Moderation

In view of certain moderation practices carried out by some pple, i feel inclined to give my personal views on moderation.

Rules of moderation
1) In any moderation, the order of marks should be preserved. That means if A orignally possesses marks higher than B, the same order should follow after moderation.
2) In any moderation, people with equal marks before the moderation should end up with equal marks after moderation.
3) In any moderation, no one should suffer any decrease of marks! This defeats the purpose of moderation in the first place.

In view of this, to moderate a paper by choosing certain best questions is definitely a no-no, for it violates principle 2. If certain questions are set as compulsory and others as optional, it only makes things worse as this will violate principle 1,2, and 3!

When the government gives out bonus packages, true, there are people that get very little money. But none actually need to pay fine to the government. (analogous to decrease in marks after moderation). To violate this rule would be a huge injustice and goes against human rights and logic.

It is ok to have a skewed moderation (like taking root then * 10), for the above principles will be obeyed, just that some people benefit more than others. But to have a moderation that punishes some people, is simply unreasonable.

Life is certainly never fair, but it definitely helps if we do our part to make sure the situation does not get worse than it currently is.