Timeline for We're more aggressively enforcing self-moderation in chat
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2018 at 22:26 | comment | added | user1306322 | You should draft that FAQ yourself, that's what we're doing here basically. Right now is the time to propose your version of it, gather support and with a higher degree of probability than ever get it implemented. I wouldn't wait for another chatpocalipse if you can do it now. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 20:55 | comment | added | Catija | @vzn Sure. That's reasonable. That said, I don't think there's a huge correlation between chatting more and being flagged more. There's some data in chat... and Mods can see the users' suspension histories but more of the most active users of all time in chat have fewer than 10 all time chat annotations/suspensions than otherwise. chat.stackexchange.com/users ... but some of them have really problematic histories, too. :) We can't see to the granularity of flags, though, only suspensions, which would be nice to change. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 20:45 | comment | added | vzn | re "problematic users". suspect there are some basic statistics about some users chatting way more, but also getting more flags. so would also like to look at the frequency of flags ie flags per total lines in chat. think there needs to be some positive acknowledgement/ attn to "regulars" who sustain/ anchor rooms and thereby positively impact/ drive indirect engagement to SE in general, and yet gain no rep for it instead of just negative attn to occasional flags. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 17:48 | comment | added | Catija | @Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 Yes. If you're going to drag your nastiness around with you, much like your suspension is server-wide, so too are the risks of behaving badly. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 17:46 | comment | added | Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 | I take it you're also talking about the cumulative aspect being chat server wide? I didn't see mention of it (though I could have missed it). The reason I bring this up is some people cannot just leave well alone. A "known" user could bring their nastiness from one chat to a different chat after being banned. Not sure how it works currently, but would want to ensure it covers all the bases. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 14:11 | comment | added | Balarka Sen | Thanks for elaborating on the idea of the mechanism! That seems well thought-out, so I redact my skepticism for the time being. Also, interesting. I suspected my room is an outlier but your use of adjectives seem to suggest it's far from a good predictor of how chat.SE on the whole behaves. Thanks for clarifying! | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:21 | comment | added | Catija | I do understand your concerns because I've seen the flags in the room you use primarily... I assure you, for the chat.se server, that room is an extreme outlier. I'm sure you've had problems with trolling flags which is why fixing the mod tools for chat is part of this answer. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:17 | comment | added | Catija | The CMs/balpha would control it - by designing it and nudging the parameters if necessary. For example (very rough) if you have one validated s/o flag in a day, nothing changes (30 minutes ban). Get a second one would increase (say, 3 hours). Third in a day would hit harder, 24 hours). From there, it scales up. Get three in a day twice in a week and you're out for a week instead of a day... but if you don't, you start fresh... ish. Anyway, this is designed to catch really troublesome users who regularly fail to be nice. This is pretty uncommon. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:08 | comment | added | Balarka Sen | Ah I see, so you get to control the time-endpoints of the flag history. Fair enough, that might be something. I don't agree with the conclusion that "most users with a flag history are not trustworthy chat users"; I'd think even if that's true the percentage of reliable chat users (whatever measure of reliability you'd choose!) with a nontrivial flag history varies room-to-room: that's exactly where the statistical effect of room culture kicks in, a concept which the moderators don't like very much, I guess. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 11:49 | comment | added | Catija | Couple that with flag accountability, so that you can see who's casting those troll flags and you can turn the tables on the people trolling chat flags without asking for CM help. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 11:45 | comment | added | Catija | It's not in total. It's validated only in n time with a way for mods to clear the flag history for a specific event. If someone cleans up their act or if the flags are invalid, they start dropping off. I don't really think what you're saying is particularly common or difficult to control for. Most users with a flag history are not trustworthy chat users. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 9:34 | comment | added | Balarka Sen | Given that, I don't think that's necessarily a good idea. In general there's no reason to expect the suspension log in toto has any correlation with repetitive offensiveness (as in, that's a completely statistical claim and not obviously true). There should be an auto-suspension escalation based on the subset of the suspension log that's invoked by some moderator, however. That's surely a better measure of a pattern of offensiveness throughout time than the whole chaos of the suspension log. | |
| May 1, 2018 at 9:30 | comment | added | Balarka Sen | Auto-suspension escalation simply based on the size of the suspension history inevitably puts more weight on flag-bans, which I am afraid is a mixed bag of genuine flags, troll-flags, flags which are "invalid" (eg, a certain user thought this or that message might be rude or abusive to this and that user, but in reality it wasn't intended to be - a confusion which could be easily resolved by discourse prior to flagging), and not to mention mishandling of flags by sloppy 10k+ers. | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 14:13 | history | edited | Catija | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Apr 30, 2018 at 14:05 | history | answered | Catija | CC BY-SA 3.0 |