Flagging transparency


In my two cents (well, maybe only one cent) opinion it does not add significant information beyond I do or I don’t like that nickname / avatar guy.


I do not use nickname … :grinning:

And as I see it - @Tirigon already replied it above.


Aye, mine isn’t a nickname either but even with a nickname, I just think if you have something to say then stand by it and associate yourself with it.

If you’ve got enough of an issue to flag something then also stand by that rather than the usual internettyness of being hidden. It stinks of insincerity to me :frowning:


Well, just my point of view: with a avatar, nickname, or even a real name, one is still largely hidden.

An nickname and or an avatar or even a name creates a certain impression. It depends quite a lot on the other persons inner being how the image comes over.
Example: my avatar is a very old elephant I met once in a savanna on a rainy day.
What do you see, and what image do you receive ?
It may be that massive strength idea, it may as well come over as an over sized and overloaded digesting system (they have to eat a couple of hundred kgs (= twice as many pounds) a day :thinking:, and yes those “drive around it droppings” :cold_sweat:

So can one talk about honesty / dishonesty from the sender ?
Is it the receiver who is honest / dishonest ?
Both ideas are quite different, but are based on the same picture !


I think flagging should remain anonymous because it prevents adding an extra layer of drama that isn’t necessary. It lets the issue be privately dealt with between 2 members and the moderators if needed. It can also serve as a way to mitigate the effects of a thread getting way off topic and turning into an argument that is going nowhere. We don’t need to see it. I’ve never flagged a post and I surely wouldn’t want to if it was going to add more chaos. It’s a way to get the issue sidelined so it can be dealt with more productively.


So your response to Cluskeys reply criticizes the negative personal tone, but you are ignoring the personal attack of the original message?
Who are we? Slimy attorneys to answer accusations of type: ‘you did that’ with ‘that is your opinion only?’ instead of no, you are wrong?..

Using your logic should the original post not state: IMHO …, an even then, one can put things straight.
Besides @Cluskey_Smith answer was formally on the polite side, not using CAPS, exclamation marks, he too expressed (dry, but its there) that he values the contribution to the discussion.

He opened an interesting topic, systems that are build on some equilibrium of self management are vulnerable to misuse, and the scenario he describes: that his post gets flagged due to personal reasons rather than due to abuse to community rules is valid, and our all goal should be to not give that type of carcinoma the chance to grow.
So lets discuss if there are options for the system to get improved, flagging anonymously should be maintained, however i disagree to see it as crucial in our scenario as we are peers rather than opposing a power that could punish us (whistle-blower scenario). I personally think there is small space for this type of anonymity in a place that sees itself as an open, progressive community, or in other words i would expect the processes in such a community to rather embrace the opposite.

Constructive options that come to my mind are

  1. who is flagging should provide justification, maybe citing community rules
  2. limits of flagging the same person multiple times in a row by 1 member, or a flag situation in such case that would require a community manager confirmation (or multiple community managers consent)
  3. the community managers dealing as middle persons to ensure anonymity if a discussion is needed between who flagged and who was flagged


Good reply, but pls help me to find the message it replies too. Old brains have memory limits :open_mouth: :joy:


Well, the core of the ‘transparency means telling who flags’ still looks a bit like those famous Russian Babushka one-in-the-other dolls.
Take the outside doll off and you see the same doll again, and so on. Not much information gain one could say.


A flag will always be checked by a community manager and to me that’s enough to see, if people are abusing the system. Imo we should trust the CMs to do their job. I personally haven’t recognized any wilful wrongdoing from their side at least.


I would also speak up for the those who aren’t so keen to be confrontational (if that’s the right word) ie not everyone is perhaps as confident to speak up. You may say that comes with the territory of an Internet forum, but I’d like to think that we here encourage everyone to participate and we can foster an environment that allows that.

So, no, not everyone would like to confront people who they flag. Not because they don’t have integrity, but their character just isn’t built that way.


To add what @Kee said, also not everyone has the time and or the nerves to write a neat essay about how disregarding this and this is.
For this we have Cm’s :slight_smile:


Big underground hidden reasons too flag:
The ‘I’m’ feeling hurt’ susceptibility level of the flagger. :roll_eyes:


Well, how it is checked, is a flag only valid once a CM approves? Or valid automatically, informing the managers to have a look at (not mandatory) with the option to revert if needed.
My experience with a CM were fair (as expected), so i have no personal bad experiences - but as a whole that is not relevant - - this is a classic who controls the controllers situation, in such transparency is key, right? The community managers are close to Eve, Kirin is part of the team, a bias may exist…
Cluskey mentioned many times that at least 1 of the managers is not answering to his questions, that indicates some kind of bias.
My problem overall is when attacking messages of fanboys are not handled at all, but in the same thread by my opinion less rules violating messages of someone who is known to be rather on the critical side receive a “dont misbehave” type of answer…


Anyone can flag a message they think is in breach of the community guidelines. If three people flag the same message, that message is automatically hidden.

Since the flagged post indicates how many people flagged it as inappropriate, off-topic or spam, the flaggee (so to speak) should have some indication of what it is about the post that cause people to take offense. If they then edit their post, it will automatically be unhidden, unless flagged again.

This is where self-reflection comes in. And if you get flagged a lot, then I’d say it’s more likely an issue with the way you present your posts, rather than an issue with the people who flag it.

That’s the automatic system. It helps the community keep itself in check when no moderator is available to step in.

In extreme cases where a lot of posts are getting a lot of flags, an entire topic may be automatically closed. This system keeps topics that have devolved into open war from going nuclear to preserve a healthy atmosphere.

On top of that, all moderators get a notification of every flag. That means we look at every flagged post, whether it’s received a single flag or ten. Sometimes it’s clear what needs to happen, sometimes we ask our colleagues to have a look for a second opinion.

Not every flagged post gets deleted. We may decide that the flag itself was an over-reaction, or downright inappropriate.

The system actually keeps track of all of that, so we will know if someone goes on a random flagging spree. And we will act on it – after all, every unnecessary flag is more unnecessary work for us, and we’re busy enough as it is.

We try to be fair in our judgement, always. That said, our job is not to be impartial. We are wholly on the side of Eve’s success. And though Eve’s success relies on people disagreeing with what we say and do (we will never delete a post just because you disagreed with us) it also relies on a healthy community (we may delete a post if we feel it serves no purpose other than to agitate).

And it’s a fact: moderators are humans too, and so we will definitely make mistakes.
But we try our best not to.


Well for instance nawthor reinstated a post that had been hidden because of flagging that he agreed wasn’t nessacary, he did however tell me to stop calling people snowflakes which I had done in response to the flagging which is basically all I’m left with if I can’t start a meaningful dialogue. :slight_smile:

However he refused to point out to people that he thought from a CM point of view it wasn’t needed to be flagged which I thought would have been good feedback for the community/people who were snowflaking :wink:


We are all snowflakes, when it’s cold enough we come down and coat everything in to a neat clean white.


Isn’t that communicated to the community by the previously flagged and hidden post showing back up?


That’s a fair point, I just thought it’d make sense for a CM to illustrate why it was unflagged and why to help folk understand :slight_smile:


Thanks for the thorough response, i appreciate that.
I am not fully in agreement however that if someones posts are flagged often that it is automatically an indication of that he is way off the norm with his posts and should change his presentation style, although i agree it is probable, but you have to agree it can look the same for flagging for different-opinion reasons if one is against a majority… (large number of flags may indicate there is a larger weight behind the reasoning, larger spread of ‘flaggers’ would not make it look like as the same people are flagging over and over, etc…)
See, the obvious front is between skeptics and fans, with majority being fans skeptical posts are probably flagged more, and as said fan posts with language at least on the same level as a flagged-skeptical posts existed in the same thread.
It is natural, an anthropology student would have a good time watching the community to see all the distortions of human nature here :slight_smile: I guess my point is it is hard to keep all this in reasonable boundaries, and i think good job was being done, having non-anonymous flags would add another level of self-balancing, but i dont expect such an unpopular thing to happen. I wish you guys to keep up the good job, and a good nose to be able to tell if there is something rotten behind a flag and to say so if occurring. I know neutrality…, but sometimes it seems just a way too good excuse :wink:


This is very well written and is precisely my perspective on it :slight_smile: