I think the best option to do right now is just open the forum for everyone to answer, and give the moderators the ability to close threads, maybe even the ability to delete post when they see something wrong with the answers.

CD is heading toward a direction of having more moderators from other teams anyway, so I think this is the right move. With enough moderators, you got enough people to check the answers and make sure it's good. Then we can even promote people to moderators base on how many good answers they provided in the Q&A forum.

Like I said, I understand why there were only certain people who were to answer questions. And I realize that allowing only some people to answer helps keep down the "clutter" in posts. But from a personal standpoint, it was frusterating when someone had a question and I knew the answer but couldn't respond. Sometimes it would take hours or even a day or two for one of the moderators to answer the questions. I'm not dissing the moderators at all, I think they did a wonderful job keeping up with answering questions but -- do you see where I'm coming from?

- Katie

i know exactly what you mean. i stand at the point of people who "think" they know the correct answer and post an answer that is false. thats what we dont want to happen. expecially for the younger and rookie teams...

I dont think it was that great. The q and a on the first site was good. I think that it helped a lot of people.

Goos Luck To Everyone going to IRI.

you could have it that people such as mentors or people you know are worthy for there answers can answer cuase i was just discouraged on using it cause i couldnt reply to anythign so i just ahd the question answered somewhere else. Then i could get diffrent opinions and see diffretn ways to do it and even debate how to do it

I think it should stay open, and remain in the current form.
However, it needs a more dedicated moderator, who can "Tweak" all the questions into a better format. The questions all need to be clear, and concise, and their subjects need to be easily identifiable to aid searching. Also, questions should be screened, to prevent repeat questions, and to do some preliminary editing BEFORE the question is posted to the public.

The answers similarly need some moderation.
I like the concept of few moderators answering questions. All people are NOT created equal in this competition, and not everyone is smart enough to keep their mouth shut (even if they have nothing to say). In fact, some people post JUST to say "Wow, I have nothing to contribute!". (I wish I was kidding...)

Anyways... These are just my observations and opinions.

All in all, the QA forum seems as though it does SOME good, and that is reason enough to keep it around.

I think that with some heavy moderating, the forums will be useful. Another thing that might be nice is to come up with an FAQ about the game (maybe after the first few days or so--the moderators could compile common questions and post the accepted answers in one thread, and it would be stuck on top). Also, whenever someone asks a repeat, there should be a link posted to another thread with the answer, and then close the repeat thread. This way we don't get 10 replies and clutter up the forum. I think you should go ahead and put more moderators like you were planning, only instead of the moderators beeing the sole answerers, they will be incharge of heavily moderating the Q&A forum, so that it remains useful and relevant. With more Q&A moderators, problems can be addressed more quickly, and I doubt there will be much of a problem with opening up posting to all users. Besides, some people are complete ChiefDelphi addicts, and are on all the time, so they can at least be doing something productive if a few of them are moderators :D (not making fun of ChiefDelphi addicts, though ... I'm a card carrying member ;))

/me withdraws 2 cents
Stephen

Here is my idea, have it open, but once it is answered by a mod or by another person CORRECTLY it will be locked so that excess discussion will be avoided.

I agree, think of how many times especially at the first website Q&A that the same question was asked 3,4,5 or 6 times. It makes it not only harder on the people answering the questions, it makes it harder on teams that are searching for answers to questions on the boards.

Good Luck To everyone at the invitationals

I don't understand what's bad about excessive discussion -- particularly when the question's already been answered.

Sometimes, I learn by talking things through. Reading it isn't always good enough, and there are plenty of reference materials around that are better suited to that.

I'd rather not give more work to Brandon, but if the Q&A Forum is to remain, then I'd prefer to see a system in place that rewards people for helpful answers and discourages posts with no purpose, or that an enormously large number of moderators exist to review and approve replies from anyone. But then, if the moderators are online at that time and know enough to decide whether an answer is appropriate, they could very well be answering it themselves.

I'd rather see that everyone be given an opportunity to learn in the way that's easiest and best for them, and by limiting who can post to these forums seems like it's adding an extra obstacle to making an impact on someone.

Overall, I think the group of moderators did very well. The questions asked did eventually get answered, although some weren't as fast as I would have hoped. The extra discussion worked pretty well. It kept all the clutter to one area, while the Q&A Forum was clean.

I don't like the rating system idea though. If someone just doesn't like you then what's to keep them from giving you a bad rating 'just because'? Who's to say that their reason for giving you a bad rating is a valid one? People may not like your answers, but that doesn't mean they aren't correct.



Here's my idea. Leave the Q&A discussion open to everyone. If a post doesn't follow the rules, anyone can use the "Report this post to the moderator" link. If an administrator deems that post is against rules, it is deleted, and a strike placed against the poster. Three strikes and you're out.

Rules of the forum (grounds for deletion):
1. No "clutter" posts/answers. Posts that are so off-topic that they don't count.
2. "One line" responses. If you don't have an answer with adequate reasons to back up your repsonse, then don't post. As a rule, "Every answer should be followed by a paragraph of reasons." The exception is if you post a link to the rulebook, or another post on this forum, or a post on the FIRST Q&A forum.
3. Duplicate responses. If someone has already answered in the same way, then don't post. There's no need to post a link to rule "GM34" 17 times.

These rules would keep clutter to a minimum. People are forced to do some research of their own before they post an answer. If there isn't any information to back up what you said, then explain how you came to the conclusion/answer that you did. Use common sense. When you write a research paper, you just don't say "the yankees suck". You explain why you think they suck.

Likewise, if someone doesn't like you, they could just as easily give you a strike. At some point, we're going to have trust the people who use this forum.

Again, if a moderator is present to delete a response they know is incorrect, they could be better using that time to write a correct response.

If they're not around to see that an answer is incorrect, the incorrect answer remains posted.

In either case, this system does nothing, necessarily, to decrease the response time for a given question. While there's a chance that the correct answer may get posted faster, there's conceivably an equal chance that an incorrect answer is posted. If you're relying on moderators to decide and give their stamp of approval, you may as well just wait on the moderator in the first place.

Read the entire response please. I posted that, if a post is deleted, it would be sent to an administrator to prevent that from happening, if the administrator agrees, then the strike is issued. It's a lot easier for the admin to check over a few deleted posts than 20 ratings.

You're missing the point entirely.

I never said they were to delete incorrect answers. It doesn't matter if an answer is inccorect or correct, it stays there. Just as long as an answer is backed up with proof or reasoning, it's a valid point.

Laziness is the trouble maker on these forums. If people are forced to think about the answers they write before they post them, then they just might post the correct answer. If it isn't correct, oh well, if you have reasons why you thought it was correct, and wrote them out in your post, you're safe.

I can't see the practicality in making the Q&A Forum a 12 step program to rehabilitate stupid people.

EDIT: Okay, fine.

What you're proposing adds several more layers of complexity to the operation of this forum that it just doesn't need. You're suggesting that anyone can answer, that "experts" oversee those answers, that an administrator double-check the "experts" to make sure they're behaving properly -- all under the guise of giving everyone a chance to answer.

Who needs all this red tape?

If you leave incorrect responses in the Q&A Forum, which was created with the intent or providing a quick & direct answer, without the off-topic discussion that may come about in regular threads, you're failing at the mission of the forum.

I don't agree with the mission of the forum. I say, "Caveat Emptor," so to speak. Just like everything in life, you get the good with the bad, and an enormous part of life is learning to decipher between the two. I can't understand why this should be or needs to be any different.

None of what you're suggesting does anything to ensure that a question receives a correct answer in a shorter period of time than it might given the current arrangement of the forum. From what I've seen, the largest complaint about the forum has been that many people can provide answers in a much faster timeframe than the norm.

So, what will it be? Do we maintain an elite class or do we take the risks of giving of everyone the opportunity to show what they're made of, for better or worse?

I vote the latter.

If you're here to pick a fight, please don't. This thread is about cooperative discussion on how to fix the Q&A forum.

The entire point of my idea is to make people more self-aware. It's to eliminate the "one line" responses that have no thought whatsoever applied to them. If people are forced to think about what they've posted, we might just get a few correct responses.

Honestly, with this idea there really isn't a need for extra moderators. There already is a "report this post to a moderator" feature. If someone posts something without reasons as to why they think it's correct, they get reported. Brandon, Ken L, and David Kelly can make the decision pretty easily.

There are no incorrect answers. Every answer is correct, as long as it is backed up with valid reasons. Some answers may be more correct than others, when applied to the rules of FIRST.

Actually, it is. My suggestion is to open up the forum to everyone, so they can post their response. The rules set in place are to "weed out" the poor responses that have no practicality whatsoever. Let me put it this way. Say you had a question and you spent 1/2 hour typing out a big long paragraph considering all the possibilities. How would you feel if all you got was an answer that said "No."? Pretty empty, huh? Probabaly feel cheated, like you deserve more than "No."

People don't learn if you just give them an answer. You have to tell them why it's correct.