Backup Room – The h Bar

3:59 AM

chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/44694140#44694140: Was that flag necessary? The message has already scrolled off the screen, so whoever flagged it went out of his/her way to find it.

skull

what can you say?

bwDraco

PSA: Please do not flag old messages without good reason. Doing so is disruptive and diminishes the value of one of the only moderation tools available in chat.

skull

people go out of their way to be a**holes, sometimes

bwDraco

Yup. Pointless flags.

in Rational Thinkers, Apr 18 at 4:52, by Undo

Stop flagging old stuff

skull

the point is they get to laugh at the chaos that ensues

bwDraco

4:06 AM

lol

skull

sad, but true

bwDraco

4:21 AM

That's exactly what trolls do.

skull

indeed, the very definition of a troll

getting enjoyment out of pissing-off others

Dawood ibn Kareem

@JohnRennie That's nuts!

John Rennie

@DawoodibnKareem BOOM BOOM! :-)

skull

4:39 AM

are you going watch the wedding?

John Rennie

@skull me? No.

skull

yes, I was asking you sir

No? :O

John Rennie

@skull I'm a 57 year old male physics nerd. My interest in weddings of any kind is less than ε for ε → 0

skull

:D

Dawood ibn Kareem

8:14 AM

@JohnRennie Until the day you meet a nice female physics nerd, of course.

Balarka Sen

11:33 AM

@bwDraco This. It seems to me that many moderators outright refuse to even consider the ill-intention behind flagging a certain (arguable harmless) message so as to not disassociate genuine flags from troll flags (I understand where this comes from: such a disassociation will imply a lot of work on the mod's behalf as flag-bans will no longer be morally an ivory-tower anymore; like Semiclassical said - people will engage in skepticism about those, rendering the mechanism retarded)

The usual defense seems to be (1) We can't know intention, but judge the message on face-value: My response is you can, by reading the context that message is embedded in, and judging the message on face-value only creates a rationalization of the flag which might be less likely than simply that it was flagged with a malicious intent

(2) This message contains this, this and this (eg, expletives, potentially offensive content, "parsed in an offensive way", so regardless of the intent of the flagger, the flag as an abstract criticism of the message is still valid, regardless of what the original criticism was

To which, I'd say, you can make a flag system out of it, only to get flags like that ^

¯\ _(ツ)_/¯

nitsua60

12:16 PM

@bwDraco Please be wary of assuming your first-instinct interpretation is the only possible one. It could be that someone's going back to flag as you say. It also could be that someone's catching up on conversation and hews to the SE principle of "fix things when you find them, no matter how old." (cc: @skull)

Balarka Sen

I think it's safe to state that if that's a principle SE and the moderation is going to endorse it'd bring havoc to the full chat system

See, eg this conversation

nitsua60

See also, e.g., the vast majority of rooms around the network that somehow seem to get by without all the trouble that hbar causes people.

Balarka Sen

That's a strawman argument which doesn't address any of the issues I am bringing up, I think.

nitsua60

I didn't read the conversation you linked--running to class now and I (promise I) will later. But it's not a strawman.

hbar stands out in the network as a Bad Place.

2

This isn't the first time I've said it, and I'm not the only one who's said it.

Sorry, but I gotta run. I find you, @BalarkaSen, to be a honest actor, so will certainly give your link the attention it deserves later today.

Balarka Sen

Yes, and the network is systematically failing to point out how to avoid that room being labelled as such, so just shoving the label in people's faces doesn't seem to at all help.

Thanks for engaging, I'll look forward to a conversation

ACuriousMind

1:48 PM

@BalarkaSen I share your opinion that the flag system as it stands is broken on an abstract level and both can and has been abused by bad faith actors. But that does not mean that most or even a substantial fraction of flags are of such a kind. When I look at the list of recent flags across the network, two things strike me:

1. The total volume of flags is very low given the vast chat landscape and the diversity of people who engage in it. 2. There's a lot of flags not validated, meaning as broken as the system may seem, in practice it is not so easy to get "troll flags" validated. I think the issues you see are real, but they are not actually a big problem in chat moderation in practice.

vzn

2:21 PM

@nitsua60 lol cyber feng shui o_O :/

metrolyrics.com/superstition-lyrics-stevie-wonder.html

nitsua60

3:06 PM

@BalarkaSen Oh, that conversation! I actually went back and re-read a bunch of days around there last night. So I'm up to speed. (As much as I ever am, that is.)

@BalarkaSen How do you square this with Assuming Good Faith of the person who threw the flag?

I mean, it's obviously a balancing test, because we can't be Pollyanna-enough to believe it's not possible for a flag to be raised for malicious purpose. So how do you draw that line? How do you think I should? What are the implications of where that line's drawn for how a newcomer experiences the room?

@BalarkaSen I've tried (when active around here) to point out things I see as concrete, actionable steps toward improvement, I think.

In summary (off the top of my head and rushedly-typed while some students are taking a quiz):
1. Be Nice. To everyone: fellow chatters, someone who enters the room for the first time, lurkers. If you wouldn't include it in a post or comment on the main site, take a breath and consider whether it's appropriate for chat. (They're all publicly indexed and reflect on SE both as a company and as a community, after all.)
2. When someone seems to be running afoul- no. When someone seems to be *moving in the direction of* running afoul of Being Nice, use words. Even if you think that person'll neve…

I mean, 95% of the time everything's fine in hbar and makes me wish (not really) I'd stayed in the profession. But it's not that 19 "good" days go by and then there's a flame-up; pretty consistently hbar lives in a region of less-nice behavior than most ogther chats I've witnessed, and it seems to correlate with flame-ups happening here more than other places.

@disposedtolearn thanks for pointing out that comment. I'll be interested to see the whole history if its ever pulled together for public consumption.

(@disposedtolearn FYI, though, the @-mention of me in the original comment meant that it landed in my network inbox when the comment was originally posted; there was no need to ping me here to notify, unless you had good reason to think I'd somehow missed it. Like if I were saying things that would be contradicted/informed by that comment.)

Balarka Sen

3:33 PM

This seems to be a lot of stuff, so let me take some time to go through it.

@ACuriousMind Thanks. So based on that and what has been already mentioned to me here, it seems that hBar and Mathematics are both outliers in chat.SE on the whole. That does explain the phenomenon that the moderation doesn't wish to disassociate troll flags from genuine flags (because it's not a big issue) in general, I suppose.

ACuriousMind

@BalarkaSen Yeah. I think the problem of "troll flags" is more a symptom than a cause of problems in these cases. I have thoughts on what the actual problems are, but I want to think a little more about them before verbalizing them.

disposed to learn

thank you @ACuriousMind

@nitsua60 nah, i was just being lazy and wanted to point out the "soap-opera" aspect of this ordeal :-)

Balarka Sen

@nitsua60 I am not, I have never said I conflate blaseness of the judgement of the moderators with moderation bias towards the flagger. My argument is the moderation is not addressing the possibility of bad faith of the flagger in their action, in the sense that any flagged message is acted against fully out of context most of the time from my experience. So, "not assuming bad faith", not "assuming good faith".

I don't know the answer to the next two questions. For the last question, I propose encouraging discourse for newcomers than being immediately aggressive towards any message that the newcomer - off the context - potentially thinks is offensive. Eg, this philosophy from our fellow moderator is very, very harmful.

disposed to learn

3:50 PM

i'd have to agree with balarka on that one

in Mathematics, Apr 2 at 14:39, by MetaEd

Do not engage with someone you think is hostile. Flag it.

if we did that^

all hell would break loose

in real life also

Balarka Sen

The only way I can interpret it reasonably is if the gauge of hostility is glaringly high. But, given the transcript and the context (which is 0celo7 was being nowhere close to hostile), I am forced to believe @MetaEd was being totally unreasonable.

ACuriousMind

@BalarkaSen I think a distinction must be made between something like offensive statements and active hostility. Do engage in conversation with people making statements you view as offensive, do not engage with people that are being actively hostile towards you, but indeed just flag them.

disposed to learn

others have the same philosophy

ACuriousMind

I won't comment on that specific situation because I don't need another chat transcript to go through right now :P

disposed to learn

lol

Balarka Sen

3:55 PM

Yeah, well, that's precisely the moderation philosophy I am bothered about, if I may say that ;P Not taking the time to go through the context. (I'm not calling you out, just thought it was a witty opposing stance)

@ACuriousMind Right. But there is a fraction of people who tend to get very aggressive at perceived (but arguably nonexistent) offensiveness, and that can be resolved by conversation. But I agree.

ACuriousMind

@BalarkaSen Well, in this case I'm saying I don't want to make any sort of moderation statement without the context, so that's rather precisely not the philosophy you're bothered about, isn't it? :P

Balarka Sen

Oof, that's a tight one.

Yeah you win

disposed to learn

+1

Balarka Sen

@nitsua60 That's a good set of rule-of-thumbs. I'd need to think about those carefully before making a comment on what they might not catch.

vzn

looking this over makes me think of the distinction of "chat regulars vs nonregulars". this distinction really does seem to exist. where are the flags coming from, and can that pov help treat any chronic problem? is there some pattern? A vs A, B vs A, A vs B, or B vs B? if Physics hbar chat is dysfunctional as some mods are asserting, how does that relate to the regulars vs nonregulars, is it a factor?

Balarka Sen

4:03 PM

Also, lol, for 5, I have actively participated in one other room than Mathematics and hBar, and it shall remain nameless

(Mos Eisley)

CooperCape

Seems an unfortunate trio.

Balarka Sen

LOL

vzn

a trifecta of shame o_O

disposed to learn

this ain't horse racing

vzn

all 3 highly active rooms, but also in the sense of "going off the rails"...

disposed to learn

4:07 PM

yeah, RIP mos eisley

vzn

re mos eisley, it will live in infamy, but the idea of "shutting down" a chat room even as mentioned by SE mgt (notably shog9) seems to me like a mostly symbolic gesture. seem to have seen statements talking about "dont resurrect it". what does that even really mean? chat rooms on SE are like web pages with names/ titles/ transcripts... there seems to be near superstitious ideas circulating by otherwise highly rational ppl...

ACuriousMind

@vzn Indeed, shutting down a room is a highly symbolic gesture, and it is meant to be - it communicates to all onlookers "Don't be like this", and saying not to resurrect it simply means that the characteristics that led to that decision should not be emulated elsewhere. I see nothing irrational or superstitious about that.

disposed to learn

i see nothing "symbolic" about a show of absolute power

CooperCape

I might be completely wrong here but I can't imagine 90%+ of regular hbar users attacking another user they didn't know well because they said they caused them offence. I think these situations could be resolved without as much attention being brought to them just with conversation unless someone is at the point where no conversation is possible.

Personally I doubt I would've noticed ocelo got a 2 day ban if the room wasn't frozen for 5 minutes.

Anyway I'm not the most eloquent with words so I'ma back out :p peace. and love.

Balarka Sen

Which brings us to the string of events that lead to this conversation (and 0celo7's suspension).

ACuriousMind

4:17 PM

@disposedtolearn It is symbolic mainly because users can create new rooms at will.

vzn

. i.stack.imgur.com/9YfMu.gif

bwDraco

Catching up from last night.

vzn

↑ taken from actual shog9 post meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/251489/…

CooperCape

I've just had like a good 30minute + read.

bwDraco

The biggest issue I have with chat flagging is the lack of tracking for moderators and room owners. Currently, who flagged what is only visible to CMs and devs.

ACuriousMind

4:20 PM

@CooperCape I agree that that is true for >90% of our users, yes :P

vzn

@bwDraco yes it seems like very strange design, wondering if its intentional or accidental, have been on chat for years before realizing mods cant see who flagged what (they are not exactly forthcoming about that fact). seems like recipe for disaster sometimes. aka flying blind™

bwDraco

This allows trolls to flag marginal or harmless messages with relative impunity, knowing that it would take a (very busy) Stack Exchange employee to find them.

Balarka Sen

Well, there's some arguments that can be made about flagging being anonymous. I think the flaws of that outrun the positive points.

Note, without necessarily making a point, that in the main site, flagging is not anonymous. Downvoting is.

ACuriousMind

I have nothing to add to my prior messages: I agree the flag system is formally broken, but I think bashing the flag system is a distraction that doesn't address the actual problems.

bwDraco

Flags involve mod attention. Up/downvotes generally do not.

Balarka Sen

4:24 PM

@ACuriousMind Well, it's not simply a bashing in the sense that a formal demand for making flag history accessible to mods has been made on the meta.SE post that is being quoted around a lot to defend aggressive moderation.

vzn

@BalarkaSen think significant design changes on SE even highly called for are very rare these days.

Balarka Sen

The more people talk about it, the more it will get attention. (On that note, upvote this answer instead of just talking about it)

2

ACuriousMind

@BalarkaSen Fair point

disposed to learn

is it just me, or are these contradictory goals

51

A: We're more aggressively enforcing self-moderation in chat

I'm appreciative of this move. I've seen at least one room go beyond acceptable behavior and be closed down and, at the same time, I've heard of rooms that regularly have very constructive discussions about subjects that would normally lead to very problematic behavior. While I'm not always in ...

Stack Overflow Isn’t Very Welcoming. It’s Time for That to Change.

Jay Hanlon on April 26, 2018

Let’s start with the painful truth:

Too many people experience Stack Overflow¹ as a hostile or elitist place, especially newer coders, women, people of color, and others in marginalized groups.

Our employees and community have cared about this for a long time, but we’ve struggled to talk about it publicly or to sufficiently prioritize it in recent years. And results matter more than intentions.

Now, that’s not because most Stack Overflow contributors are hostile jerks. The majority of them are generous and kind. Sure, a few are… just generous, I guess? But our active users regularly express thei …

Aggression is not welcoming, last time i checked :-P

ACuriousMind

That seems to be a linguistic nitpick unrelated to the actual spirit of the posts.

Balarka Sen

4:32 PM

^

disposed to learn

ok, it is me :-)

nitsua60

4:55 PM

@disposedtolearn Oh. That message ("the soap opera aspect") failed to come across.

@BalarkaSen I can't speak for other moderators, but I know that I, personally, both Assume Good Faith of flaggers and try to get a sense of context before validating/invalidating a chat-flag. If I don't have the time for that or am way out of my depth, I just mark as "not sure" and trust that other 10Ks will eventually come along and do the same.

It may not be widely known: a lot of 10K moderators have a habit of examining a room's transcript to look for context, rather than entering the room formally; in that case there may be a lot more people reading and weighing in on the flag than is apparent from the occupant-list.

@BalarkaSen Yeah, I'm sure I've missed or transcluded some things unintentionally. (Liek I said, I was dashing it off while proctoring a quiz.)

ACuriousMind

→ 6 messages moved to Trashcan

skull

Thanks again.

Balarka Sen

7:51 PM

Ok, so, here's some relevant criticisms and not just meaningless nitpicking of these rules of thumbs which you propose: (1) It's never clear how far "Be Nice" stretches. [Consider this](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/43033239#43033239). Jokes are an essential part of unofficial conversation. Yes, some of them can be unintentionally (or intentionally!) offensive, which is why I'm not complaining about the flag-ban by 0celo7 on the joke I posted that started it. But how far moderators should, on behalf of other users, decide on the offensiveness of a joke, and not leave it …

It's a game theoretic thing. I think everyone involved in this conversation should play this, it's unbelievably insightful.

Unless everyone is communicating correctly/not miscommunicating, and unless you know that ill-intention isn't present among other users/flaggers, it's not a good strategy to be idealist and assume otherwise.

That's why your rules of thumbs are... merely rules of thumbs

Balarka Sen

8:09 PM

(I was playing the game once again just because it's cool: A nice conclusion from there is that the fewer repeat-interactions there are, the faster evolution of distrust happens. If this isn't irrefutable evidence that the moderators should engage with the users more and keep a reasonable amount of transparency, and doing otherwise would breed an unhealthy community in SE, I don't know what else would be)

ACuriousMind

8:20 PM

@BalarkaSen Even granting that Iterated Prisoners' Dilemmata have something to say about this I'm not sure what you're saying follows:

"Assume Good Faith" is a rule precisely of the same nature as the "Always start with Cooperate" part of Tit-for-tat - I do not think that anyone is proposing to apply the assumption of good faith to proven bad faith actors, just that the default assumption is that people are not bad faith actors, just like Tit-for-tat's default assumption is that the other party will cooperate.

vzn

Emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence (EI), also known as Emotional quotient (EQ) and Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EIQ), is the capability of individuals to recognize their own emotions and those of others, discern between different feelings and label them appropriately, use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior, and manage and/or adjust emotions to adapt to environments or achieve one's goal(s). Although the term first appeared in a 1964 paper by Michael Beldoch, it gained popularity in the 1995 book by that title, written by the author, and science journalist Daniel Goleman. Since this time...

@BalarkaSen you might be overthinking this. courtesy/ empathy is fundamentally different than game theory.

nitsua60

9:03 PM

@BalarkaSen There are definitely some good points here--sadly, it'll be tomorrow before I can get back to them.

=\

(Though that's for good RL reasons.)

=)

David Z

→ 1 message moved to Trashcan

skull

10:30 PM

@BalarkaSen thanks for sharing

Transcript for

Backup Room – The h Bar