هل يعتقد أي شخص آخر أن التغييرات التالية منطقية لنظام أعلام المنشورات؟
إذا تم تمييز منشور وإخفاؤه، فيتم إخفاؤه كما هو الحال الآن، كما يُعرض في قائمة مراجعة الإشراف، مرة أخرى تمامًا كما يحدث حاليًا. من هناك، يمكن للمشرف التصرف في المنشور. حاليًا، هذه هي الخيارات المتاحة:
أولاً، سيكون من الجيد توضيح الفرق بين إبقاء المنشور مخفيًا و تجاهل، وربما إعادة تسمية حذف إلى حذف المنشور. ربما يكون موافق وإبقاء مخفيًا أكثر وضوحًا؟ (أفترض أنه إذا وافقت أيضًا، فإن ذلك يُحتسب ضمن العدد الإجمالي للأعلام ضد المنشور/المستخدم؟).
ثانيًا، وهذا هو السبب الرئيسي وراء هذه المقترحة، أتساءل عما إذا كنا بحاجة إلى خيار يُزيل المنشور تمامًا من العرض العام مع منح المستخدم فرصة لإصلاحه (أي خيار إخفاء كليًا وإرسال ملاحظة حيث يمكن إدخال رسالة من تلك الواجهة). ثم (وهذا هو الجزء المهم)، تُوضع المنشورات المحررة بعد تمييزها في قائمة مراجعة الإشراف، حيث يقرر المشرف ما إذا كان التعديل كافياً، ويمكنه “إلغاء الحذف” من هناك، أو إذا لم يكن التعديل كافياً، يمكنه النقر على خيار يطلب منه تعديل المنشور مرة أخرى. أعتقد أن هذا يجب أن يُطبق على جميع المنشورات المُميزة والمخفية، بالمناسبة، وليس فقط تلك التي تُزال تمامًا من العرض العام.
أعتقد أن هذا سيساعد بشكل كبير في عملية الإشراف وسيقضي تقريبًا على الحاجة إلى تحريرنا نحن لمنشورات المستخدمين بأنفسنا. بهذه الطريقة، يمكننا إخبارهم بكيفية استعادة منشورهم، ويمكنهم هم أنفسهم اتخاذ قرار ما إذا كانوا يريدون ذلك أم لا.
Curiosity will almost always get the better of people
On a more serious note, one of the occasions we edit posts is to remove a personal attack/remark, and the whole reason we step in as early as possible is so that the person who it is aimed at does not see it (or has less chance of seeing it) because once they do the damage is done. Unfortunately it is the slippery slope that leads to interpersonal issues developing, which, over time can drag more and more members into it leading to bigger inter community issues.
We have been criticised for removing personal remarks in the past (and I personally stand by us doing so - there’s no need for personal attacks on a forum for civil discourse) but I would much prefer us not being put in that position to begin with, and this change would really help.
I get what you’re saying but to play devil’s advocate (again!) – if we make it our job to run diversion by editing posts and letting the attacker remain a member, we’re enabling them, not mandating change. As my mum would say, if we allow it, we teach it.
That said, if others agree weigh in here and agree with you, I’ll concede.
I think we have to keep in mind we’re dealing with human beings Sarah - none of us are infallible. Sometimes if somebody is having a bad day, or going through some personal issues (such as a bereavement, breakup or job loss) they might slip below their otherwise high standard.
Things can become compounded when you have someone in the midst of a debate and where it seems that ‘everyone is against them’, which can lead to them feeling bullied and snapping as a result.
On top of that, in a way we have to help people unlearn all the bad habits they have picked up from platforms like Twitter - where hostility and abuse is pretty much encouraged because that’s what keeps people flocking back to such platforms. Even with this aside, I feel we have a duty of care to our users to account for genuine misunderstandings and mishaps. In these cases I feel it’s even more important to help defuse such situations and prevent escalation in what may be an otherwise perfectly harmonious community or relationship between the users involved.
Hope this helps shed some further light - I wasn’t joking when I said discussions on this topic could get very big
Maybe Ignore should be renamed Ignore Flag. A new button named Keep Hidden Pending Edit (without agreeing with the flag). That way you’re not agreeing with the flag - yet. I agree the Delete button should read Delete Post.
I had a case where a user flagged another user’s reply because she quoted her multiple times and felt as though everything she said “was being picked apart.” Of course it wasn’t the case, but the two users in question had a “cat fight” a long time ago. A slight animosity still lingers?
Anyway, I read and re-read each post many times and could not find anything wrong with the reply that was flagged. But before I clicked Disagree and Restore Post, I PM’d the flagger and explained that I read and re-read both posts and found nothing wrong with them. I also explained that other users have also used multiple quotes - not just from multiple user’s posts but all from one individual. They weren’t “picking their post apart”, they were responding to each thing that was said. The user finally agreed with me… reluctantly. Only after I told her I was restoring the post did I actually do it. That took care of that part of the flag problem.
The second part was the post flagged was made by a Mod! Of course she saw the flagged post. Sooo… another exchange of PMs with her. I did get (hopefully) the situation ended or at least quieted for now.
I would like to see an option to *Keep Post Hidden" without a “thumbs up” (or agree) until the problem can be worked out. Think of it as “pause button.” Now that I just typed this, it just struck me… what I did - not clicking anything - is the same as clicking pause.
Keeping a flagged post hidden until it is edited is good. If that’s what the post needs, so long as an edit comes in a timely period is fine. Having a post restored days later and having a string of posts below it (so the post would probably not be seen) isn’t much good. I actually thought about this, thinking if I don’t get a reply within 24 hours, the post is being restored without any additional exchange between me and the flagger - other than my original PM explaining my thoughts/decision on the matter.
Aside, whenever I come up with any new ideas I always remember what @codinghorror said, “Keep it simple.” Then I think whether or not what I came up with keeps things simple or just adds another layer of potential problems. I wouldn’t want Discourse to become bloated and slowed down like MS’s software.
I did get (hopefully) the situation ended or at least quieted for now.