On 10/19/2015 01:47 PM, 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? >
Actually, we've so far had no violations of the Code of Conduct at all within the system anyway. The features we *do* need are moderator controls and permissions to assure that flagging isn't abused. We need a function for moderators to remove someone's flagging permissions. But yes, there will be room to tweak and to see how things go. And we *do* need to make sure that there are ramifications in the end for false-flagging. That remains a speculative concern beyond the level of the core flagging system. Given the whole process to get established, accept the honor pledge, and the specific flagging procedure, we may basically never have legitimate users abuse this at all. If flagging worked without specifying the violation, people could just flag for "I don't like this", but we require people to specify what the violation was, and then it is *obvious* if you simply check something with no basis, and we can turn off your flagging privileges. In other words, the work of having to specify what specific part of the CoC was violated blocks normal legitimate people from flagging just over not liking something. Only actually malicious trolls will flag something otherwise. A normal person will see the list, recognize that this view they don't like doesn't violate any of these items and give up on the flagging. It's an important burden for the flagger to clarify from the limited set of issues what makes this deserve to be flagged. -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
