This is a sort of programming / logic question based on this answer on meta:
Flaggers with a recent (past 7 days) flagging history consisting of at least 10 handled flags where >= 10% of flags were declined will see the following when they flag:
IIUIC when I today raise my very first flag and it gets declined, I do not get the warning (I may get a different one, but that's a different story).
Now, I raise nine more flags, all of them accepted. And voila, now I get the warning. Do I really get the warning about doing something wrong only after I do it right nine times in a row?
Isn't this clearly wrong?
The formula is
(W+R) >= 10 && W / (W+R) >= 0.10
R denote the number of wrong (declined) and good (accepted) flags in the last week. The problem is that it isn't antitone in
R, i.e., more accepted flags may trigger it.
The reasoning given in the linked answer
Only look at folks who cast at least 10 flags a week. There isn't much point in doing much to knock the priority of flags from people who rarely flag anything.
is not wrong, but could be easily replaced by something like
Only look at folks who raised at least two wrong flags a week.
leading directly to a similar (but antitone in
W >= 2 && W / (W+R) >= 0.10
Similarly for the temporary ban. Instead of
(W+R) >= 10 && W / (W+R) >= 0.25
W >= 3 && W / (W+R) >= 0.25
A simpler alternative would be
W - R / 10 >= 2 for the warning W - R / 4 >= 3 for the temporary ban
IMHO these formulas much more directly express the intentions (like "2 wrong flags are worth a warning" or "10 good flags compensate one wrong flag") and are simpler to tune.