« first day (1736 days earlier)      last day (1502 days later) » 

6:37 AM
not much of a consolation :/
 
7:26 AM
@Carpetsmoker That's not entirely true. Rude comment flags are tracked separately, and there's an automated flag raised once someone has posted a few (3?) rude comments in quick succession.
> 9/6/2017 2:09:45 AM: 3 rude/NC comments in past 7 days
 
Where do you see that @yannis?
 
In the mod flag queue
Community raises them
 
But you can't easily see it per user? When you go to a user profile? At least, I wasn't able to find it yesterday
 
per user, you can see a list of all flagged comments, there's no filtering per flag type
profile > mod > info > comments > flagged
 
Yeh
So if someone adds one rude comment every day then "The System" won't notice that, AFAIK
Which is less of a problem on most smaller sites, but a bit of a bigger problem on many of the larger sites
 
7:33 AM
the 3 rude comments autoflag will be raised
 
Hm, never seen that one before
"3 rude flags in 7 days"
Is the limit it seems
Guess we never had that on the Vi site
 
check community's flags, perhaps someone else handled it.
or, vi people are just that nice. ;)
 
We've had one suspension
In two and a half years
 
We've had one suspension
Today
(and the day isn't over yet)
 
Pff, Nazis!
 
8:05 AM
Carpetsmoker, you think I should post on meta about this? chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/39833151#39833151
I think it is a repetition of this: politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2959/…
but sincerely I don't know what to think anymore, moderation here is completely different from aviation
 
Every site has its own practices (I never contributed to aviation so I can't contrast it to that specifically)
 
I don't pretend you to contribute to every site, but since you seem to have more experience here, you might be able to tell me what is probably the best course of action
 
Personally I wouldn't start a meta question about it, but I also wouldn't consider it inappropriate.
I don't quite understand Yannis' reply though. Why shouldn't a mod delete an answer, but the community should. If it's clearly deletion-worthy, then why does it matter who deletes it?
 
@Carpetsmoker ok, just to avoid confusion (that I see starting) let me recap
 
As a mod, I try stay away from the "grey area" and have the community handle that, but this isn't really in the grey area, IMHO
 
8:11 AM
- I raised a rude flag
- denied (for the reasons we discussed here, and I'm ok with that)
- yannis suggests the community should handle it
- I raise a NAA flag (so a non-mod only flag)
- a mod (I guess not yannis) denies this second flag as well BEFORE the answer goes through community review
my problem is with the last step, I feel this happens a lot here, that mods stop flags before the community can go through them
sure, I've seen and commented on how the community is extremely partisan and not always able to efficiently self-moderate, so I understand why here mods have to be more "hand-on", but I don't understand why they act before the flag is community-handled
and since we are so much talking about it, the post is this one: politics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/15080
 
I don't know if it happens a lot, but I agree that a mod should have just deleted that particular answer or left it alone, rather than invalidate the flag, although I'm not sure if it would have mattered much in this case as six people already reviewed it
 
@Carpetsmoker no, this is another post
 
Yeah, you posted that when I was typing ;-) I was referring to the earlier answer
That's answer is a better example since only two people had a chance to review
I mean
It ends with a personal attack
Pretty much
Should at the very least be edited out
> You have already voted to delete this post
Oh
 
:D
 
When I strongly disagree with a mod-rejected flag – which hasn't happened thus far on this site – I raise a custom moderator flag and explain why the mods should really do something. Thus far, I've had a 100% success rate on other sites (mostly Stack Overflow) with this.
In general, I dislike making meta-posts about specific answers/people
All of those user's answers except one should be deleted IMHO btw
 
8:19 AM
@Carpetsmoker my meta post would be about mod behaviour (handling non-mod flags before the community has its say)
 
:+1:
Ehm
That doesn't work here
thumbs up
 
the other example is this: politics.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/12397 my flag got rejected before the first person reviewed it
 
Are you sure that's the right link? Loads of reviews on it and it was deleted from review?
 
@Carpetsmoker yes, give me a sec
look at the dates
 
 
2 hours later…
10:23 AM
@Federico That's not VLQ
 
I felt that the second paragraph was at least trying to be an embryo of an answer, that's why I did not thought it worthy of NAA
 
It's crap, but it's not flag worthy.
 
[I have answered in the other room in the meanwhile]
Ok, I got it, for you flags are not a way to get the community consensus, despite the fact that in chat there are not that many people and like Carpetsmoker, I'd like to avoid opening a post in meta pointing fingers at each answer.
I will open more meta posts and raise less flags here
 
10:49 AM
0
Q: Unite the [united-kingdom] and [britain]

CarpetsmokerWe currently have both the united-kingdom and britain tags. Britain (or Great Britain) is the geographical island on which England, Scotland, and Wales are located. The United Kingdom is the nation which comprises of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Technically these terms aren't...

-1
Q: Why mods handle non-mod flags before the community has its say?

FedericoI have noticed that on this SE, my community flags get handled by a moderator BEFORE the community has its say through the review queue. Why is it so? I thought that the SE theory of moderation said The ideal moderator does as little as possible. So why are moderator here handling non-mo...

 
 
4 hours later…
2:59 PM
@Carpetsmoker is it actually used for USSR only? I recall questions about "soviets" that weren't USSR specific.
@Carpetsmoker Yah, Yannis is very good at pushing his liberal conservative agenda.
@Federico Fully within "not nice" bounds. Flag.
@Carpetsmoker SE rules very explicitly state that "not nice" is not limited to direct personal attacks.
@yannis Be happy to if someone links me
@Carpetsmoker Moderators are exception handlers. If the answer isn't exceptionally awful, good moderators are, pun intended, excercising moderation and not deleting it with their binding powers. Mind you, I haven't seen the answer in question, so don't know how bad it is.
I seriously don't know how Yannis manages to handle this site. It must be one of the more effort-consuming to moderate on SE, even ignoring the contentious nature of the subject matter area.
(and sorry for making the workload worse, @yannis)
 
 
3 hours later…
6:04 PM
@DVK-on-Ahch-To the mods don't agree with you I'm afraid
@DVK-on-Ahch-To here it is: politics.stackexchange.com/a/24294/7476
 
6:43 PM
I didn't mean that "not nice" is limited only to personal attacks; just that a non-directed "bunch of psychopaths" is a lot less bad than a directed "person foo is a psychopath" or "all bars are psychopaths".
 
7:01 PM
@Federico Ah. Well, in context of that specific answer it is kinda mushy, I can see why moderators decided not to delete. he was talking about ALL politicians, not just specific set. Sorta equal opportunity crumgeon.
I downvoted it but didn't really want to delete either - it's not quite crossing the "not nice" line but is definitely hovering close
Especially since the views expressed are indeed vintage anarchist viewpoint, in some way.
The rationale for much of Anarchist points is that by having a government with power, you're indeed letting people who are more likely to be psychopaths than average, with power attraction, to have more power over you - which in any other context is a situation most people would try hard to avoid.
It would benefit from nuanced change from "all psychopaths" to "more likely to be psychopath than average" backed up by a citation, but that's what downvotes are for.
 

« first day (1736 days earlier)      last day (1502 days later) »