New Feature: Flag As Offensive
Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Fri, 11/23/2007 - 03:02Dear Friends,
I have added a new feature to the site. At the bottom of each forum post and comment, you will find a new link called "Flag as offensive."
This is the equivalent of a "bury" link. If you see something that is offensive based on the site posting guidelines, hit that link. You'll be asked to categorize the reason for its offensiveness, and you'll also have a space to comment.
The threshold for unpublishing the comment is quite low - it is now set to five (5), meaning if five users find a comment or a forum posting offensive, it will be unpublished from the site and go into a queue that I can review. This should take some of the pressure off the moderators of the site to review every comment.
I will be experimenting with how this feature works out over the next few days. Please feel free to bump this thread to keep it near the top, and also to use the new "Flag as offensive" link.
Hopefully this will allow me to work and sleep better, without worrying that a flame war is breaking out on the site while I'm away!
Your comments are also appreciated.
Michael Nystrom
Editor
www.dailypaul.com
Censorship
Censorship
Can they be available?
It would be interesting to have the removed forums, or removed comments, available on an archive.
It's informative to see the way that these things appear to develop skill in recognizing them in the future.
There was a forum a while ago with a link to what looked legitimate, at first. It was a site that looked like news declaring that Ralph Nader endorsed Ron Paul.
It was basically comedy...but it fooled me because I wasn't on guard for that kind of thing.
the topic is explosive....
I didn't flag it as "offensive", but I don't think we need to get dragged into that debate. ron paul supporters are rightly weary of getting labeled as racist or anything remotely similar. The issue is tangential at best....
Let's not get our panties in a bunch
The generally accepted rules of civility have, in recent years, become as blurred as interpretations of the constitution. I've the impression that most of the members of this forum would like to, in the words of the Beatles "get back to where we once belonged."
While vile language and egregious ad hominims may be worthy of flaging, opposing opinions are not. I can put up with a chowderhead so long as he/she is a reasonably polite chowderhead.
Free speech was never intended as license for chaos. It largely was about free political speech!
It needs to be remembered that in the days of the thirteen colonies criticising the 'Kings Law' would land you in jail. It chills me to the bone to see our nation edging once more towards this kind of tyranny.
It may also be usefull to borrow another tool from an earlier time in this country.....Shunning. Shunning involved totally refusing to acknowlege someones presence.
In summation, this flaging thing is an experiment. Michael has not cast it in stone. let's see how it goes.
"Like those at Valley Forge, we will never quit!"
Like those at Valley Forge, we will never quit!
I don't think you are aware...
of the posts that went up 2 nights ago that would have had explosive/negative impact on the Ron Paul campaign had the Glen Beck crowd picked up on them. It is entirely reasonable for anyone who is not hopelessly naive to expect "fake" posts placed by someone with ill intent.
Right you are
I'm not aware of them. Don't misinterpret me. I think the flaging idea can be a very good one so long as it doesn't become 'too much of a good thing'
Are the posts still up? I'd like to examine them.
"Like those at Valley Forge, we will never quit!"
Like those at Valley Forge, we will never quit!
thank god no,...
within an hour or two the site operator took them down.
now, who these people actually are can be contemplated with ever increasing levels of paranoia, but suffice it to say all it takes is one screen shot from Glenn Beck's production team and they can run it as their lead story. We are virtually voiceless in the MSM. our "side of the story" would go untold. this alone justifies a mechanism that allows us to be vigilant.
I too support this idea...
Perhaps the inverse of this feature will show Michael who is being too testy and irrational about what post is considered abusive. He can look at who is consistantly flagging who as posting inappropriate remarks.
So I think its a double-edged sword that will make both sides of topic think before hitting the delete button i.e. Remember, Michael will be reading all the comments that are deleted, and WHO has deleted them.
that too is an issue that can be fixed.
Love... Peace...
YAY! Thank You.
This was an increasing necessary feature. Hopefully its very existence will LESSEN the need to use it.
I just logged on and read
I just logged on and read through this thread. My main concern is how will it be possible to prevent the site from being shut down by a troll attack flagging everything. Michael could end up reviewing every thread under an attack of this nature. We recently had a post from another candidate's supporter claiming their web site had been shut down by an attack from Paul supporters. True or not is irrelevant. What if they retaliate? Have I missed something or should this - or is this - a concern?
No biggie
He need to identify Trolls and patterns. They are very easy to identify.
Guys are so emotional
Don't panic. All is well if you think about it. ;)
I suppose all that will happen is the moderators can trust us to take action immediately if there is an attack, and if we go overboard, they can, and will, un-flag the post.
Look at it this way: we were just trusted with more freedom. Sure, some might have it used against them, but if that's what you fear, maybe freedom for your fellows isn't the right movement for you.
I, personally, think we can trust the moderators to restore our posts if they are wrongfully flagged. Why imagine the worst? It's not government!
IMissLiberty
You can reach voters in California, here: http://consequeries.com/California-voter-guide
Yes!
More freedom increases discretion!
Flag this thread...
as offensive! Just kidding. This is a GREAT IDEA. I nearly had a panic attack when those CoIntelPro or GlennBeck production assistants or whoever they were posted 2 nights ago about "you know what"....
Good idea, but bugs will need to be worked out...
I think this thread itself was already "flagged" because I tried to comment and got "access denied." Either it was some other site bug, or someone being snarky and ironic.
I think a feature like this is needed, but will be subject to abuse and need to be tweaked. I've already seen some of the more hot-headed patriots on the site demand that the threads of others be deleted simply because they disagreed.
My gut reaction is that 3 is too small a number. Given that there's no inverse to "flagging" (like "Digging" or upmodding), a few trolls, impatient folks, or people who just don't get the difference between comments they disagree with and comments that are inappropriate, will be able to remove content from the site (at least temporarily).
Obviously, Mike is going to face the brunt of these overreactions, so he's best equipped to raise (or lower) the threshold. But my first thoughts are that the bar should be set at 10 flags, minimum. Also (and I don't know if the interface even permits this), some sort of mechanism should be in place to identify those who abuse the flagging system and strip them of their power.
Overall, despite these minor concerns I think this is a step in the right direction for the site.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995
so childish
The only comment I've seen here so far I might have considered flagging is from the guy who claimed "women are stupid" because Ron Paul tends not to have as many women supporters as men. I thought that was really inappropriate.
Flagging inapropriate discussion?
Flagging inappropriate discussion in his house, is his right! Delegating the same to his guest who have been invited into his house to act on his behalf is also his prerogative.
That is freedom! To do as he chooses in his own home as he so chooses.
Would you allow him or for that matter any person to come into your home, become disrespectful in mannerisms/speech to you, your family and the guest you have visiting? Of course not!
******************************************************
RonPaulLive Building a tool for the nations grassroots efforts to elect Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. Download the RonPaulLive Toolbar
RonPaulLive Building a tool for the nations grassroots efforts to elect Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. Download the
RonPaulLive Toolbar! 100+ and Growing
The Flag is missing?
It seems that my comment (actually the asterisks) may have corrupted the script a bit, as what brought to my attention. I am not able to modify it either since the edit option is missing too. I suspect that one of the moderators will correct the issue. I do apologize.
By the way this type of chat is fine and I am sure that Michael would agree. It is the really nasty uncalled for stuff that most would fine disturbing that is at issue.
What is considered nasty? You decide. If you find something offensive Michael is empowering you to flag it- as we are is his guest. But in the end, Michael will decide if this is what he wants around his family, friends and guest.
Makes perfect since!
RonPaulLive Building a tool for the nations grassroots efforts to elect Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. Download the RonPaulLive Toolbar
RonPaulLive Building a tool for the nations grassroots efforts to elect Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. Download the
RonPaulLive Toolbar! 100+ and Growing
Yes
Flagging a comment you consider to be inappropriate is a form of free speech, too.
Flagging
Did you notice there is no option to flag the "Ron Paul Live" post ?? You are about to open a real can of worms
What?!
There IS an option to flag the "Ron Paul Live" post on my terminal. I was just looking right at it. Maybe there's something wrong with yours.
Option
It doesn't appear on mine..It appears on everyone else's comment but not that one..maybe there is a problem with the system already, although I see we have already had one comment erased
I don't see the reply/flag options
on the RonPaulLive post, either
Defend Liberty!
FLAG
Your not going to turn this forum into the Huffington Post, are you..They're idiots over there and I'm sure this is where you got this crazy idea !! People gang up on posts there and flag them if they don't fall in line with their way of thinking..Flagging is a rotten idea !!
Flagging
pajeff2, we could have used the flagging a few nights ago. If you remember the wacko that was attacking you and I both.He did get way out line moving from thread to thread bashing every post.
It doesn't compare
This is not the Huffington Post. I've yet to see anyone post here who's not a Ron Paul supporter. The offensive comments we see here, as far as I can tell, are from people who try to bully everyone else into thinking they're the ones who know best how to run the campaign.
Problem
That's exactly the problem..it's what "you think" or someone else thinks..If the website wants to silence someone that's fine, but thats not for the people posting here to decide !
Personally...
...I will use severe restraint when it comes to the flagging option, and I think Michael Nystrom is well within his rights to introduce it. If it turns out to be a disaster, which I doubt, I'm sure he'll remove it. See my other comments.
Flagging
flagging a statement is useless..Once everyone has read it you can't really erase it from their minds..I guess I better shut up now before I get flagged !!
Now, now,
You haven't posted anything inappropriate, and you know it! Maybe the flagging option will cause people to be more tactful when expressing their opinions, and I don't see how that's a bad thing.