejected specific posts. And occasionally posts get reinstated.

I will say that a significant cause of the deficiencies in moderation are the tools we have to work with. It is a source of frustration for me and others. Hopefully this will be addressed soon.