Someone flagged an x-ray image for scat, clearly not understanding the rule in the slightest but there's nothing we can do about it.
Posted under General
Flagging really ought to be public info. Anonymizing them relieves responsibility from the flagger for their actions, potentially encouraging rampant mass-flagging or flag abuse now that their actions are no longer public.
Reading over this old thread again, it does appear that a lot of Anelaid's flags in question were unjustified. Images that are clearly not "poorly drawn" is flagged as such, potentially confusing janitors/moderators looking over the queue. Danbooru is, supposedly, a repository for high-quality art, but a lot of high-quality art is unapproved for being western, and a lot of low-quality art is approved for being eastern. While I understand the rationale behind holding a focus on Japanese artists, the quality standard ought to be consistent across the two.
Correspondingly, flag and appeal reasons should be high-quality as well. Users regularly submitting low-quality flags and appeals ought to receive the same treatment as users submitting low-quality art.
Aristocrat said:
Flagging really ought to be public info. Anonymizing them relieves responsibility from the flagger for their actions, potentially encouraging rampant mass-flagging or flag abuse now that their actions are no longer public.
This won't really be an issue as long as janitors not being able to see the flagger's name is fixed.
Aristocrat said:
Flagging really ought to be public info. Anonymizing them relieves responsibility from the flagger for their actions, potentially encouraging rampant mass-flagging or flag abuse now that their actions are no longer public.
I'm sorry, but the bullcrap that flaggers got because of legitimately doing what they did showed it was clearly necessary.
Being visible to janitors really needs to happen, though. I'd completely forgotten that had never been resolved.
I'd rather we can give flaggers hell in comments than allow a system of anonymity. Opinion should not be treated like whistleblowing.
Oh, and food for thought: NOTHING is stopping any one user with a grudge from flagging a couple hundred posts.
While it won't necessarily cause deletions, it would cause extra workload for janitors & mods (possibly disrupt the workflow for regular post approval?).
Suggestion 1: Oppose.
I think the advantages in transparency outweigh potential bruised feelings via internet argument.
Suggestion 2: Oppose.
I think both sides should have their say when an image is put "on trial," and it's up to the janitors to decide whether a reason advocated by side or the other is stupid or not. e.g. Whether "part of a pool" is relevant or not.
No offense, but I find the spirit in which the suggestions were raised to be somewhat distasteful as well. The solution to a conflict of opinions is not to ask to make sure that only yours are heard from now on.
Flags are already limited to 10 per day for people below Contributor rank, so there is in fact something to stop people with a grudge. Once Janitors can see who's doing the flagging, it'd be easy to stop anyone who's trying to be an ass. Anyone with the Contributor rank has built up enough trust to have that kind of leeway.
People do have their say when images are flagged. That's what comments are for, and indeed, many flagged images have had discussions in the comments, clarifying problems that may not be immediately evident or giving reasons why the flags are unjustified. I would imagine such discussions help to form Janitor opinions when reviewing flagged images. But spewing vitriol at users who flag legitimately bad posts with such helpful comments like "Oh, it's HIM again" and "Fuck off"? No. The rules don't tolerate flaming and harassment.
It should be noted the revision to appeals was more just to address the massive misuse of the "part of a pool" reason, which was meant to be used to preserve sequential images that would severely break a series' continuity if it were deleted, but was instead used to defend posts sitting in non-sequential comic pools or even mere theme pools - which didn't help them anyway because Janitors were fully aware of what "part of a pool" was really supposed to mean. There are still plenty of legitimate appeal reasons.
Updated
Anonymizing flaggers does not allow them to skirt responsibility as long as janitors and above are able to see who flagged images and hold them accountable if they get out of hand.
If commenters were able to maturely hold debate with the flagger, I wouldn't mind. However, they've shown time and again that they're unable to do this. Comments on flagged images devolve into insults and harassment so often that public flagging simply doesn't work.
Sorry for the necrobump, but I thought that doing this would be better than starting a whole new topic.
I'd like to support the sentiment that the flaggers should feel responsible for their actions. I suggest to either make the flaggers' nicknames visible to everyone, or make the appealers' nicknames invisible, as well.