So, this is a feature request then, for after all the goodness in 1.4
hmm why do you want to nuke it from existence, a deferred flag really has no impact.
Because the resulting post, now that it’s been moved to its own topic, is no longer off topic.
That is some serious OCD it was offtopic back in the day though … just defer it, don’t count on us adding a nuke flag from existence forever option …
I thought that was just a part of all the preening I see happening here at discourse…
It’s deferred, and the topic is boring to me, so I don’t have to look at it again after our October meeting, but it does seem odd that the flag for off topic is on a topic where the post is relevant.
Ehh, no worries. You have to steel your tolerance for cognitive dissonance.
*ties a hachimaki to his big cobalt cranium*
Discourse marks the epoch to the end of this training. My body and mind are ready.
*grunt* I have heard from my fellow mei’hswei that the end guy is very difficult, but its pelt and skull are worth an infinity of accolades.
Oh! Yes, to the topic. I shall re-frame the viewpoint here and see it from a different angle.
I suggest seeing those flags as a kind of redundancy log. Every flag stays, for the sake of referring back to any kind of flag-related activity. Someone who keeps posting off-topic should have a proper paper trail, even if all flags were deferred and no punitive action was taken.
So, in that view, perhaps some styling can rectify this? Maybe have all deferred flags dimmed via lower opacity so they aren’t counted visually into the list’s sum.
(I still haven’t been able to delve into the admin CP yet. Disregard my suggestion if the feature already exists.)
@watchmanmonitor is talking about the text attached the post that says “You flagged this post as off-topic.”
Which only people who flagged it “correctly” will see and moderators…
Yes. @watchmanmonitor is saying “I dealt with the flag, can the text go away now?”
@codinghorror I think I get what the issue is here:
If you “Agree” with flag and do nothing… we leave the marker behind, only way to nuke the marker is to disagree with the flag.
(Eg. this has a flag I made and agreed with, which I can super duper weirdly undo, even though it is done)
It is kind of weird that we “keep” the marker around for “agree” and throw it away for “disagree”
In both agree and disagree state you are not allowed to flag the post anymore, in both cases the “flag” is in a final state and done with.
Also, this was a flag for off-topic and @watchmanmonitor turned it into the OP of a new topic. Seeing “this is flagged as off-topic” on an OP will make a mind’s highway come to an all-car pile up kind of stop.
end users do not see this.
only mods and the people who actually did the flagging.
In the end, the moderators and admins are end users too. I know they will get edge cases for the ui and ux.
Changing the wording with the passage of time to something more benign may ease the itch of cognitive dissonance that spurs these kinds of feature requests.
This is not about passage of time, it’s just very weird that we are littering the UI with flags that are in a final state.
Flag is done and resolved (we either agreed or disagreed) time to move on. Sure, flagger should not be allowed a second flag on the post but that is it.
My suggestion was more along compromise with the current state of affairs than having to radically change underlying structure for something that seems trivial at face value. Your messages above gave hint to that: making changes, possibly very large ones, all to change one line of text that only show up for mods and admins.
But you sound firm to your convictions regarding this situation so I will refrain more suggestions.
That… that’s the biggest argument I can see for leaving them as-is. If I delete them as I go, no other mod will know just how bad a user is at posting off-topic.
thanks for that alternate point of view… now I would only wish that flags which were handled could be more out of the [visual] way.
Aye. I like the redundancy because of that. No one can accuse me of something I did or did not do. I always have solid proof to the contrary (or to uphold said something). Keeping some flags noticeable helps with that.
But I think the wording can be a touch better. For the sake of helping along that redundancy in a visual way (and soothe the “that don’t look right” feeling when seeing something askew and sticking out from the bunch).
Is this still the way the trust/flag interaction is implemented for this sort of transaction? If so, then I can see where you’d want an additional choice somewhere in there that prevents any change to, or at least any penalty to trust, perhaps a workflow of “take action -> forgive”, or “take action -> dismiss”, to clear the flag as these would make more sense to the moderator.
How are you able to undo an agreed to flag? Trying to correct an error on our discourse site that gave a flag to the wrong member.
There is not a method to undo flags - however, the “solid trust penalty” was never really implemented, so having an “incorrect” flag isn’t a huge deal. If you deleted a post/topic with the flag, you can undo that change manually.
The only thing a flag could affect is TL3 - assuming you “agreed” with the flag, the user whose post was flagged will have that count against their 5 flag limit for TL3.