Offensive flag declined for the wrong reason

Question

I flagged a question as offensive, figuring that it may not get the 6 votes needed to shut it down, but it was the right thing to do (no, I won't point out which one, since that would derail the discussion of this issue, this is not about the particular flag).

I got the following feedback on the flag page:

The message is also plainly wrong, since offensive and spam flags should be used for those reasons, since the community alone with enough votes can deal with those issues. They do not need to be mod-targeted specifically, since it doesn't always require their intervention.

I did not flag the moderator, I just flagged the post as offensive. If they don't want to fix it, then fine just leave it alone, but there is no reason to decline an offensively flagged post. If 5 others don't agree, then it will disappear on its own. The offensive and spam flags work that way, and shouldn't be declined.

Answer 1

I'm a bit late to this one, but; if the flag on this post was simply the phrasing "whining", then it was not necessary to flag it - as a user with 26.5k, you have more than enough reason to simply make a subtle edit. I rephrased it to "complaining"; it took mere moments, and nobody was harmed.

Whether it was truly offensive is... well, a bit subjective; I'm not even going to get into that. But easily fixed with a tiny little edit, which did not change the nature of the post.

To quote the FAQ:

If you see something that needs improvement, click edit and help us make it so!

Answer 2

I did not flag the moderator, I just flagged the post as offensive. If they don't want to fix it, then fine just leave it alone, but there is no reason to decline an offensively flagged post.

Yes, you did flag for a moderator. The fact that the community can vote to deal with spam/offensive flags without moderator intervention should not weaken spam/offensive flags. Those flags are, in my mind, stronger than regular flags because they make a stronger assertion about the post. They require my immediate attention. Allowing the community to deal with spam/offensive posts allows them to be dealt with more quickly. It doesn't mean moderators should let them sit in the queue until they eventually evaporate.

Answer 3

On the one hand, I agree in principle. On the other hand, after seeing what you flagged offensive, I'm kinda depressed. This falls squarely in the realm of "flagging for catharsis", doesn't it...

Therefore, I suggest the solution to this is to remove spam and offensive flags from the flagging summary page (the one that breaks out the user's flag weight and puts flag results & reasons in their face) completely. As you note, they evaporate over time anyway, which could result in some confusion for users keeping a sharp eye on their past flags. Also, this would increase the anonymity of these particular flags.

Answer 4

Moderators are also members of the community. If they happen across offensive and spam flags in the mod queue, it's up to their judgement and discretion to either nuke the steamroll or drive in the final nail with their blood diamond sledgehammer.

Users are known to at times flag posts that are neither offensive nor spam. Letting them pile up to the point of a -100 EXP hit would be letting evil or misguided flags win.

Moderators need the ability to decline these flags as they do with any other flag and may indeed require their intervention should the reasoning not gel.

Answer 5

I flagged a question as offensive, figuring that it may not get the 6 votes needed to shut it down, but it was the right thing to do

Actually, the jury seems to be out on your conclusion there. Without seeing the post in question, we simply can't say, but looking at the comments on Shog9's answer I'm thinking there's some debate.

I did not flag the moderator, I just flagged the post as offensive.

The flag dialog is perhaps a little confusing. There's "flag for moderator attention" and "flag as offensive. However, there's one flag queue. Moderators see them all, for this reason:

They do not need to be mod-targeted specifically, since it doesn't always require their intervention.

Yes they do. Moderators need to be aware of patterns of repeated abuse so as to deal with problem users. This means stepping into the flag queue and handling flags, offensive, spam, etc flags.

If they don't want to fix it, then fine just leave it alone, but there is no reason to decline an offensively flagged post.

Actually yes there is. Flagging post as offensive, if carried through, has a -100 reputation penalty to the poster. Secondly, you've just generated another flag for moderators to review. Moderators volunteer their time for this. I see nothing wrong with letting good faith, thanks for letting us know but I didn't need to do anything flags go as helpful/no action needed, but blatantly wrong flags should be hammered. That line is of course subjective - see the first point I addressed.

The message is also plainly wrong

I think it's about right - only flag things moderators may need to do something about. That doesn't necessarily mean they're going to act on that exact post - but they may need to do something, even if that's only talking to other mods and taking note of the situation. However, what the message is saying is that if a moderator really doesn't need to see that at all, then don't flag it. Back to point 1 again.

Answer 6

This question is the reason why we should not have the ability to comment on declined flags. As this thread has played out for the past 2 hours, it can easily offend someone or lead to more questions than answers. I propose that we strike the decline reason. Just leave it as declined.