Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

12
  • Hmm, well, it's not in the block "it needs ♦ moderator attention", so in this sense Lance didn't "flag the moderator". (Ah, Ninefingers adresses this point.) Commented Sep 26, 2011 at 17:23
  • Sure, but they could handle them better. I agree that they should check them to close egregious ones ASAP, but if they don't think it merits it, they could either let it go, or flag neutral(?) or helpful. Commented Sep 26, 2011 at 17:25
  • 3
    @HendrikVogt They all go to the same moderator queue. Spam/offensive flags are not something moderators should be expected to ignore. Commented Sep 26, 2011 at 17:26
  • 3
    @LanceRoberts No, I'm not going to just let it go or flag it neutral or helpful if it's not helpful. By leaving it there I'd just be wasting the time of every other moderator who checks the queue. By marking it helpful I'd be encouraging improper flagging. Declining flags is meant to show you what you shouldn't be flagging. Commented Sep 26, 2011 at 17:28
  • 1
    Eh, I'm not fully feeling this one. I agree that if they are spam and offensive, they should be dealt with more quickly. But I'd say the same about egregious close and delete scenarios in general. And when we don't agree with the closure or deletion, we generally either let it play out (if we simply don't agree), or we start up discussion opposing the closure/deletion as necessary (if we flat out disagree). If it is the matter of the latter, I'd certainly hope that would be a wiser thing to feedback on. Commented Sep 26, 2011 at 17:28
  • @Bill: Sure, I didn't mean to say this. I just wanted to point out that "I did not flag the moderator" is correct if one only looks at the flag dialog. Commented Sep 26, 2011 at 17:30
  • 1
    @GraceNote There was no reason to let it play out. The post was flagged for no reason so I dismissed it. Commented Sep 26, 2011 at 17:30
  • 2
    The crux of the issue, to me, isn't the fact it was declined (as mentioned, you may disagree on the post being offensive), it is the chosen decline reason. Which gives the impression that "a flagger marking something they find offensive as offensive is not something that requires intervention", which is a bit at odds with what you're saying that we should act on offensive material. Even if you may disagree that the post is offensive, that doesn't immediately make it non-offensive to the flagger who interpreted it as such. Commented Sep 26, 2011 at 17:38
  • 1
    @GraceNote Yes, I do agree that the chosen reason was the wrong one. At the time I assumed Lance was flagging something that he knew was not offensive. However, that does seem to be an afterthought to his main point that the flag shouldn't have been dismissed at all. Commented Sep 26, 2011 at 17:43
  • 5
    The "no evidence to support it" reason may have been a better option. This tells me that introducing decline reasons only added another area where one can make a mistake that results in hurt feelings all around. (Although personally I likely would've dismissed as "helpful" on the assumption that even though the post might not be offensive, it was flagged in good faith. I say this without knowing what was actually flagged.) Commented Sep 26, 2011 at 17:45
  • I think @AnnaLear hit the nail on the head. Commented Sep 26, 2011 at 17:48
  • 3
    @AnnaLear Yes, that's the one I should have chosen. Since I didn't feel like it was flagged in good faith, I thought "don't flag things that don't need to be flagged" was the better option at the time. Commented Sep 26, 2011 at 17:49