-3

In past few months I have been flag-locked in chat several times just because someone didn't approve use of words like "shit" or "fuck" in a conversation (discussing things like PHP frameworks or adherence to SOLID principles).

And it definitely was not caused by chat regulars. Instead it always has been around times, when there is a huge influx of first-time users.

Which indicated to me, that some of them are overreacting or not paying attention to the context. And that's a temporary problem.

So .. would it be possible to prevent chat users from issuing system-wide flags for users who have posted less than 100-1000 (up for discussion) lines in the chat.

Update: regarding a possible duplicate. This is not about how "flags are broken" but about how "flags should be an earned privilege" like on the main site.

24
  • 1
    It could end badly if they can't flag anything at all. I could see giving them less (but not zero) weight when it comes to deletion of content or bans.
    – Servy
    May 14 '15 at 16:39
  • 7
    I would flag as well. I don't like going into a chat room and seeing completely unnecessary swear words. Maybe if you're talking about brainf*** but otherwise? PHP isn't that bad, and swear words aren't needed.
    – Tim
    May 14 '15 at 16:40
  • 9
    @Tim not needed perhaps, but taking offense over a single swearword is kinda childish, isn't it? May 14 '15 at 16:44
  • @Servy which is why I specifically mentioned "system-wide flags". If the newbie flag stays within a chat room (and is not spammed with no context to all chat users), then it would be handled a lot better.
    – teresko
    May 14 '15 at 16:44
  • 2
    @Tim Remember that chat is far more casual than the main sites, by design. Such language doesn't really belong in the more formal interactions of a proper q/a, but in an informal context it can be used entirely appropriately.
    – Servy
    May 14 '15 at 16:45
  • 2
    possible duplicate of Flags in chat are defective by design May 14 '15 at 16:45
  • 2
    "flags should be an earned privilege" - they are. At 15 rep May 14 '15 at 16:49
  • 3
    @JanDvorak perhaps. I don't swear and I don't like seeing it. meta.stackexchange.com/a/241996/252153 May be relevant?
    – Tim
    May 14 '15 at 16:50
  • 2
    @JanDvorak for posts. Not for the chat. "Chat" in general is a privilege at 20 points.
    – teresko
    May 14 '15 at 16:50
  • Related: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/241936/…
    – Tim
    May 14 '15 at 16:50
  • 5
    If flags are incorrectly validated, perhaps the burden of blame is on those who review the flags rather than those who raise them? May 14 '15 at 16:54
  • @JanDvorak Sure, but often people just see the message out of context and don't look context up. Out of context it's obviously flag-worthy, so they just validate the flag. [Just for example: The last ban teresko got a lot of counter-flags … but flagging finally won (it were 12 flags total… normally 5 flags re enough)]
    – bwoebi
    May 14 '15 at 16:55
  • 2
    @teresko Maybe the offical response link is better: meta.stackexchange.com/a/241996/252153 If someone wants to flag it because they deem it innapropriate, they're allowed to. I think if someone is offending someone else, that person is entitled to flag it. NB, I'm 16. At least keep the language appropriate for your 13 year old child?
    – Tim
    May 14 '15 at 16:57
  • 1
    Let's get political correct
    – rene
    May 14 '15 at 17:41
  • 2
    I don't censor people and I don't like being censored. I also don't verbally abuse people and I don't like being verbally abused. I swear a lot; that has nothing to do with verbal abuse. May 14 '15 at 18:05
18

The problem isn't really low-rep users flagging, it is that there is simply no general agreement on what is allowed in chat and what should be flagged. Chat flags are shown to a lot of people simultaneously, any 10k+ chat user can act on them.

You can throw around f-bombs liberally in chat, and the chance of getting suspended is still pretty small because a lot of user regard chat as rather less formal and don't see moderate levels of profanity as out of place. Officially, chat is treated the same as the main sites, which does make any profanity flag-worthy. This isn't enforced in any systematic way, it's purely chance if you get flagged for profanity or not.

With the current chat moderation system, you can either choose to refrain from writing any chat messages that contain profanity, accept the small chance of getting flagged and shortly suspended, or get elected or appointed on any SE site as a moderator and become immune to chat suspensions.

There are a lot of ideas on how to improve chat moderation here on MSE, but none of them have been implemented so far. I'd rather try something like my own old feature request for escalating chat flags than just simply prohibiting low-rep users from flagging as I don't think it would solve any of the fundamental issues with the chat flagging system.

3

And it definitely was not caused by chat regulars.

That is not strictly true. I'm not going to say that I flagged it, but I will say that it deserved flagging. And apparently 10 people also though it needed flagging.

Which indicated to me, that some of them are overreacting or not paying attention to the context.

What it should have indicated to you, is that you are very often seem quite unpleasant in chat, and that maybe you should focus on not being so unpleasant.

Trying to blame others for yourself being temp-banned repeatedly from chat indicates that you don't realise that your behaviour is out of line.

9
  • 4
    Huh, so you are in chat, someone is acting unpleasant and other regulars don't say so but instead flag? That is really weird behavior.
    – rene
    May 14 '15 at 17:59
  • 2
    No, people need to tell the OP to chill out on a regular basis.
    – Danack
    May 14 '15 at 18:07
  • 2
    Maybe the people that get agitated by other regulars need to chill out on a regular basis....
    – rene
    May 14 '15 at 18:13
  • the word alone is not 'abusive', might not be appropriate, but it is not in itself abusive.
    – rlemon
    May 14 '15 at 18:24
  • 2
    Yeah - it's not single words. chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/11?m=23197950#23197950 chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/11?m=22770840#22770840 chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/11?m=22723778#22723778 The OP is almost always aggressive and unpleasant in chat. But the actual thing he was complaining about was a completely valid flag, which is why 10 people flagged it, not just a single new user.
    – Danack
    May 14 '15 at 18:35
  • yes, I (and I'm sure others) saw the text where it was not appropriate and abusive, however I was making the point that the word alone is not abusive (to the spirit of the entire thread here)
    – rlemon
    May 14 '15 at 18:37
  • 4
    This seems personal and a bit out of line. Usually condemning people to mental health issues isn't a great sign of personal character. I've also known teresko for quite a while, and isn't so bothered by his character.
    – Zirak
    May 14 '15 at 18:40
  • 2
    "this is not really a great venue for this" then you probably shouldn't mention it here.
    – TylerH
    May 14 '15 at 18:54
  • 1
    "That is a problem you ought to be discussing with a professional in the mental health field, not complaining here that people don't accept your horrible behaviour." I'm not sure why you think a personal attack on another user is appropriate here -it's not. It's one thing to criticize their behavior or conduct in chat and it's another to call them insane. You are way out of line. May 14 '15 at 22:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .