But given all the reasons that something might be flagged, how can you read something and conclude that it shouldn’t have been flagged? Basically you might not be able to tell from the text itself, or you might need specific knowledge to be able tell from the text. Otherwise they couldn’t have the community rule: Rules lawyering won’t work. I think this is a question of whether people are flagging things in good faith. I mean, the posts are still there and you can still read them, so I’m not sure moderators have taken any action - maybe the system is working.
To be fair, I think it’s an unpopular set of facts rather than an unpopular opinion.
There is an appearance of unfairness, to be sure, and actually just leaving the stubs there is a solution I had not considered, if a solution it be.
Obviously what strikes me most strongly about this instance is that people had to actively choose to intercede in someone else’s conversation. And I guess, what I am ultimately implying is that there was no such fine-grained consideration because people were not flagging the posts but rather the commenter, en masse, strategically.
This is why I mention banning the account. Either the account has breeched some standard or it hasn’t. They should or should not be shown the door and everyone should pay attention to the specific content that they are flagging. Perhaps you could petition the mods to intercede directly instead of hounding accounts? At least you’d get a considered answer about the officially perceived status of the account. Ultimately, it’s their decision.
Is that an option, though? As a user I have a flag button for a post. I don’t have a flag button for a person. Ultimately it’s the decision of the mods either way. Generally the idea of reporting people instead of posts seems like it would lead to worse behaviour.
I feel like in this case flagging did what it was supposed to, and that problems that could arise from this kind of flagging are hypotheticals based on generalizing certain aspects of what happened without generalizing others. “What if we started flagging everyone we disagreed with?” doesn’t seem like a logical extension of “I’m flagging this guy who makes every thread he posts in about his misunderstanding of pensions”, it seems like catastrophizing. I think every system will involve people using their judgment.
My only reply to to you would be to repeat myself about why I find it inappropriate. Perhaps there are flag-worthy posts in this thread, but I refuse to accept that strategic intercession in someone else’s conversation is at all acceptable, and seeing as no one is actually trying to argue me out of that position, or addressing it, I’ll imagine that others also feel that it might be at least questionable behaviour.
Before this topic, since Dec 22, nickle has posted five posts in three topics, none of them about pensions, and none of those were flagged into oblivion. Then, wehen he comes back and starts making the same tired posts about pensions without acknowledging the points previously addressed, he is flagged into oblivion. From what I can see, these were flagged based on content.
Besides, I don’t think going “off-topic” is something that should be ban-worthy.
That’s exactly what a flag is: a petition for the mods to look at something.
This is exactly what I have a problem with. The long post with the link to Pensions wiki is probably the one that set everyone aflame and is the only post in this thread I would consider to be flag worthy. You are punishing him by removing the entirety of his attempts at correspondence because he is failing once.
He remade those same tired points mostly in one comment, and for all the world it does appear spammy. But this cavalier attitude of obliviating intercession in others conversations because he’s committed an infraction is unjust.
A funny thing: I was going to fork my reply over to the ol’ “why do we flag” thread so as to help re-rail this one. And then was belatedly reminded of how and why that thread got unceremoniously locked a month ago. Oof.
Anyway, I have to take it on faith that people flag in good faith. It’s not always obvious that they do. This was one of the less-obvious examples.
That’s the one thing I really like about the current flag system. I pretty much always read flagged posts if they haven’t been eaten yet. I’m a lifelong peeker-under-of-rocks.
Really, my concern about a case like this boils down to two points:
Why do the flaggers think that I shouldn’t read this comment? Especially if it’s not one of the spammy/trolley/abusivey comments? Just because they believe the guy is a broken record, does that give them the right or obligation to throw a rug over him, when I haven’t heard this particular ditty before?
If we value our back-and-forth with dissenting opinions, and we also value our reputation for valuing dissenting opinions, should we make any extra effort toward including such opinions? If we’re quick to flag because “that guy is making that same ol’ noise again, nobody needs to hear that,” shouldn’t we make some effort to emphasize that such a reaction comes across more as “this opinion is false/misguided/in bad faith because XXX” rather than “this comment shouldn’t be read”? That is, to avoid the appearance of echo-chambery behavior, can we not refute rather than flag in such instances as these? Yeah, it takes more keystrokes, but maybe that extra effort is conducive to healthier dialogue.
Again, sorry for the derail. I just don’t quite have it in me to fork out a whole new Meta thread about flags. Sigh.
The first reply to his first post (before he posted any of the others) was asking why he was flagged into oblivion. Your “people are interfering with the conversation” and “one post that set everyone aflame” narrative seems to assume that the conversation happened first. On the contrary, he was flagged as off-topic, and then the conversation started, from replying to a flagged post.
No. First, we are acting because he is repeating past mistakes, not because he’s failing once. Second, we are not trying to punish anyone.
Once again, the Off-Topic flag isn’t supposed to obliviate anything. It’s a call to move something, not to hide or delete it.
We are trying to get the discussion split off to somewhere where it is actually on-topic. If that isn’t the end result, take it up with the mods. Start a meta topic to have this issue looked at. But saying “don’t flag” isn’t the answer.
We’ve been told, again and again, by someone that has access to look at the stats, that we aren’t doing enough flagging, and we should be flagging everything even slightly questionable and letting the mods sort things out: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Maybe off-topic flags shouldn’t hide a post. Maybe enough off-topic flags should automatically branch off the discussion to a new topic. I don’t know. But @codinghorror has said, and I believe him, that we should be flagging more, not less.
I disagree, In my limited specific knowledge of Mod actions, I’ve not once agreed with the choices made, they tend to be unsubtle. Flagging is like inviting in firemen with hoses and axes, you’d better have a fire or you might regret it. Most recently when someone was flagged for being obnoxiously controlling of a popular long running thread, the thread was locked rather than the offending posts deleted and the poster warned.
CBs set interest rates low to rescue the Banks after the collapse of 2008. It is definitely an transfer from savers to Banks. Since the banks didn’t have enough capital, it was the only thing left to do, unless the CBs were prepared to take the banks into public ownership. The combination of unwillingness to nationalize weak banks but desire to pretend they were solvent is why rates had to be cut to zero.
However the design of the system requires CBs to have the power to set rates.
If capitalism is to be anything other than a system of entrenched privilege it must be possible to fail. CBs effectively ended capitalism in 2008 - creating a system of socialism for the rich, atty the expense of the rest of us.
I would say lynch them, but remember that it was not the Central bankers that made the decision but Obama.
Can’t argue with any of that. But the rescue did keep big employers like automakers solvent. I’m not financially astute enough to know how you could have done it without the 10% getting the most, they have most of the wealth, after all.
I do think they should have reset rates for underwater borrowers, if not written down the underwater losses. But that would have made the bonds even more worthless driving the banks deeper. Heads they win, tails you lose, don’t play and the world ends. No great choices.
