Timeline for Toward a philosophy of Chat
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 14, 2017 at 3:42 | comment | added | Wildcard | @hichris123, actually, it's interesting—because saying "not cool" for offensive comments is exactly the wrong behavior on the main site. The correct response there is, "flag, do not engage, do not respond, move on." Perhaps there is a distinction that should be made for chat. | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 18:12 | history | edited | Robert CartainoStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Dec 12, 2015 at 4:10 | comment | added | mbomb007 | I like the idea of having a "poke" option in addition to "flag". Sometimes I feel that a flag is too strong for a comment containing potentially offensive language uses in a less offensive context. Profane words on a monitor at work in general can be a negative, so even if not flag-worthy, a poke option would be nice. | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 16:25 | history | edited | Robert CartainoStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Dec 11, 2015 at 16:05 | history | edited | Robert CartainoStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| Dec 11, 2015 at 16:04 | comment | added | user147520 | Nobody who needs to ever reads anything anyway. The guidance will as ever be for the choir. | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 15:20 | history | edited | Robert CartainoStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Dec 11, 2015 at 14:49 | history | edited | Robert CartainoStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 121 characters in body
|
| Dec 11, 2015 at 14:24 | comment | added | sysadmin1138 | Of all the answers I've read so far, this comes closest to identifying the core of the problem. Unless the moderation is obvious, people will assume that it's just a bunch of people talking and use those social-rules to identify good/bad behavior. FAQ-changes just tell people they don't have justification for being butt-hurt about something, it doesn't fix the butt-hurt. Crowd-based chat-norming is how just a bunch of people determine good/bad, and we should design our UX to work with that. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 22:32 | comment | added | hichris123 | Yeah, I do wish that we'd see more of the "not cool" comments when something goes over the line. If no one speaks up, it only exacerbates the problem. I think that this does happen though -- just in those cases, no drama occurs. :) | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 21:24 | comment | added | Matt Giltaji | I've always wanted a button to send a "ಠ_ಠ" through chat as a lightweight poke | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 18:01 | history | edited | Robert CartainoStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2015 at 17:53 | history | edited | Robert CartainoStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2015 at 17:47 | history | answered | Robert CartainoStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |