Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

30
  • 16
    Moderators are ATM not allowed to autoflag on their sites because we never want to unilaterally nuke something. We want all of Charcoal to see if it needs action - having a mod nuke would negate that.
    – Mithical
    Commented Feb 20, 2017 at 20:28
  • 29
    That's a step we're not willing to take yet. Sending flags from mortals allows us to send signal to the system; sending flags from a moderator account would be a whole new step. If we were to do that, it'd be extremely limited in scope and with a lot of staff consultation.
    – Undo
    Commented Feb 20, 2017 at 20:28
  • 11
    @PetterFriberg Main difference is that using a moderator account could nuke a post within a few seconds of it being posted, bringing a 100-rep penalty and SpamRam fun - all without human eyes ever needing to be set upon it.
    – Undo
    Commented Feb 20, 2017 at 20:36
  • 11
    @PetterFriberg We may expand the system, but we're not going to expand from 3 flags to moderator flags - it'll be staged. If 3 flags goes well, maybe we move to 4. If that goes well, maybe 5, and maybe on to 6. We'll be talking to Stack Exchange staff throughout that process, and moderator flags aren't even something we'd consider until we're ready to use 6 flags anyway.
    – ArtOfCode
    Commented Feb 20, 2017 at 20:36
  • 42
    As a moderator, I feel that it is inappropriate to give someone else (even an automated system) access to my moderator privileges to take any sort of action on my behalf. As a moderator, my flags are immediate with few checks.
    – Thomas Owens
    Commented Feb 20, 2017 at 21:35
  • 28
    I don't think giving access to the moderator account to a bot is a good idea. It might even be a violation of the moderator agreement, it certainly is if non-moderators have access to the bot. Moderator accounts have access to PII, if a bot were to cast binding flags, it should happen via an SE-provided API that doesn't require giving out the full access a real moderator has.
    – Mad Scientist
    Commented Feb 20, 2017 at 21:42
  • 2
    @PetterFriberg no, we will never ask to give Smokey employee access, nor will SE ever let us. It would effectively allow anyone with access to the account (including non-mods such as me) to use employee-only tools (nuke every question ever created? why not?)
    – angussidney
    Commented Feb 24, 2017 at 7:28
  • 2
    Letting regular users do this is already irresponsible. Setting accuracy aside, it misrepresents what the user is doing and who or what is doing the flagging. Another consideration: Flag weight still exists IIRC, just behind-the-scenes -- this allows the user to use a bot to inflate their own trustworthiness in the eyes of the system, giving greater weight to their own manual flags.
    – user154510
    Commented Feb 24, 2017 at 23:00
  • 2
    @MatthewRead The first step in getting something integrated with SE is to prove it can be done without their systems.
    – ɥʇǝS
    Commented Feb 25, 2017 at 0:12
  • 1
    @ɥʇǝS I doubt that. Regardless, the first step backward is abusing their systems and user account access. I can't and won't speak for SE, they might totally be OK with this, but it conflicts with everything I know as a mod.
    – user154510
    Commented Feb 25, 2017 at 0:14
  • 4
    @MatthewRead A number of Charcoal people are mods, myself included. We've had a chat about this with a CM over several months as its been moving towards implementation, and have been given permission to do this.
    – ArtOfCode
    Commented Feb 25, 2017 at 0:16
  • 6
    We are also moving towards tighter integration with SE, as Pops said in a comment above somewhere, but that takes both time and developer effort on their part, which is spread thin right now. Both of these options have advantages and disadvantages, but we believe the benefits of getting spam deleted faster outweigh the negatives of this system.
    – ArtOfCode
    Commented Feb 25, 2017 at 0:18
  • 4
    @MatthewRead I'm actually a little confused as to the nature of your general objection, as SpamRam is essentially already a fully automated post nuking system that you are presumably OK with. Smokey merely expands the spam filter with some extra rules, and as a bonus still requires human confirmation unlike the usual spam filter. If Smokey's ruleset were simply integrated into the existing fully automated system it does not seem like you would have the same objection, rather, you would likely appreciate SE improving their existing bot that unilaterally nukes posts (i.e. their spam filters).
    – Jason C
    Commented Feb 25, 2017 at 0:38
  • 3
    @MatthewRead To address "this allows the user to use a bot to inflate their own trustworthiness in the eyes of the system, giving greater weight to their own manual flags": There are more than 100 people signed up right now. We issue ~230 flags per day. It's load balanced (randomly distributed, actually) across those 100 users, then across a dozen or so high-spam sites. (230/100)/12 is a very small number. It's not going to win you an election.
    – Undo
    Commented Feb 25, 2017 at 0:48
  • 1
    I don't see how my comments could possibly be interpreted as being against automation. I am against abusing user accounts for this. It's true that I would have no objection with it being integrated into the system. "It's not going to win you an election" is a straw man.
    – user154510
    Commented Feb 28, 2017 at 18:52