Est-ce que d’autres personnes pensent que les modifications suivantes ont du sens pour le système de signalement des publications ?
Si une publication est signalée et masquée, elle est masquée comme actuellement et apparaît également dans la file d’attente de modération, encore une fois comme c’est le cas maintenant. À partir de là, un modérateur peut agir sur la publication. Actuellement, voici les options :
Premièrement, il serait bon de rendre plus évidente la différence entre « Conserver la publication masquée » et « Ignorer », et peut-être aussi renommer « Supprimer » en « Supprimer la publication ». Peut-être que « Accepter et garder masqué » serait plus descriptif ? (Je suppose que si vous acceptez également, cela compte pour le nombre total de signalements contre la publication/l’utilisateur ?).
Deuxièmement, et c’est la raison principale de cette suggestion, je me demande si nous n’avons pas besoin d’une option qui retire complètement la publication de la vue publique tout en donnant à l’utilisateur la possibilité de la corriger (donc une option « Masquer complètement et envoyer un message » où un message peut être saisi depuis cette vue). Ensuite (et c’est la partie importante), les publications modifiées après avoir été signalées sont placées dans une file d’attente de modération où un modérateur décide si la modification est adéquate, et peut « restaurer » depuis là, ou si elles ne sont pas adéquates, cliquer sur une option qui leur demande de les modifier à nouveau. Je pense que cela doit être fait pour toutes les publications signalées qui restent masquées, soit dit en passant, pas seulement celles qui sont complètement retirées de la vue publique.
Je pense que cela aidera énormément la modération et éliminera presque le besoin que nous modifiions nous-mêmes les publications des utilisateurs. De cette façon, nous pouvons leur indiquer comment ils peuvent rétablir leur publication et ils peuvent décider s’ils le souhaitent ou non.
//CC’ing @HAWK comme convenu lors de notre discussion ici.
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.