On 19.10.2015 23:02, Aaron Wolf wrote: > > > 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.
Maybe flagging permission should be something you earn after your 10th (100th?) post? > > 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. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
