On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> 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 have every reason to suspect that actually our community won't even > have real conflicts and will have no trouble editing because everyone > mostly has good will. People who think they should have the right to be > assholes are people we don't want, and they are the minority anyway. > > Obviously, we'll see how it goes, but the most likely case is that > people find themselves surprised about a flagging because they didn't > mean to be condescending, they will then say "oh, I see how this could > be that way, okay, I'll fix it" and we move on and we successfully > *avoid* the sorts of drawn out public confrontations we otherwise see > online typically. > > So far, there's been no problems with this, and we'll adjust if need be. > For what it's worth, I've been to events with people who spend full time > managing online communities and they all think our approach sounds great > and wanted to know more about the software and maybe would think about > going that direction themselves. Only it's *way* harder to impose this > after-the-fact. > > Basically, we can start with this blunt but thought-out approach, and > it's FAR *easier* to make flagging harder or otherwise pull back on > flagging if we need to than it is to impose more aggressive flagging > later after it's already too late and we've had issues. > This is a really good point. But I agree with Robert that the censorship bothers me. What if the flagged comment wasn't automatically removed from the site, but they still received a request to modify their comment. If they don't address the issue by either modifying or otherwise working it out with whoever took offense, we could have some other protocol for mediating the issue. The point is just that the comment wouldn't automatically be censored as a result of someone else taking issue with it. > > -- > Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
