My public and semi-private ranting days are over. I loooongggg to rant again but can't work up the enthusiasm or angst.
Wasn't there the argument that people could take advantage of the flagging system? I'm not sure who mentioned it here, as there's quite a lot of posts by now, but I remember something like that. So a group of people could theoretically single out certain users and flag even mildly "controversial" posts of them to indirectly silence them, right? Or is the flagging system not that vulnerable after all?
I realize that I'm not sure if flagged posts even need to be reviewed by a mod. 
surly it would stand out like a sore thumb if the same group of people kept flagging the same users?
Like @therealbereth said, a small group of individuals, with their own motivations, could easily trail a specific member. Oppose them as a group in a debate, start community flagging their posts for anything they could justify in the middle of a debate...which could then escalate/goad that member into deeper infractions.
Either way, the group would be aware that a contentious thread with a bunch of community flags is likely going to get shut down and locked by the moderators. Most people in that thread shrug their shoulders and move on, but if you're the targeted individual...you look and feel like you and your opinion are getting silenced.
On a lesser note, there's a secondary thing that occurs in the bigger friendlier "share" type threads. It's really only noticeable when it's happening to you as an individual and seems trivial on the surface...but if/when it's done it DOES have a subtle effect. But the withholding of 
's has been noticed by a couple of people ... Everyone in the thread has 3 or more 's, except for a few individuals. It sounds crazy that a group would go through a thread and all like the same 20 of 21 posts and that would have an effect...but I bring it up because I am not the only one to notice it
That sounds like the sane answer doesn't it...until enough people come forward and say they were in discords with people discussing doing it.
You don't as an individual know who's flagging you...which can feed paranoia...then once the mods move in and shut down the threads, do you think they chart if it was a group of 4-6 people taking turns flagging one persons posts
It sounds silly...until you're in the middle of it.
Or if you wanna retain the anonymous aspect, limit the amount of flags people can use. If they can limit 's, they can surely limit flags.
And not just as a daily thing...pay attention to who flagged 20 things a month or a 100 a year.
I've never flagged anything, so for me if someone has flagged 5 times, that would be, uhm, er, a red flag.
If there was a badge for GETTING flagged, I'd be all about it.
Seriously though, I got a post sitting at 24 's and a topic hovering at 21 's and I'm just screaming for those sweet sweet badges to drop.
I never flagged, so I don't know how it is.
Do one have to give a reason?
The forum I moderated the longest would have various subcategories.
There were a few easy to moderate (spam, blatant insults etc) and one less specific that could be used for 'problematic' messages.
We would be particularily careful with individuals using repeatedly the less specific flag or trying to trick us (eg. Flagging as spam an opinion they don't like). Because it's always the same in general, it's pretty easy to disregard them after a while.
I'd like to know how mods decide what flags are not pertinent ie. which flagged messages should be kept on the forum.
I did not get enough nice messages flagged and removed to do statistics. But the fact that it happened make me wonder if the flagged messages are actually read. If they are removed in all cases, then that explains why the problem persists.
People are still talking about that art level thread? And wow the behind their back talking and rumor spreading on this thread doesn't actually surprise me at all anymore. I think I know how these popular cool kids operate on this site. You dance around the forum rules just barely breaking them, but nonetheless are very passive aggressive and condescending while at the same time playing a victim, and worst of all not making any substantial arguments at all, rather being pedantic and whining about points that are completely irrelevant for the topic at hand. I really did wish these people here at some point could accept that people have differing opinions, radically different, opinions that contrast the hive mind here so much that it's easy to get offended, but then again, if you counter those argument by red herring and ad hominem, doesn't that mean you admit defeat?
From observations, once the decision to lock the thread is made...they're not going back and restoring community flagged posts. That's one of the points of escalating the conflict...there's been a history of locking down stuff when it gets to a certain point/pitch. Once the thread is non-viable, why would mods go back in to check/correct every post/flag?
Even as much as I hate the practice, I don't expect the mods to be keeping a running tab or go back on old posts to observe the pattern. That's a lot of work to do...that still functional boils down to personal observations that require mods to guess on motivations to establish if it's a plan or just circumstance.
We were once at a point were saying it happens was "crazy talk" but now enough people are aware of it to at least is observable.
No, I meant, at the time they recieve the info something has been flagged, do they read said message?
I saw so many flagged messages from various people, before they were removed, that had no reason whatsoever to be removed, but disappeared anyway. Were they read and considered harmful, or were they not read, is what I wonder.
Same for closed topics. There are topic that got closed, that make me scratch my head. I can't imagine a mod read them and thought, this has to be closed. So I'm wondering whether it's done by s person, but kind of in an automatic mode (whoch I can understand if too much work. I'm not judging, just trying to understand how things works.
