What distinguishes 'harassment, abuse, and bigotry' and 'unfriendly or unkind', and is it ever appropriate to flag one after the other is declined?

Question

I recently came across a meta post, regarding a behavior someone found irksome and wished to see a response to. In response to an answer, one comment blamed it on a 'cultural thing' in a 'particular country', before going on to talk about how people 'anywhere else' would be 'repulsed' by what the 'natives' had been 'brainwashed [to] think is good'.

While in context it is somewhat less offensive than what you may be thinking, I didn't believe the comment is appropriate or effective in giving or asking for clarification, leaving constructive criticism, adding information, or otherwise contributing to the discussion/issue involved.

I flagged it accordingly for 'harassment, abuse, or bigotry' (on the grounds that it is targeted at a group of people), and the flag was declined.

I later found that 'harassment, abuse, or bigotry' flags seem to carry harsher penalties or otherwise hang more heavily on accounts than other comment flags do, and think that may be part of the reason it was declined by the moderator who reviewed it. Perhaps it would be better to tag it as simply 'unfriendly or unkind'?

Is there any situation where it is appropriate to re-flag a post (which the system does allow--just not for the same flag), or should it be assumed that the reviewing moderator would have otherwise handled it if any flag were appropriate? If the latter, is there a particular reason the system allows posts to be flagged again?

Answer 1

I explain the differences between the two flags (mostly) in an answer from when they were first separated into two. That should help with the "which to use" part of your question...

As to the flagging practices... I'll preface this by saying that I've seen the flag you're talking about. I'm not really sure I agree with it, even after seeing your explanation here. It's about advertisements conditioning viewers... which is... not completely untrue. Regardless, this isn't about your specific flag so...

Comment flags are special, so keep that in mind. For the time being (and hopefully not for much longer) moderators can not (without a user script) decline a comment flag and delete the comment in one click. Because of the UI, they have to do them as two separate steps, in the right order, and may need to open the post the comment is on in a second tab. This means it's much more likely that a moderator will decline a comment flag and not remove the comment - particularly in cases where they feel the chosen flag is too harsh.

Even still, our moderators are quite diligent and do regularly delete comments that are flagged with the wrong reason if they still believe that removing the comment is appropriate. Note that it's much rarer on meta sites for comments to be removed than on main sites. Meta is designed more for discussion, so comments tend to be the standard method for that.

You ask whether there's a penalty for the harassment flags that doesn't come with unfriendly flags - there is not. They are, for the time being, treated the same by the system. They trigger auto-flags at the same rate. There is no penalty for no longer needed flags or custom moderator flags.

---

So, what should you do if you feel that a comment flag was dismissed wrongly - use a custom flag. Particularly in cases where it's a single word that's problematic, pointing that out for the moderators' attention will help them do their jobs better - they may have just missed the troubling word or they may be so used to seeing that word that they don't take it seriously. Explain why you think the comment should be removed.

There's another option - one that I generally hesitate to recommend because it can be somewhat uncomfortable in comments - but if it's a single word and the rest of the comment is otherwise valuable, suggest that the word be changed (edited) - and even recommend an alternative word so that they don't have to stumble for the right choice.

So, you could in your example say

I think the word "brainwashed" here is rude to people from {country}, could you change it to "conditioned"? That should retain the meaning but not be so unkind.

The flag may still be declined but if you convince them by being specific, they may agree... and if you get it declined again, you can either move on, knowing you tried, or... if you really feel that strongly, make a meta post about it on that child meta site - not here on MSE.

Answer 2

There is no rule about re-flagging something.

That said, what you described, assuming it's true, is neither harassment, abuse, bigotry or unfriendly or unkind.

You generalized, so let me pick a specific example:

Germans like to eat raw meat with raw onion slices on a bun. Basically a burger that is totally uncooked and untreated. That's a regional/cultural thing, basically anyone outside of central Europe is repulsed by that. Outside of Germany, people are disgusted, they think it's crazy to eat uncooked grinded meat.

That sentence is neither of the above mentioned. It's simply the truth. Just because a group of people is described does not make it unkind. Just because other's don't like it and would probably describe it as disgusting does not make it unkind. You could say it's generalizing too much. I am a German, I know Germans do that, but I personally don't like the taste. Even then... it's okay. It's the truth. In general, on average, Germans do that. There is no need to call the police over people stating facts or presenting their opinions concerning those facts.

So, if you think you flag should not have been declined, reflag it and add a custom reason, explaining you reasoning. If you just pick another pre-defined flag, chances are high that it gets rejected again. And if you get enough flags rejected, people might see you as just throwing random flags in the hopes one might stick. And that would not be good.

Answer 3

Quite frankly - having the same user reflag a post until it sticks isn't the way to do things.

Fundamentally the goal of flagging is to have someone to take a look. If you wrongly flagged a flag that's obviously someone being a horrible person "'harassment, abuse, and bigotry'" as someone being simply a little not nice " 'unfriendly or unkind'" - we are going to throw the book at them. Likewise, if something if flagged as either and simply needs to go with minimal recrimination, we'll decline and delete. Sometimes, well - the moderator handling the flag might simply not feel that the flag is valid.

More or less, a single, handled flag means the post or comment has been seen, and judged.

Practically in situations where you feel certain the mod missed some essential context, a custom flag might work.

Answer 4

You should flag when it is clear that what is described by the flag is obviously what is there, if something requires some interpretation or context then a custom flag explaining your concerns is appropriate.

Remember that you can include links in a custom flag, the syntax is the same as for comments. Provide links to other Q&As, comments or profiles as necessary.

Is there any situation where it is appropriate to re-flag a post (which the system does allow--just not for the same flag), or should it be assumed that the reviewing moderator would have otherwise handled it if any flag were appropriate? If the latter, is there a particular reason the system allows posts to be flagged again?

If you must reflag you would want to either use the same flag or in the event that you clicked on the wrong flag the first time use the correct flag. Don't run through the list seeking agreement, choose the correct flag. If you realize that it may have not been as obvious to someone else then choose the last choice and explain your flag.

People should flag correctly and correct flags should be accepted.

Offering a different flag the second time through (except for the last flag) only confirms that the first flag was incorrect.

Every site has different standards and it rare for someone to be a moderator on more than one site (but not uncommon) so you should expect varied results. You can explain why you are correct using an additional custom flag and you can discuss it on the site's meta; bringing it to this main Meta only if there a problem here or with flagging in general.

Choose your complaint carefully, there are a lot of flags to review on some sites:

Why are you flagging this comment?
⨷ It contains harassment, bigotry, or abuse.
  This comment attacks a person or group. Learn more in our Code of Conduct.
⨷ It's unfriendly or unkind.
  This comment is rude or condescending Learn more in our Code of Conduct.
⨷ It's no longer needed.
  This comment is outdated, conversational or not relevant to this post.
⨷ Something else.
  A problem not listed above. Try to be as specific as possible.

I am flagging to report this question as...
⨷ spam
  Exists only to promote a product or service, does not disclose the author's affiliation.
⨷ rude or abusive
  A reasonable person would find this content inappropriate for respectful discourse.
⨷ should be closed...
  This question is completely unclear, incomplete, overly-broad, primarily opinion-based or is not about the software that powers the Stack Exchange network as described in the help center, and it is unlikely to be fixed via editing.
⨷ a duplicate...
  This question has been asked before and already has an answer.
⨷ in need of moderator intervention
  A problem not listed above that requires action by a moderator. Be specific and detailed!

I am flagging to report this answer as...
⨷ spam
  Exists only to promote a product or service, does not disclose the author's affiliation.
⨷ rude or abusive
  A reasonable person would find this content inappropriate for respectful discourse.
⨷ not an answer
  This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.
⨷ in need of moderator intervention
  A problem not listed above that requires action by a moderator. Be specific and detailed!

One comment flag is for attacks a person or group and the other is for rude or condescending - they are clearly different.

I seldom get my flags rejected because I carefully choose the correct flag and I don't flag for edge cases. I make sure it's obvious that the flag is applicable and when there isn't one (and there exists a reasonable complaint that should be addressed) I use a custom flag, conversely I never use a custom flag when a predefined one is available.