You are not a moderator, kayaker, and this comment is out of line.
There are in fact a number of comments in this thread that are out of line. I apologize for not stepping in sooner, but private life has been like that. So:
::: POUNDING GAVEL FOR ATTENTION :::
Behavior in this forum is supposed to be civil. An open discussion of moderator decisions (or non-decisions) is fine. Insults and nastiness are NOT. Please remain civil.
After internal discussion of the no-homework rule, we’ve concluded as follows:
The original rule, as stated in the registration agreement, says: "“Please do not ask other members to do your homework.” The idea is to encourage communal give and take. If a poster says, “Here’s an equation I was assigned to do for homework - please solve for X,” that’s all take and no give - it violates the rule.
The rule as restated in GQ says, “No homework questions … We won’t help with your homework.” On reflection, we’ve decided this takes matters too far. If a poster says, “Here’s a problem I got for homework. I don’t understand the principle involved. Can someone explain it to me?” this is likely to engender some useful back and forth. The OP may learn something, and the posters who contribute presumably will enjoy the interaction. The rule was not intended to prohibit this type of discussion. On review, Reza’s posts generally fall into this category and are permissible. We’ll amend the GQ rule to match the registration agreement.
Reza, judging from comments he has made, works as a tutor in Iran. We assume he gets paid for this. The fact that his posts enable him to get a better understanding of what he teaches, and thereby do a better job, isn’t a violation of our rules.
On occasion it appears Reza uses information he has obtained on this board to do homework assignments for his clients. We don’t approve of doing someone’s homework for them, and Reza’s clients might get in trouble if their school found out. However, we have no way of monitoring the off-board behavior of our posters, and are not in the business of ensuring they lead virtuous lives. If we discovered a poster was using information obtained here to commit a crime, we might do something about it, but Reza’s actions as far as we know don’t rise to that level, and we don’t feel obliged to investigate further.
The above notwithstanding, posters are expected to follow mod instructions. If a mod says not to start threads of a certain type, and you feel this is unjust, you’re free to make your case in ATMB. However, you must follow the mod’s instruction in the meantime.
You’re welcome to dispute a mod ruling in ATMB. However, we expect you to remain civil when you do so. Please refrain from insults or other violations of our rules.
I’ll leave this thread open for a bit in case there are questions. To repeat, please keep your comments civil.
Ed, thank you so much for a thoughtful reply. I certainly appreciate it.
I think Eds’ post clears thing up nicely, for me anyways.
Well, look at that…sometimes, the system works!
I can’t find anything in **Ed’s **post to disagree with.
Well, this is just downright reasonable and easy to understand.
Thank you Ed.
Can Ed be my doper crush? 
Thanks, Ed!
The thread in question has been reopened, if anyone would like to chime in on Reza’s inquiry.
Thanks, too, to Kayaker and KayT (from the other thread) for opening threads that gave us a chance to discuss this as a community.
So if I’m understanding it correctly, the new policy is that you still can’t ask for the answer to a homework question. But you can now ask for information that will be used to answer a homework question. Is that right?
Thanks Ed. This is an eminently sensible modification to the rules, and an eminently sensible resolution to Reza’s situation.
I will say that it’s a shame that this sensible approach wasn’t considered years ago, on one of the numerous other occasions when the “no homework” rule was over-zealously enforced. Better late than never, i guess.
It’s also nice that the new rule effectively puts the kibosh on TubaDiva’s desire to police the morality of what members do with their information once they step away from the message board.
More or less. A better way to think of it is: you can’t ask people to tell you the answer, but you can ask how to figure out the answer for yourself. To adapt an old expression: don’t say give me a fish; rather say: *teach me to fish. *
Thanks to all involved for giving this some careful thought and making what seem to be very reasonable decisions.
Please understand: the intent here was not to put the kibosh on TubaDiva or anyone else on the staff; it was to clarify a rule whose interpretation had drifted over the years. I remind you that Tuba and the rest of the staff put in an extraordinary amount of work for minimal compensation. It’s largely because of their efforts that the SDMB remains, in my opinion, one of the best boards on the net. If you disagree about this or that mod action, you’re free to make your views known, but there’s no need to be snotty about it. I live in terror that the staff will decide en masse at some point: we don’t need this shit. Please don’t hasten that day.
The intent was not really my concern. The result is what i was happy with.
TubaDiva, in her most recent post, said:
She made clear in this post that she believed it was appropriate for the SDMB to police the morality of what its members do with the knowledge they gain here. Because Reza used the help he received here to facilitate his work, and because that work involves solving problems for money, she argued that it was inappropriate for the SDMB to allow his questions.
The new rules you outlined make clear that the SDMB is “not in the business of ensuring [its members] lead virtuous lives.” I think that this is a good and appropriate policy, and i am glad that it has trumped the ridiculous desire, expressed by TubaDiva, to police the virtue of Dopers’ off-board lives. That was my only point, and all the encomiums (encomia?) in the world, testifying to the selfless devotion of the moderators, doesn’t change that fact.
It’s convenient to lump all the moderators in together, i guess, because that makes me seem like an asshole who’s just piling on the generous folks who give up all their time to this board. The fact is, though, that some moderators are damn good at their job, and some are pretty mediocre. Unfortunately, it sometimes seems that the least capable ones are also the ones who have made the greatest personal investment in the SDMB, and who would be like a ship stuck in the doldrums without it. If some of those folks threatened to leave, your best response might be, “Please don’t throw me in the briar patch!”
In fairness, I think that comment was more of a lawyer joke than an attempt at junior modding. ** Kayaker** was discussing a well known rule of evidence, and inferring a potential for sanctions against an attorney under our ethical rules.
I thought it was funny, but it may be a little too “inside” for non-lawyers.
Even though, as noted, this rule is reasonable and easy to understand, I would still like to mention that if anyone bothers answering such a question then there is by definition some give and take going on already. And even if the OP walked away at that point with a lazily-gotten answer and posted no more if others continued reading and posting in the thread it would continue giving without any taking at all.
Someone could post an almost identical question but out of idle curiosity instead of framed as a homework question and posters would either be interested in answering or they wouldn’t as is the case with any topic. It still seems odd to make this distinction only when it comes to homework.
But with the additional questions about Reza’s specific case resolved and those about posters using information they learn here in professional endeavors or whether the SDMB is enforcing ethics rules all addressed quite reasonably and clearly, this is easy enough to accept as just being one of those idiosyncratic SDMB things.
The purpose of the board is to fight ignorance. Assisting people to understand the subject they are studying does that. Handing them the answers, which they copy down without understanding, does not.
Thank you but I had actually intended the question for TBTP and wasn’t seeking the opinion of an individual poster.
Most of what you have written in this thread in support of the rule as it was being discussed has already been proven wrong and wasn’t the rationale the board administration had in mind when they created it.
And your answer here is incorrect and incomplete as well. Wouldn’t that thread go on to fight the ignorance of many in the future who find it by searching the web regardless of the OP’s situation?
Please leave management of the staff to me, mhendo.
'Nuff said.
Since the OP has now been addressed, and everyone seems reasonably clear on what the no-homework policy is, I’m closing this thread.