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’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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.