Changes To Reactions Redux



  • Chris LozosChris Lozos Posts: 1,457
    Much ado about not much when it comes to flags. I really don't pay much attention to them.
  • joeclarkjoeclark Posts: 122

    In many ways, this vertical-market type-design forum is incompetently run, such incompetence being buttressed by severely nasty yet endlessly indulged members like Stewf, who himself didn’t do a better job when he was running the place.

    And yes, after 26 years online, I do know better. This forum is predicated on the expertise of its members, and some of us have expertise in more than one field.

    So again, kids: Which crime is greater – continuously permitting incorrect and intrusive (also lazy) Web-authoring practices or complaining about it and being right? Please make your selection now.

  • Personally I pay zero attention to the flags. They are all popular-based flags...with the exception of flagging abuse that is actually abuse. 

  • Personally I don’t mind the flags, but I wonder if, for the sake of simplicity, professionalism, and to encourage actual dialog instead of just reactions, all the flags except for Abuse and Quote should just be done away with? I’m part of other forums that do this and it works great from what I can tell.
  • So this has been on my mind on-and-off, but today it has really hit home:

    Editing can actually completely reverse the meaning of a post, leaving people who did an Agree unduly maligned (although this case was not nearly so extreme).

    I can't think of an elegant and robust way of making sure people's flags don't become contradictory when a post is edited. But it should at least be mentioned somewhere prominent that we shouldn't assume a flag is in fact what the flagger feels, due to possible post-editing. Which however makes the purpose of flags a bit weak... Ideally, some sort of time-stamping should be easily visible and/or moderators should have an easy way of resetting the flags.
  • Vasil StanevVasil Stanev Posts: 729
    edited April 2019
    Just wait until I am finished editing and/or the post is more than 4 hours old... is it that hard? I like to refine my posts to value everybodies time, it's just how I do it. I don't use a text editor for it, it's not the National Archive.
  • I also do a lot of editing, although mostly for style. It feels unkosher to change a post substantially after people might have read it.

    I think you've hit on something potentially promising: no flags until the 4-hour editing window closes. It's quite elegant, and additionally can help people cool off.
  • Russell McGormanRussell McGorman Posts: 255
    edited April 2019
    I can be 97% certain that I won't read a post before it's 4 days old. No worries here. :)

  • I think you've hit on something potentially promising: no flags until the 4-hour editing window closes. It's quite elegant, and additionally can help people cool off.
    Sounds reasonable...
  • Is it OK for somebody to deploy an Abuse flag here?
    Presumed personal dislike should not be allowed to foster a toxic environment.

    I hope the moderators are serious about implementing consequences for abusive flagging.

  • @Hrant H. Papazian You would like us to flag your comment?
  • notdefnotdef Posts: 168
    I flagged you for being off topic, Hrant. 
  • @Tiffany Wardle What comment, and for what reason?
    Frode said:
    I flagged you for being off topic, Hrant. 
    We can [dis]agree on whether it was off-topic, but the Abuse flag is for "serious purposes". Just because the Off-Topic flag was removed does not mean we should trivialize victims of real abuse. Words matter.

    Please don't flag Claudio for abuse, whether you like him or not:
  • @Frode Bo Helland (inactive) I guess I don't see exactly how off topic Hrant's comment really is. Isn't it tangential? 

    I do not like flags. I see they are necessary for serious situations, but I do not think they should be used when someone comments with something which might be interesting if only tangentially.
  • notdefnotdef Posts: 168
    edited May 2019
    Hrant’s comment concerns his ideas for drawing an italic face – the conversation concerns a technical font file setting controlling the position of the blue background you get when selecting text. Constant off-topic comments may not be strictly abusive, but they certainly hinder any conversation anyone else is trying to have.
  • Perhaps what we need is just an off-topic flag instead of using the abuse flag? Is it so difficult to just ignore comments that are not on topic? (An innocent question, not flaming you.) There was someone on Typophile that, in the end, became super annoying to me. So I simply ignored all of their comments. If we spend our lives expending energy on people that annoy us we will have no energy for the people who are important to us.
  • notdefnotdef Posts: 168
    An off-topic flag would be great. I try to ignore – not always successfully.
  • In fact my post was tangential at worst. And some people value tangents as enriching; we should not be fascist about how people choose to experience public discourse.

    But to me that is off-topic here, because the point is:
    Perhaps what we need is just an off-topic flag instead of using the abuse flag?
    Off-Topic and Abuse flags can both be useful. But no matter what flags are [not] available, it's very important –if "subvisible"– for moderators to rein in people who abuse flags, lest those they choose to constantly target* become too tempted to stoop to their level and retaliate (FYI, I never would) creating a toxic environment.

    *  Seven of the nine abuse flags I've received come from two people (the other two are from a deleted account).
  • Thomas PhinneyThomas Phinney Posts: 2,634
    If we could but practice more moderation in our lives, perhaps we would not need moderators. (Not a proverb.)
    It is now!

  • If we could but practice more moderation in our lives, perhaps we would not need moderators. (Not a proverb.)
    As Ray implies, this also applies to flagging.

    If we do need moderators, we need them to mind that too.
  • Can anybody figure out what's there to disagree with concerning a question?

    It looks like now that Disagree is anonymous, a masked vigilante or two are on the prowl... (Hopefully the moderators care.)
  • Adam JagoszAdam Jagosz Posts: 688
    edited June 2019
    Goodness, I never expected this forum to get so childish... I thought it was all grownups. The discussion about ignoring specific users surprised me in the first place – why? Do the super busy pros mind over-abundant boring rookie questions cluttering their thread feed? Or would some like to save their nerves and breath by not seeing and not commenting on controversial opinions?
    And when I noticed that Disagree is now anonymous, phewww.
    I suppose we need the ability to Flag a Flag and Flag a Disagree now. Welcome to the PC 21st century. Or maybe a simpler system of thumbs up/down, all anonymously summing up would work better, like on most platforms prone to trolling like Reddit or YouTube. (Flags would be only visible to mods, likewise.) But I suppose we would need Chocolate Chips or Strawberry Flurry instead of Vanilla for that?
  • Or the moderators could pull the vigilantes aside and give them advice.
  • Craig EliasonCraig Eliason Posts: 1,366
    My guess is, here "Disagree" is proxy for the no-longer-available "Off-Topic."
  • Craig EliasonCraig Eliason Posts: 1,366
    One problem with losing the "Off-Topic" reaction particularly is that if you now want to indicate something is off topic you'd have to post an actual message which only brings the thread further off-topic. 
This discussion has been closed.