fossilnix said:
I'm kind of surprised that bestiality isn't mentioned in the "extra scrutiny" section of the ToS
You can bring it up in topic #11877.
But that is a bit off topic here.
Posted under General
fossilnix said:
I'm kind of surprised that bestiality isn't mentioned in the "extra scrutiny" section of the ToS
You can bring it up in topic #11877.
But that is a bit off topic here.
I want to edit the howto:flag wiki with the following sentence to clarify the third "Do not" point.
"Do not insult people who flagged a post in the comments or in the appeal. Also: Don't insult the uploader or a post approver. See also howto:comment."
I think that's ok, since there are some users who are insulting or are aggressive in the comment section. But maybe there is a better wording for this.
I'd update it to the following instead:
- Do not complain about flag reasons in the comments. Be patient and remain civil. The post will be approved if the reason is unjustified.
Flandre5carlet said:
I wouldn't see a reason why not, personally. Calmly asking for details or discussing the flag, that's okay - attacking flaggers and generally abrasive comments, that's not okay.
Good to hear that. Because there are peoples who can't tell the difference between asking and complaining.
I've updated it to the following for now...
- Do not complain about flag reasons in the comments. Be patient and remain civil. The post will be approved if the reason is unjustified.
- See howto:comment for proper commenting behavior
I didn't really want to add something encouraging discourse on flags because it is very hard to convey the original context of a message through the written word alone, especially since it is very difficult to convey non-verbal and verbal cues to the reader. (Emoticons and other such literary mechanisms are a poor substitute).
Therefore, it is very easy for a reader to read a subtext in a message which may not have been the original intention of the writer, especially for issues as emotionally charged as flagging or posts getting deleted. For the already mentioned example ITT, someone may honestly be asking for clarity on a flag, and someone else may read that same message as complaining. The fault likes neither with the writer nor the reader, but with the imprecise nature of the written word, and language in general.
post #2519262
Should we also add something in the wiki that appeals should also be more as a one liner? Simply "no" is pointless.
Provence said:
Yeah...well.
You are missing the point here. I mean..shouldn't appeals in general contain more than "no"? A flag wouldn't be valid with a reason like this and "no" is just adding noise.
It is. But apparently there are no rules or limitations regarding appeals, right? Or am I missing something?
"No." is not a good reason, but really, what else is there to say? Usually there's not much more to say beyond "I like this post" or "I disagree with the flagger", neither of which are very productive.
In any case, the flag notice will link to howto:flag in the next update. Also the wording was changed from "flagged for deletion" to "flagged for review". Maybe this will help with the flagging arguments a little.
evazion said:
"No." is not a good reason, but really, what else is there to say? Usually there's not much more to say beyond "I like this post" or "I disagree with the flagger", neither of which are very productive.
Giving a counter-argument to flaggers is a better move rather than "No".
Sacriven said:
Giving a counter-argument to flaggers is a better move rather than "No".
Even then it would often just boil down to "I don't think this is a satisfactory flag reason" or "I don't think this post is bad enough to warrant deletion", which at the end of the day isn't really saying useful either.
And if you start applying requirements to appeals then you don't just apply them to appeals of flags but also to appeals of images that simply passed through the mod queue without being approved by anyone, in which case there's no reason given for the deletion in the first place and sometimes there is no reason to give. And this latter case is the very situation that we would MOST want to see people appealing.
Not seeing why this was flagged. Even if there are anatomy errors, they don't seem noticeable enough for deletion.
animeboy12 said:
Not seeing why this was flagged. Even if there are anatomy errors, they don't seem noticeable enough for deletion.
The hips do look funny, but not enough to disapprove IMO.