On 10/19/2015 03:47 PM, mray wrote: > > > On 20.10.2015 00:36, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> >> >> On 10/19/2015 03:29 PM, mray wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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?! >>> >>> >> >> It's only censorship of the specific items from the Code of Conduct. >> > > I start at the premise of ill intend.
Assuming bad faith is actually a CoC violation! ;) > Somebody *can* misuse the flagging function no matter what our CoC says. > Technically this capability is censorship - although probably short > lived. But as bryan noted - removing a post only for hours can be pretty > effective. > > Hence this is like giving potential lunatics an easy first shot, so > maybe we should hand out this gun only to people that have shown true > interest in the project and given the chance to not have been flagged > for some time. > We already do not give flagging permissions to all new users. Users must take enough actions to get a moderator to mark them eligible and *then* they have to accept the honor pledge. I further think that formal delays for flagging privileges like only after posting X number of legitimate comments is a good way to have a backup. And this really is a topic where we can adapt later if necessary. We do not want people to *hesitate* to flag actual violations, we want violations cleaned up quickly and simply, and as long as there are *active* moderators, they can respond if someone abuses the flagging system. And no, in our case, some hours of delay on a comment is *not* a huge deal. But here's the real situation: The initial idea was to actually require a handful of legitimate posts or other legitimate activities before someone is even marked eligible for full established-user permissions at all. Being fully-established gives users the ability to even do things like edit wiki pages. The chance of abuse there is as great and serious as the chance of abusive flagging. There's a point where a user establishes themselves enough that we trust them as a legitimate user to do things like edit wiki pages and flag comments. There's little reason at this time to actually think that such users will abuse flagging at all, and if they do, moderators can still step in. It would be totally unacceptable to let new users on the site immediately come and flag comments, but that's not what we're doing. The only issue we need to deal with right now is better clarification of the prerequisites for overall eligibility (which then confers wiki-edit / posting / flagging etc. after accepting the honor pledge). Right now it's just "when a moderator thinks a user is legit". This is a case where we definitely can *later* and *if necessary* add a second stage where users can post without moderation but not flag or edit wiki pages. -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
