On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop>
wrote:
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.
I'm with Aaron on this one. In large part because I'm interested if
this system will be more effective than traditional systems.
The only thing I could see adding in on launch would be a button for "I
don't see anything wrong with my post. Can a mod review it and tell me
what, if anything, is wrong with it.?" This could also be a "If you
can't figure out why this post was flagged, email m...@snowdrift.coop
for more information." As a way to investigate if censorship is taking
place. I'm assuming that mods have (or will have) a way to see who
flagged a comment, to identify trends if needed.
Censorship is a more interesting concern than spam or trolling, because
it takes more sustained and targeted effort (ex: track a user over time
and flag all their posts, or actively follow a discussion and flag a
certain viewpoint). This seems more malicious/insidious to me than a
simple spammer. Also more difficult to deal with, whether you're using
this or a traditional system.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss