Why don't you flag?

I’m quite sure posts have been deleted, but someone isn’t proving their quite demeaning argument about our hosts intentions, arguments which point at a what and a where (suppression, here) but not a who, when, why, or how. If a who, when, why, or how were added - it’d really flesh out the argument.

Maybe it did happen? If it’s on the regular it should be documentable. Who did it. When. Why (what ideology), and how.

I’m welcoming to any stranger who can answer a few simple questions about the aspersions he’s casting.

3 Likes

Can’t allow? Can’t allow?

First of all, unless you yourself are a moderator or one of the bloggers, I don’t think that you are any authority on what can, or cannot, be allowed here (nor am I, in case that isn’t clear). You have an opinion on how the site should be moderated, which is great, but if I were a mod, and someone started telling me what can or cannot be allowed, I would probably banhammer them (for a nominal period), with the note, “Google the difference between ‘can’ and ‘should’.”

It’s probably a good thing that I’m not a mod.

Second, @codinghorror’s mantra, for as long as I can remember, has “flag anything remotely objectionable, and let the mods sort it out.” The quote from my topic post, way, way, above, was “There is a general lack of flagging.” How do you not allow someone to flag something that they find objectionable without disincentivizing flagging further (the exact opposite of what we’re trying to accomplish here)?

I can understand taking issue with the moderation (and I see about six different items on the master list of “Reasons Boingers don’t flag” that could be grouped under “disagree with current moderation practices,” so you’re not alone there), but the issue is not that someone was allowed to flag you.

Unless you can come up with a way to disallow flagging under the circumstances you describe that wouldn’t result in a further reduction in flagging.

Third,

Just agriculture? Agriculture is somebody’s trigger subject? Colour me skeptical.

And, finally, as has been posted previously in this topic,

9.Enforcement may be lax or draconian as befits the whims of the Entity. The rude will be eaten first.

Replying to someone, a member who has asked not to be replied to, may not break any of the Rules, but it’s certainly rude. And, perhaps the member you were conversing with was being rude, as well. With all that rudeness flying around, I don’t know why there’s any surprise that the conversation got eaten.

14 Likes

Did you intentionally or unintentionally waive your D?

Your actual response was that they mind their own business incorrectly?

Bless your heart.

3 Likes

Who wants to mock up some ‘BBS darling’ t-shirts?

12 Likes
5 Likes

I want to crosspost this here because I had to do quite a bit of reading to put this together (both now and when I analyzed claims of echo chambers in the past)

If you complain the BBS is an echo chamber, you might have a good reason to do so, but I definitely have a good reason - other things being equal - to put even money on self-important rather than keen observer.

6 Likes

That was your response to four instances of your being provocative and rude, in the post I responded to.

In telling me what I am thinking and then telling me you were not previously provocative and rude, you both provoke outrage at your presumption of my intent and your boldness in stating it for me, _and the_n you immediately change the subject back to another time when you assure that you were not (as you just were in the same sentence) provocative and rude.

I can explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

The echo chamber is not out here.

3 Likes

T-shirts? That ought to be a tattoo! All in, or not at all! :wink:

10 Likes

So, it’s been a day, and, since the topic seems to have wandered a bit, I’m going to cap additions to the list of reasons at noon EST tomorrow (~24 hours after @critter’s post, @critter being the last one to contribute to the list).

Please ensure that your view is represented in the list, as the list will become the poll.

My question about the poll is:
Do you care if people see which options you chose? Do you think that having the responses available for perusal will discourage honest voting? In short:

Do you think the votes in the poll should be:

  • Public?
  • Private?

0 voters

Once I have that answer, I’ll build and publish the poll once submissions close tomorrow.

5 Likes

to be fair, this is a great demonstration of why I don’t flag. I have no desire to quash anyones POV, and when someone is arguing in bad faith it’s not a bad thing in this age of fake news, to push back.

pushing back can’t be playing victim or calling names, though.

7 Likes

Also, since I flagged a handful of times and my first was a couple of months ago despite being here for a long time on and off… I just don’t care for the most part. I’ve had posts deleted, I’ve had posts about me I feel are unfair still hanging around. I just don’t care once I cool off for a bit.

Now I actively flag offensive posts.

3 Likes

As has been pointed out by many people in many places at many times, you can download your post history and find the particular comments you’re talking about.

8 Likes

Yes, this is a great observation. Someone asking you to please not directly respond to them is completely reasonable – and continuing to do so, by anyone’s definition, would be rude.

Another observation is that there are a rare few users that “follow the rules”, but tend to get in a lot of fights with other users. Maybe they are particularly cantankerous, maybe they take offense easily, or maybe they just like to throw elbows. I have commented on this in the past, but users who, intentionally or not, treat this place like a gladiatorial arena – or a roller derby – have a dark cloud of flags and controversy that follows them around wherever they go, and constantly create work for the mods. That’s … a problem.

12 Likes

Well, they, you, I or anyone here could, because deleted posts are still in our downloadable comments…

10 Likes

Download your posts. The comments are there.

10 Likes

9 Likes

I can’t say I flag much at all. Often the questionable post has been hidden before I get there, so there’s no point in adding another one to the pile. I tend to flag only when there seems to be a clear violation of board rules (spamming, doxxing) or flagrant rudeness to another member. I’ve (hopefully) learned to ask for clarification when the intent of a post is vague. And in one instance I recall, I PMed the mods when I flagged something I later realized didn’t deserve a flag.

Do I maybe favor certain Regulars when I flag? I’ll admit, I’ve learned certain people have… a more sarcastic sense of humor, so I won’t take them completely at face value and probably won’t flag at first glance. But the thing I try to consider is, “is this post flaggable,” not “is this person flaggable.” So Regular status isn’t a big factor in my flagging criteria.

I do not ever want to flag a post simply because I disagree with its content. Just as I’ve got a right to give my opinion here (as long as I stay within the rules), so does everyone else. I may decide not to Like or respond to that post if I find it very disagreeable, if only as a check on my temper. Other than that, I try to live and let live.

11 Likes

And it’s also why flagging for remotely objectionable content is a crap-shoot. It gets threads shut down and victims banned for fighting back.

4 Likes

Depending on the vector of the thread, this is not necessarily a negative. You can have a cooling-off period without forcing the participators to stop posting, just the opportunity to post about anything else.

2 Likes

What are your trying to say here? I almost have it. :wink:

11 Likes