So why is flagging anonymous?

Especially while appealing isn't. Just what is the logic?

I came to think about it after I flagged post #2191310 (oh come on, give me a break. I look through so many posts every day, may I just send one pic back to queue with a stupid comment if I accidentally approved it?..)

Leaving the raging commentor aside, I was surprised by the fact that the uploader had to go through the trouble of appealing the post by saying that he didn't understand the reason behind its deletion. I mean, if I was indicated as the initial flagged, he could have simply contacted me directly.

Users are more likely to get harassed for flagging an image than from vouching for its approval.

When you flagged it you probably should have stated that you approved the image in error, thus letting them know it was the approver retracting their approval of the image.

But is it really necessary for flagging to be anonymous?
I mean, maybe there should be an option "flag anonymously" or something. Has there been any major incident of someone being harassed for flagging?

Well, a flag ist in my opinion identical to a alarm button in other internet forums. An the reason why the person who flagged it isn't shown to the public (i don't know if moderators can see who flagged a post) is exactly the same reason mentioned by NWR_Renim.
An appeal is something complete different. It isn't...uhm...harmful, but a flag is.

From what I have seen before, quality doesn't really matter that much, nor does stating flagging reason. Once you flag it, you automatically become the big evil bad, and knights in shinning armor will come for you. To some, flagging and trolling are apparently the same word.

Well, if you all say that.. Personally, until now I haven't seen anyone give two tits and a gravy about flagging posts, but meh. I guess nobody else would like to let others know it was them who flagged the post huh.

Well it's not so much the quantity of occurrences that were the real problem, so much as the times it has really occurred in the past it became really big shit storms. Not wanting to repeat that we made flagging anonymous.

Removing the anonymity may cause potential flaggers to think twice before flagging a post because they just don't want to deal with the fallout. I'm against anything that would lead to a decrease in flagging, because I believe that only bad posts would benefit. If anything, we need more flagging; I have faith in the moderation team to reapprove anything that doesn't deserve deletion.

Also, if anonymity were removed, how long would it take before users developed reputations for flagging posts that were "obviously" good art? We've had comments and forum threads about approvers being too lenient, do we need them for flaggers being too strict?

But why not make anonymous flagging (or non-anonymous flagging) an option?

Well, I think that the resulting danger would be too high. It is really a mere protective mechanism. The forum doesn't want that one user gets to the bad side of some users because he thought it would be good or even necessaire to flag something. Well, that would be logical, I think^^.

And if the user wants to say that he flagged something, he can always write a comment^^.

I've seen people got terribly offended by that "x moderators didn't like it enough to approve" message and decided to start a verbal crusade in the comment section. You can't see who reviewed the post and didn't like it enough, so I guess that saved these moderators a lot of hate mails. I would assume anonymous flagging works the same way, and most people may want to stay anonymous, even being presented the option.

Whoever reads/ gives a fudge about hate mails or comments. Oh well, you didn't really convince me but at least I see that this is the dominant opinion. I'll just drop the matter then, thanks for taking time to explain it to me anyway.

-

It doesn't mean the user is protected (that's why he can write it on his own free will). But if the system itself shows something that could harm the peace between users, then it would be counterproductive.
-> The system itself wants to maintain a good clima between the users (it is also a good image to visitors), but if one user decides to write something, then it is something different because it is his own decision.

Like I said: It's an alarm button and if the system shows it, it would inflict arguments between the users.

I believe that flagging ehould not be anonymois but the possible resulting arguments should be DM only. Nobody else should be involved but the mods and admins and they still have the power to ban those who are unruly.

There's very little to no benefit to showing the flagger's name. The only thing it would prevent is this very specific instance where you should have flagged it with "accidental approval" and not "oh wait no."

The flag page itself tells you that you must enter a valid reason, you have to give a reason that all of us can understand without verifying the flagger, approver, and trying to figure out your logic behind flagging it.

If someone flagged any other post with just "oh wait no" would you let that fly?