Posted under General
One thing I happened to notice is that when things are contested there are a lot of flags/approvals/re-flags in a relatively short amount of time.
I think having some sort of timer where images that have been re-approved after being flagged can't be flagged again for a certain amount of time may help prevent things from becoming a tug of war.
You probably mean the flags about wende'y?
Well, to me it seems that the air is pretty heated, especially when it comes to western styled post. That was also a bi point of arguments during that Doom post where a flag followed shortly an approval.
So maybe taking some hours off and do something else will help to avoid such heated arguments and flags that all go the same direction.
Anyway, it seems that the comment section is blowing up on multiple posts. Some comments are also mentioning now "autism" which is going too far imo.
Guess that such flags should be done on a single base: Testing the water, before performing mass flgging on a single copyright. Will prevent such things.
Meh, once people get sick of this meme I expect they won't care to stick around for the sake of defending these posts from deletion. Most of them are just anons with member-level accounts that aren't remotely interested in the rest of the art here, so I doubt their use of the excuse that the 'standard' is biased -- it just doesn't suit their narrative.
Oh, I mean the people defending them. The people flagging them I think have a clear idea of what belongs on this board (which is why they're confident enough to), so again, as I mentioned this is some sort of manufactured scuffle by those anons. It's just that there's a clouding in judgment regarding Western art for a few approvers, it seems. That the flaggers' opinions can't be trusted simply because it sounds like they're fighting the content rather than the quality.
That's the other site and what I also mean what falls under "bite reflex".
One way to prevent that is for example slowing down with flags and first testing the water. To be honest, that has failed already, since there have been already four resolves Wendy posts. So to go out against the whole bunch again seems counter-productive. Especially when you want to tackle a copyright and/or an artist. If there are too many flags against one thing, then the comment section will most likely blow up.
One can do that, but one should expect some resistence if one want to pull that through :P.
In the end, most people should also read the howto:flag wiki, especially the part about commenting on a flagged post. If something like "autism" comes up, then there is something overstepped.
Mikaeri said:
Most of them are just anons with member-level accounts that aren't remotely interested in the rest of the art here...
At this point, I'm beginning to question why the flagged status should even be visible at all to Member-level users, or for that matter, anyone else without approval privileges. Something about the red borders makes some people feel a need to raise an uproar in the comments, leading to such pleasant exchanges as on post #2708133. Why do these people even need to know when a post is flagged if they have no say in its (re)approval anyway? It seems like we're only encouraging this sort of behavior.
iridescent_slime said:
At this point, I'm beginning to question why the flagged status should even be visible at all to Member-level users, or for that matter, anyone else without approval privileges. Something about the red borders makes some people feel a need to raise an uproar in the comments, leading to such pleasant exchanges as on post #2708133. Why do these people even need to know when a post is flagged if they have no say in its (re)approval anyway? It seems like we're only encouraging this sort of behavior.
I'm with you, sadly. Call me a sort of 'aristocrat' but I'm of the opinion that only Gold+ members should be allowed to have the option to see what's flagged and see what's appealed on currently flagged posts. Member-level users would then only be able to see posts that are already deleted and appeal those once the delay has expired. It'd soften a lot of the drama among both approvers/flaggers and other users.
Considering how often flagged pictures have inflammatory comments and/or appeals appended to them as well, I think it wouldn't hurt to keep the "flagged" status invisible to standard users and instead only display it as a normal blue border. Although I think some of the users I have in mind have been reprimanded in that regard.
On the other hand, there's also times where it simply lead to a decent discussion about the picture's quality, for example when the picture was flagged for a quality check.
Maybe, but that'd bring up problems about how it'd work. Besides, changing the color or status message doesn't really do anything if they notice that the post date has already exceeded its' first 3 days allotted in the queue -- it would look strange for a post to be "blue" when it's already been around from anywhere from a month older.
The discussion is useful, but I think it should happen after a post's deletion, not during it's (potential) deletion.
I am completely against hiding flags from regular users. It'd be like throwing gasoline on the drama fire, and it'd be restricting permissions arbitrarily from the 90% of users who have never caused unnecessary drama on a flagged post.
Both sides of the situation need more accountability. Moderate commenters that are behaving needlessly antagonistically, and give more than a slap on the wrist to people who spring poorly-thought-out batch flags like these Wendy's flags without discussing them first.
Maybe. Most regular users don't check the forum anyway, and they have very little investment in the site in regards to what comes and stays -- besides, there are much better fitting boards for that kind of content IMO. More or less to the point though, I still don't think we should cater to their desires by allowing this kind of stuff to happen. It is in their right to come here for whatever kind of seasonal content they want, but if they want to help moderate content, they should do it at a level where it won't cause drama or fighting at least publicly.
In regards to the accountability thing, I do agree we need to be more tough on the commenters that basically treat the comment section like a mini-reddit (brash populist comments, brigading posts with upvotes and downvotes, etc.), but I disagree with the "give more than a slap on the wrist to people who spring batch flags." NWS has already been fairly generous with the presence of that content even though he highly disagrees with it -- other users might look like they're doing it aggressively, but I stand by the opinion that it is in their right to with the daily flags they are given.
And besides, those (the ones flagging more than one a day) are the users that actually have an investment in the site, Gold+ users. Of course it should be given to them since they've paid or contributed in some manner. And as long as they're using valid reasons to flag and generally being mindful (even if the flag reasons are brief) then it's fine.
See, there's a difference between "poorly thought out" flags and "brief" flags. Poorly thought out just means that the flagger didn't care to read howto:flag and/or flagged for something frivolous/invalid (seizure-inducing, "This is absolutely disgusting", "Flandre doesn't have cow tits", etc). Brief, in my opinion, is making polite reasons like "quality check please, arms look off" or "off-topic, western character in a western style." We're welcome to disagree with them, but they definitely aren't poorly thought out.
And besides, I don't expect every flagger to give a good detailed reason as to why a post should be deleted -- it sometimes helps, sometimes doesn't. One problem with the flagging that was happening months ago was flagging being too detailed, including all the "fluff" in a post that makes a post sound bad when those mistakes actually can be forgiven (which of course why that clause was now added in howto:flag). When you say too much, you have more reasons that other people can disagree with you on. That's just fact. So quite often, less is more for these kinds of things I believe.
Aforementioned clause:
- Do not mention every little flaw in the image. If a flaw does not hurt the overall quality of an image, leave it out.
EDIT: stuff
Updated
Flandre5carlet said:
On the other hand, there's also times where it simply lead to a decent discussion about the picture's quality, for example when the picture was flagged for a quality check.
That was my biggest concern about raising this suggestion. Sometimes, amid all the usual whining about flags being anonymous and insistence that worse things have been approved, good points get made about image relevance and quality. But there's nothing stopping anyone from making these points after a flag gets resolved, either.
feline_lump said:
I am completely against hiding flags from regular users. It'd be like throwing gasoline on the drama fire, and it'd be restricting permissions arbitrarily from the 90% of users who have never caused unnecessary drama on a flagged post.
I don't get the part about drama. If the users most prone to creating drama never see when posts are flagged, they'll have no reason to get upset to begin with.
As for "restricting permissions", this is only taking away something that is of no concern to the vast majority of users anyway. It's no different from locking cameras out of a courtroom; people not involved in or affected by the process don't always have to see what goes on behind the scenes.
Both sides of the situation need more accountability. Moderate commenters that are behaving needlessly antagonistically, and give more than a slap on the wrist to people who spring poorly-thought-out batch flags like these Wendy's flags without discussing them first.
I agree that users abusing the system by flagging posts en masse without justification should be dealt with by the moderators, and they've proven themselves willing to do so in the past. Fortunately, most users are limited to one flag per day, and those not bound by this limit tend to have put a lot more time (if Builder+) or money (if Gold+) into this site and therefore have more to lose if they get sanctioned for flagging indiscriminately. That isn't necessarily the case with bad commenters as anyone with an account here can trash up the place with terrible comments. I can think of multiple users who have received negative records and/or bans for their responses to flags, yet we still have plenty of others throwing tantrums in the comments. Doesn't it make more sense to proactively deny them a reason to misbehave in the first place?
issue #3027 would add a three day cooldown. Note that this would also prevent posts from having multiple active flags, which is currently possible but pretty pointless.
Flandre5carlet said:
Considering how often flagged pictures have inflammatory comments and/or appeals appended to them as well, I think it wouldn't hurt to keep the "flagged" status invisible to standard users and instead only display it as a normal blue border.
I've been in favor of hiding flags for a long time (topic #5471) but people have always objected to that idea. But screw it, I'm going to kick it up to albert and let him decide: issue #3028. I think hiding the border color is a fair enough compromise. You would still be able to see flagged posts with status:flagged or at /post_flags.
I'm against any degree of concealment of flags, because it's a way for flaggers to empower themselves by putting themselves beyond criticism. It implicitly validates the idea that flaggers are always working for the Greater Good of Danbooru, while those who appeal posts and criticize flags are nothing but toxic irrational outsiders. Both flags and appeals are open to any registered user, so it's not a matter of leaving the moderation to the mods. If someone spews personal insults in response to a flag, then punish them for that. If someone repeatedly flags perfectly good images because they're irked by them, then punish them for that. There's no reason to hide when you've got excellent weapons at your disposal.
That said, only getting rid of the angry red borders is less bad than completely hiding flags from lower-rank users.
I'm still in favor of changing the color from red to blue. Despite the message a flag always carries, red always implies aggression while blue does not. Colors are way more decisive in our decisions as we might think. Would be worth to try it out; and it would also say that flagged posts are also pending.
