How to edit flagged post?

One of my posts has been flagged by some caring and loving person for some reason. The message from @system tells me I can edit it to make it less… obtrusive. But without some idea of what the misunderstanding of the flagger was, how can I know how to edit it in the right direction to alleviate the issue? Any ideas? I’d hate to offend the six community members who liked the post, too, so I don’t want to slant it in a way which would offend them, either.

Not sure what the answer is here. Perhaps add a way for a flagger to add an explanation, so the flaggee knows what to change? And the six likes, who apparently didn’t see whatever the flagger saw? What about them?

And of course, the topic is in “slow mode”, so even if I were to find out what’s wrong, and wish to make an appropriate change, I can’t edit it in the first place. This seems to be a failing with the Discourse software itself. The system shouldn’t announce I can edit an un-editable post, and the edit pencil shouldn’t be shown if the post cannot in fact be edited.


I recommend asking over on Discourse Meta. I’m sure they’ve put some deep thought into how the flagging system works, and maybe not being able to edit in slow mode is in fact a bug.

If it the post I am thinking of then it is up to 10 likes now. So please be careful not to offend me as one of the 10…otherwise I might have to flag the post myself. :rofl:


Well, it’s an idea, Kevin, but I’m not the one that chose Discourse as the software for the Roon forum. Perhaps Roon should be the ones to intercede with whoever it is who makes this software.

I’d bear that in mind, Anthony, if I could in fact change the post, but I see no way to do that.

Shame that a post which has now earned a “Nice Reply” badge, a post which is only about me and my experience, seems to be doomed to extinction for undisclosed reasons, no doubt a simple misunderstanding. But that’s life. First world problems.

It does not seem fair that a well liked post can be taken down by just one flag (OK there could be multiple flags). Especially if you have no clue as to the offence taken.


Don’t loose faith, I for one value your contribution, and I agree that upsetting one reader shouldn’t allow them magical censorship privileges. It is what it is. @kevin is cool with it, so lets just move on.


Hey Bill, only one? I’ve lost count of the number I’ve had flagged or subsequently removed.

Don’t fret about it. Some people just can’t deal with others not sharing their point of view.

Expecting you to audition power cables to evaluate their effect on sound would be like asking me to enrol in a theology course to evaluate my lack of faith.

Who wants to waste time on something they fundamentally don’t believe in?

Don’t lose heart, we need a healthy injection of cynicism around here!


The consequences of flagging vary according to the Trust Level of the flaggers and the number of flags. A post may be hidden before the flag is resolved if the combined Trust Level of the flaggers exceeds a threshold or if three users flag it.

All flags are ultimately resolved by Mods who then choose whether the post should be or remain hidden or not.

Even after a flag is decided the post can be ‘unhidden’ by editing it. Editing without removing offending content wastes everyone’s time. If your post gets flagged and hidden and you don’t know why it is best to either move on or ask the Mods about it rather than simply edit to unhide it.

I believe this is the post @Bill_Janssen is referring to:

Listening to power cables is (with apologies to Cole Porter) my idea of nothing to do.
I would find it hard to live so empty a life that this would be the new thing I’d try out next. Very hard. I’d probably have to be institutionalized.

The objectionable content is the inference that people who listen to power cables lead empty lives sufficient to result in institutionalisation. I thought the post was marginal, but marginal posts are a hostage to fortune. If they draw a clearly inappropriate response which is itself Moderated (as this post did) and are then themselves flagged they can be cleared away. See this stickied thread:

Users can avoid marginal posts being hidden as a result of the inappropriate responses they draw by eschewing disparaging comments or provocative rhetorical flourishes. Keep in mind that remarking on the psychology of those who you disagree with is likely to offend and usually adds nothing useful to the conversation.


lol, nicely put - but in the spirit of adding nothing useful, the victim culture snowflakes are out in force.

1 Like

The pearl clutchers that objected to that post more than likely did so as a way to further stifle the argument against power cables making any difference and that should be taken into account when deciding on moderation.

Still, thanks for the laff, @Bill_Janssen. I gave your observation a Like, and I consider I am in good company.

There was no ‘argument’ in the relevant post. It was an assertion about the empty lives of those who listen to power cables, framed as a self-reflection. It contributed nothing to the discussion. Had it contained a sensible point we would have edited around it. It was not flagged as part of some conspiracy to repress argument. It was flagged as a tit for tat response to the moderation of the clearly infringing response it drew. Had anyone flagged the original marginal remark about ‘wondering why people are reluctant to try new things’ then that would probably have been Moderated also.

The topic of the relevant thread is whether power cables make a difference to sound quality. Musings about the psychology of aversion to new things or empty lives contribute nothing to that debate.

1 Like

If the mods are going to hide all posts that contirbute nothing, then their work is cut out for them.

Only the mods know if the objectors were also involved in thread and on what side of the argument they occupied. This makes a difference, no matter what the stated reasons for the objection were.

Those people who object to posts to use the moderators to fight their battles need to grow a pair.

Still, the value of the original post in all its harmless inanity is not a hill I care to die on.

1 Like

I disagree. The sensible point was that, based on the author’s experience and knowledge, there is no point to listening to power cables any more than to listening to say the color of their outer jacket. If one thinks some ideas are just plain ridiculous, they should be able to say so.

That was not what the post said and the power cable thread is not a survey of bare opinion. By all means set out your experience and reasons for having an opinion. But just saying that listening to power cables is a waste of time without anything further is unhelpful. And, once you’ve made a post setting out your reasons in the thread, move on. Most of the time these threads degenerate into people sniping at each other. It’s not persuasive and is a pain in the proverbial. There is a big difference between explaining why an idea is ridiculous and ridiculing the people you disagree with.