On 19.10.2015 22:47, Bryan Richter wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> >> On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote: >>> I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To >>> check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate >>> speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every other >>> discussion board ever for examples of this. >> >> I think you're misunderstanding how it works based on the way that >> Robert's mock-ups showed it. >> >> <snip really long description of how it works> > > For what it's worth, while I understand and acknowledge the positive > aspects of the Snowdrift flagging system, I think we should > acknowledge there's still room for abuse. I can flag you for whatever > I want if I don't like what you've said, and I have instantly silenced > you. Your point of view will go unheard for however many minutes, > hours, or days it takes for you to have time to edit your post. That is > *plenty* of time to be effectively extincted from an online > conversation. There is no tradeoff for me, either. > > Second, can we really expect someone to objectively, rationally, edit > their post in response to a flagging? >
Those two terms contain exactly my concerns. Technically this is censorship. It assumes that people don't hesitate to flag quickly and react calm to flagging. That is asking for lots of cooperation on both ends. I guess we'll have to find out if our community will play along?!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
