Timeline for Flag declined dude!
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Oct 19, 2017 at 21:03 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/AskUbuntu/status/921119550158098433 | ||
S Oct 18, 2017 at 17:44 | history | notice removed | Thomas WardMod | ||
S Oct 18, 2017 at 17:44 | history | unlocked | Thomas WardMod | ||
Oct 18, 2017 at 17:44 | comment | added | Thomas Ward Mod | refer to meta.askubuntu.com/questions/17373/… to voice opinions on this use of flags from my opinion please. (Let's consider this thread a dead horse and focus on the actual issue at hand in the other meta thread?) | |
S Oct 18, 2017 at 17:43 | history | notice added | Thomas WardMod | Content dispute | |
S Oct 18, 2017 at 17:43 | history | locked | Thomas WardMod | ||
Oct 18, 2017 at 17:14 | comment | added | Thomas Ward Mod | @JacobVlijm You need to read my answer. | |
Oct 18, 2017 at 17:12 | comment | added | Thomas Ward Mod | @EliahKagan perhaps you should read my answer to this post. I classified it as "rude/abusive" because it's an abuse of the system and all rants end up being at some point or another against a "Be Nice" policy that is global, and one of the facets of the community. Rants are just posted to complain, b****, and moan. They serve no useful purpose and for all intents and purposes are not conducive to respectful discourse. That's where I came from with that response. | |
Oct 18, 2017 at 16:06 | answer | added | Thomas WardMod | timeline score: 3 | |
Oct 18, 2017 at 15:25 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | @terdon Is this policy over? If that is really "rude or abusive"--as the custom decline message says--does your guide need updating? Deliberate nonsense is now considered rude or abusive, but that's not what this was. Does "rude or abusive" now mean "NAA and they really should've known better"? Did this "abuse" the system? Are we expected to be equally outraged by everything? I think you could clear some of this up in an answer. | |
Oct 18, 2017 at 11:36 | comment | added | terdon Mod | Agreed. As I said, I did not handle the flag. I just wanted to give you some background so you can understand where the other mod was coming from. Also note that dude isn't necessarily rude. Sadly, text-based communication is very limited and doesn't convey tone, but that comment can easily be read as friendly. Yes, I also see how it could be read as exasperated, but seeing as you have a personal relationship with most active mods from chat, friendly seems like the likelier interpretation. | |
Oct 18, 2017 at 11:34 | comment | added | Jacob Vlijm | @terdon I believe you instantly, but since we don't see the back end, the last line you write would have done the job, or even shorter "Please next..". Bottom line is that the post needed attention. | |
Oct 18, 2017 at 11:32 | comment | added | terdon Mod | I can understand why it would feel bureaucratic, from the outside, but the truth is that we need to handle many flags a day and using the right category really makes our work easier (different options are presented to us for different flag types). That's why there's actually a default flag decline reason (these are defined by the system, like close reasons) that is actually designed for this: "Using standard flags helps us prioritize problems and resolve them faster. Please familiarize yourself with the list of standard flags [. . .]. " | |
Oct 18, 2017 at 11:25 | comment | added | Jacob Vlijm | @terdon the combination, to decline a flag because it is, according to the one who declined it, in the wrong category is, well, bureaucratic. Anyone would have understood "Please next time use...". The style in which it is declined is saying, "he dude, don't waist my time". The word dude is then indeed the key. | |
Oct 18, 2017 at 11:24 | answer | added | muru | timeline score: 8 | |
Oct 18, 2017 at 11:16 | comment | added | terdon Mod | I didn't handle this, but could you explain what bothers you? Was it the use of the word dude? Or was it that the flag was declined? | |
Oct 18, 2017 at 10:50 | history | asked | Jacob Vlijm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |