« first day (2421 days earlier)   

12:12 AM
@Mokubai, I would tend to think it is more flattering than anything else. Looking at things from the glass-half-full perspective, they are very forthcoming and hyperlink the original question as well as crediting the members who posted the answers. They also seem to make an effort to portray Super User in a very positive manner, and I actually know a few junior Sys Admin personnel where I work who have become very interested in our community after initially hearing about in on How-To Geek.
@Run5k SU's had a good relationship with HTG. I seem to remember they were even a honorary mod for a bit.
Someone's basically searching for words like <female dog> and flagging them for profanity
@JourneymanGeek Huh? What makes you think that?
On chat?
cause I'm seeing the flags
On main
Some of them are relevant. Roboflagging just seems... abusive
@JourneymanGeek, that's not too surprising. They post some rather nice tutorials. When we were upgrading our biggest domain (~15k people) to Windows 7 several years ago, I sent out an all-personnel e-mail message with hyperlinks to a few How-To Geek articles to help ease the transition for our end users.
12:21 AM
Would a logical person find this distasteful?
I'm asking this since 'smart' power connectors have more than 2. Dumb ones are barrel connectors. Smart ones will bitch if its not an official power supply. Dumb ones don't care. Its a very relevant point here, especially where the only HP device I have is cheap and has a barrel plug — Journeyman Geek ♦ Jun 16 '15 at 1:00
@JourneymanGeek Yeah, but given the fact that there is no "dog" flag, I was wondering how do you connect the flag to "female dog".
Its one of my own comments. I don't see anything wrong with it.
@JourneymanGeek ...I don't see a problem
It doesn't matter to me, but I can see how some would object to it - main usually has strict standards for such things in my experience
I quite literally used that as an example in a meta.SE post (though about chat)
12:23 AM
I would advise against handling a flag on one's own comment FWIW
@BenN but of course.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that. It is just another way to say "complain." Someone who genuinely thinks that is profanity within that context might be a bit too pristine for Internet discourse!
yea, main is stricter
but... there's some level where you're just being overly-politically-correct. bleh.
more practically, if it's a flood of them that seems to be targeting old searched/found words, I'd personally call that flag abuse
12:25 AM
But if the flags are actually valid, I could see someone arguing that each flag should be handled on its own merit
That happens when you hand a person a handful of flags and that's all he sees. Well, he starts flagging.
But I'm not seeing the problem ;p
I'm going to take a look at meta
(for all you guys standing for election, like @DavidPostill - this is the hard part of moderation)
So, here's what I'm thinking
12:26 AM
Bitch is a word usable in both profane contexts and it has a common meaning as complain
I can say complain, but unless your filters are completely bonkers, the B word won't typically be "special"
So, the flagging person has no rights to bitch about "bitch".
I'm leaning towards rejecting the flag. It is a cuss word but it's not directed at a person and I would not have flagged it.
@JourneymanGeek arguably the same applies for, say, 'fuck'. which has many, many usages outside the profane context
I am seeing a few questions where the flag is legitimate, and there's a wider, clearer issue.
just playing devil's advocate here :P
12:27 AM
(defer to the Be Nice policy)
bwDraco is right.
@BenN the other question is harm vs good - especially on comments, many might contain valuable information with such a minor word usage choice
@Bob Well, the question for me is really "Would the average person, organically coming across that comment, find it offensive?"
@JourneymanGeek And that's entirely subjective.
As a mod, I might edit out the word in the comment, but I'd still reject the flag.
12:28 AM
Well, the third option is editing it
I'd bet the vast vast majority of internet users wouldn't care
but you can always find easily-offended people
(moderators can edit anyone's comments, regardless of how old it is)
Yep, editing is an option, but I personally am very hesitant to edit comments due to the lack of public revision history
Then do it.
some of which would probably be offended by me calling them easily-offended
12:29 AM
@bwDraco in that case though, the flags are "legitmate" and need action.
@JourneymanGeek this smells like something SE Corp might weigh in on
Being a mod can be a pain in the <rear end> sometimes ;p
or meta.SU/meta.SE
it is potentially a network-wide thing...
It would be hilarious if someone flagged that post.
Yeah. This needs to be brought up on Meta.
12:30 AM
@JourneymanGeek that's why I chose it as an example in that meta answer -_-
Q: Should swearing/profanity etc be accepted or removed from posts?

DaveI'm a person who finds posts with bad language/profanity unprofessional and offensive. When I see a post on SU with the f word or similar (better/worse) I feel the site is let down for allowing it. However, I am going to assume that SE doens't have a major issue with it because posts with bad l...

just like how some people apparently consider "crap" to be less offensive than "shit"
Is vaguely a dupe
Yes, the irony of being offended after being labeled easily-offended. Again, if someone is that sensitive, Internet-based communication may be an unwise choice of activity for them.
because I don't see a difference
12:31 AM
Its still post consumer food? ;p
We're talking about answers there.
That doesn't quite warrant a flag.
Seconding that.
Assume good faith. Understand their ultimate purpose. Everything is gonna be fine.
A: Is it all right to use the flag option to...?

Robert CartainoI don't agree that it is perfectly fine to use the moderator flags in matters of voting-to-close. The Moderators would be the first to say that they are perfectly happy take a look at questions that need attention. That is admirable, but what you are requesting amounts to a supervote-by-proxy, ...

> Flagging should be reserved for egregious problems (blatant spam, illegal posts, profanity, etc)
That's SE corporate.
> English has tons of words, we can easily think of alternatives instead to swears without losing meaning
I'm not sure profanity not directed at a person is quite on this level...
12:33 AM
Damn, we need a clear-cut policy.
AIUI "crap" started off as an euphemism...
@FleetCommand I've often said, the rules here basically are "basic rules + tons of precident"
@JourneymanGeek Don't precedents become rules?
@FleetCommand you need to find them though
12:34 AM
Hmm. If it's in an answer, I'd probably just edit it out. The user does not deserve -100 for "street talk" not intended as a personal attack.
and often there's multiple, slightly overlapping and contradictory ones
@bwDraco certainly not
A comment to steer the user in the right direction, sure.
Doesn't a personal message do?
Oh, sorry, we don't have that here.
Multiple users and I don't know who the comment flagger is.
So, scratch my last.
12:36 AM
> Your password must include 8 characters PLUS consist of at least three of the following:
Latin upper case letters, Latin lower case letters, base 10 digits, non-alphanumeric characters.
I could reject the lot and see if he gets flag banned ;p
That's actually valid and devious.
@FleetCommand There are mod messages, and mods can create private rooms on chat if necessary
@FleetCommand Mods can PM users, but it's only meant for serious issues (e.g. suspension, final warning)
A mod message would be a bit heavy for this though
12:37 AM
Are comments even searchable?
> You might want to be more careful about your language—even though it wasn't directed at anyone, some people may find it offensive, so I've edited it out.
@JourneymanGeek SEDE
@JourneymanGeek only on Google AFAIK
@JourneymanGeek Not directly; they aren't indexed.
@bwDraco If you using a ton of flags is an automatic warrant for ban, then it is serious enough.
12:37 AM
@BenN that indicates a certain level of effort.
@JourneymanGeek pretend your comment wasn't flagged. what would you do then?
@Bob reject.
actually, is it more flags than a single user can issue?
But its worth considering the other side.
nope, 5-6
I wonder if it's Smokey going rogue :P
12:38 AM
> Starting your password with an upper case letter and ending with a special character is easily guessed by standard cracking software. Mix it up.
oh, not that many then
one that I feel is completely valid
@Bob That would have resulted in as many as three flags, and from several different users because the autoflagging takes random accounts (among those that have signed up) and uses them to cast flags.
the rest are on the wrong side of maybe
@MichaelFrank make your password 20 chars long. no "standard cracking software" is guessing that
12:39 AM
Only posts are subject to auto-flagging though
Carpal tunnel syndrome...
Let me pull up the Smokey records...
(this is more of a "This is what really takes up moderator time thing)
If the user is just flagging lots of posts simply because they contain profanity, not because they are actually offensive, I would 1) reject the flags as invalid where they are not warranted and 2) superping (unless the user isn't on chat, in which case I'd mod message) the user casting the flags.
12:42 AM
On a related note, is engaging in reduction ad absurdum ground for actionable flag?
@FleetCommand Example?
.... examples please. I've not had enough coffee for lawyer speak latin
@Bob Hold on.
@Bob @JourneymanGeek Never mind. The question is deleted.
@bwDraco Superping works even if they don't have a chat account, interestingly
IIRC, anyway
12:44 AM
I thought superping requires a chat user ID?
That's one method, or you can provide a site and a user ID on that site
A: What is a 'superping'?

Martijn PietersSuperpings are a chatroom feature only available to diamond moderators, where they can reach a user irrespective of past interaction. Compare that to a normal ping, where you can @name someone in comments or in a chatroom only if they have been active on a post or in that chatroom. Superpings h...

@JourneymanGeek Multiple users...
This might provide some clues, but I don't see much in the way of bad autoflags here.
@bwDraco can you find the specific examples?
I'll ping undo at some point
Wait, are posts getting flagged too?
12:49 AM
I thought Smokey only looks at posts, not comments, but they do a lot of things and I might not be up on all of it
Smokey does not monitor comments. Again, comments are not indexed for search.
Yup, that's what I thought too.
Q: What's our threshold for profanity in comments?

Journeyman GeekI just handled a bunch of flags on older comments, flagging the use of the word "bitch" as "complain" or "is a pain". Now certain words, I can get - but in this case, it seems like common, generally mildly inoffensive usage - talking about a situation or software" With cases like if i had...

Well Windows 10 refresh worked a treat, at least after 3 hours of fighting to get it to work in the first place
1:07 AM
So what's a non-base 10 number?
@MichaelFrank here's a non-base 10 number for comparison, probably not valid for passwords: א
Why don't they just say digits 0-9 then? :|
@MichaelFrank Maybe they wanted to be "precise," or "obtuse."
Bigger question is "what are the other 8 characters supposed to be?"
1:23 AM
@MichaelFrank some smartass may claim DEADBEEF is a number
0xDEA... yea
@JourneymanGeek You mean it aint
@GypsySpellweaver I don't think most password systems are designed for hex
@bertieb Why not 0x01A4
@GypsySpellweaver Ƥ ?
1:25 AM
Would most password checkers pass this one: zΣΤʹΞʹ7t
(I thought it was a unicode reference I recognised, but naw...)
@bwDraco old-timer ;)
I was jokingly considering a password system that would consist entirely of randomly picked arrays of emoji
@GypsySpellweaver ctrl+alt+del change password...
1:27 AM
(by randomly arranging it you make keyboard sniffing useless, and you don't need "all" the password, just enough of it, which makes brute forcing harder...)
@GypsySpellweaver According to howsecureismypassword.com, this would take 1 minute to crack.
According to password.kaspersky.com it would take twelve days to crack with a regular home computer.
according to me those sites are dumb
Just tried one out, gave me 429 billion years for one off the top of my head. Not too bad.
kaspersky only says 3261 centuries.
Don't think either site's a good idea though. As soon as you "test" a password, it's no longer usable :(
I don't understand this: superuser.com/posts/502378/revisions. How did "Community" do such an edit?
@FleetCommand anonymous suggested edit
1:36 AM
@GypsySpellweaver Yea, Kaspersky says "Don't use real passwords."
@FleetCommand Whoever it is has a hard time typing. Edit desc is "Append redirector prevents deetion of an existing file"
2:20 AM
why only catalogs? where are all the dogalogs?

« first day (2421 days earlier)