127

Two days ago I reported this comment as unfriendly/unkind:

Whoever downvoted my question, you really are a weird person. Downvoting with a comment as WHY downvoted makes sense so that I can at least fix the question or something. But anyways, good luck to you as a developer who only knows to find faults and no solutions.

My reasoning is that it starts off by calling the downvoter "really a weird person", which is not something you should call anyone in a professional environment; and is followed by unwarranted and excessively snarky remarks about their modus operandi as a user on Stack Overflow and as a developer in general.

However, my flag was declined, with the comment removed anyway. Why was that? Was this a mistake from the moderator? Why should we not advert people not to make inappropriate remarks such as these in the future?

28
  • 142
    Looks unfriendly/unkind to me. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 14:21
  • 18
    This was not unkindness by accident, but by personality. The entitlement in that demonstrated ignorance of the site speaks volumes. You made the right choice. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 14:47
  • 5
    The sentence "you really are a weird person" feels like it should tip this into the rude category... but on the other hand, I have previously written a (not only undeleted, but very highly upvoted!) comment addressed to someone I was frustrated with that started with the sentence "seriously, what's wrong with you?", which is equally explicitly insulting. The distinction, I guess, is that everyone reading my comment felt the exasperation was warranted... but should mods be adjudicating rudeness flags differently based on whether hostility is warranted or not? I dunno; maybe they should! Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 15:13
  • 29
    The last phrase "But anyways, good luck to you as a developer who only knows to find faults and no solutions." is also unkind, slighting the anonymous subject by saying they're no good at finding solutions. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 15:54
  • 4
    @MarkAmery Warranted or not, that reply would be flag-worthy, as well. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 15:54
  • 7
    @TylerH Perhaps it would, or perhaps not. I suggest a test of principle for you and others. Above is a comment by Gimby which accuses the subject of this Meta thread of "unkindness ... by personality", of "entitlement" and of "ignorance". It's framed explicitly as an attack on their character and not just a criticism of a particular comment - indeed I'd say it's a far harsher attack than calling someone a "weird person". Have you flagged it as rude? Has anyone? If not, aren't we accepting harsh personal insult because we think it's deserved? What does that mean for moderating rudeness? Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 17:30
  • 9
    Probably the best response to that comment is to point out that it's because of responses like that that few people explain downvotes and are recommended to not explain. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 17:38
  • 6
    @MarkAmery I don't think there's any scenario where asking someone "what is wrong with you" is not classified as 'unfriendly/unkind'. At the very least such comments (and likely the entire thread) should be removed. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 18:09
  • 6
    I'm going to cut off (and delete) the debate about the merits of leaving comments with downvotes here; that has been debated endlessly and we don't need yet another rehashing of that debate in the comments of this post. Let's focus on the topic of whether comments like this are unfriendly/unkind (which may be the case regardless of whether downvoting without commenting is also unkind). Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 21:57
  • 11
    Mod note: Comments complaining about anonymous downvotes are not relevant to this question; please refrain from continuing to post them here. There are plenty of other discussions about this topic already. Please direct your comments there instead. See also meta.stackoverflow.com/q/393913/6296561 and meta.stackoverflow.com/q/357436/6296561 Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 10:47
  • 9
    @Truder 1) In this case "really a weird person" was triggered by simply voting on a question, so that "if" might not even apply. 2) Since it was followed by petty denigration, "really weird person" wasn't the only insulting part of the comment. 3) You're fired. Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 15:36
  • 7
    @SalmanA There's no need to make this about me in particular. I only found the comment and flagged it. Aside from the comment being deleted, there is some level of importance in flags being well handled for the reasons I already described below. The flag being declined was more negatively surprising than upsetting to me, so I figured I would seek clarification here. Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 16:20
  • 5
    @M.Justin That's a valid take on my comment (though uglier readings are possible!). Gimby's, earlier in this thread, perhaps illustrates my point better. It is an unusually unambiguous personal attack, in that it goes out of its way to spell out explicitly that it is condemning the target's character and not merely a particular moment of misbehaviour. Yet 15 people (so far) have upvoted it and mods have not deleted it. How should we interpret this? It seems to me we collectively permit even such personal attacks as long as we think they're warranted. And maybe that's reasonable and fine? Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 17:39
  • 4
    @M.Justin [cont.] But if my interpretation above is right - that we are simply more permissive of unkind personal comments when we reckon the target deserved them - it's a reason to be a bit sympathetic to the commenter discussed in this question (who called someone else a "weird person"). Perhaps we are kidding ourselves if we think their core sin was being rude, and in reality it was being ignorant of the norms of our community and of when and against whom we accept rudeness. And for that, we will endorse a comment calling their personality "unkind", "entitled", and "ignorant". Hmm... Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 17:50
  • 5
    @MarkAmery I personally don't think it's a good idea to justify a possibly inflammatory comment on the basis that "that person deserved it". There's no way to draw a clear line on when it is acceptable™ and such action is more likely to trigger the person than actually having a calming effect. And if we were on Interpersonal Stack Exchange, I would go as far as saying it could have unintended consequences Commented Apr 25, 2024 at 8:37

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
98

No one that use their votes should be called "really a weird person". Because they are not.

Such phrases go into the abusive behavior category of the Code of Conduct and should always be flagged.

We obviously can then have a debate whether this is red-flag material or no longer needed material. I will get very worried when the comment wouldn't have been deleted so I'm glad your flag at least has the desired outcome. I personally would have marked the flag as helpful because of the CoC violation but if the commentator is frustrated enough you might run in a declined flag. That is frigging frustrating but here we are.

Please keep flagging that kind of comments, declined flags or not.

18
  • 17
    I will keep your insights in mind for the future. I am sometimes wondering whether I personally have too high tolerance, which then may get in a way of handling flags appropriately. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 14:41
  • 46
    @DalijaPrasnikar I would keep the high tolerance because this is not kinder garten but when it comes to comment flags I would err on the side of the flagger. Specially when the comment needs to go anyway for other moderation reasons. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 14:47
  • 7
    I understand that "not kindergarten" should mean that we allow bluntness (especially when it's telling people to do things that are in line with policy), but still not anything that insinuates bad motives, lack of cooperativeness etc. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 22:57
  • 5
    Unfriendly? Yes. But not abusive. It isn't targeted at a known user. Weird just means out of the ordinary and unusual behavior and OP explained their reasoning for calling such behavior "weird" or unusual. Outside of Meta, no one believes just voting without commenting is rational and I don't think expressing such belief at a incognito voter is abusive by any stretch of standards. Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 6:09
  • 7
    @TheMaster It is abusive per application of the Abusive behavior policy. It would be bullying and harassment should it continue with follow-up comments. Hostile comments in any case, check. Denigration is also present. Moreover, your second statement is highly contestable. Where exactly is that decent and unbiased voting system where people are forced to comment alongside their vote? Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 8:37
  • 3
    @TheMaster You leave a comment with each and every one of your votes? I find that hard to believe. Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 14:28
  • 1
    @AzorAhai-him- When did I say I do that? I said it is rational to think "Adding a comment, when downvoting helps to improve the quality of the post".For the OP of that question to react the way they reacted, they must have valued the quality of the question they posted, they must have took the time and effort(T&E) to post.If it was just a garbage post, that OP didn't take T&E to make up, they wouldn't have cared at all. Also reading between the lines of mod Dalija, I believe they felt the vote was unjustified and therefore was able to empathize with the OP so much that they declined the flag. Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 15:09
  • 3
    @TheMaster reluctance to remove such content historically had a huge amount to do with the common negative off-site perception of Stack Overflow. A professional environment demands avoidance of anything that could be construed as an attack on a personal level, whether actually directed personally or aimed at a class of people or a vague referent like "whoever downvoted my question". Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 15:09
  • 1
    @KarlKnechtel OP needed direction to improve quality of the post. There seems to be at least one negative reaction to the post. But apparently the current system is not designed to show the reasoning for that reaction, which OP thinks would greatly help him to increase the quality of that post. I believe comments are temporary and can be used as a temporary bridge to address that deficiency. But it could've been done in a friendly manner. Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 15:20
  • 5
    @TheMaster "no one believes just voting without commenting is rational," This implies that voting without commenting is irrational, and I assume you don't do things you believe are irrational. Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 15:27
  • 1
    @AzorAhai-him- I didn't say I believe it. Did I? I'm inside Meta. That quote was "Outside of Meta, no one believes just voting without commenting is rational,". I know how users interact outside Meta. And that's not a incorrect belief(that comments should accompany downvotes) in and of itself. If you were never exposed to Meta's beliefs and opinions, it wasn't a irrational thought process. Even in meta, users still argue for commenting, when downvoting. I've been outside meta, inside meta, for meta and against meta.. Commented Apr 25, 2024 at 3:32
  • 3
    @TheMaster "abuse" has different meanings in different contexts, in the context of comment flags it means a comment that uses abusive language targeting a person or a group, etc. in the context that E_net4 is speaking about abuse means abuse of the platform (i.e. using the platform / site in a way considered bad) which is described further in the abusive behavior policy. Commented Apr 25, 2024 at 7:03
  • 2
    @Stefan that is a very strange and unusual, unexpected, or not natural comment. Commented Apr 26, 2024 at 11:35
  • 3
    @Stefan Not everything unfriendly is explicitly listed as such in the dictionary. If you want a prime example of this, consider "idiot", defined as "a stupid person or someone who is behaving in a stupid way". It's not abusive in the right context (for example, you can call a decision idiotic without that being an attack on the person making it), but if you call someone else an idiot, that's still unfriendly. "weird" is similar; the word itself isn't necessarily unfriendly, but as is the case here, the context in which it was used Commented Apr 27, 2024 at 14:04
  • 3
    is what makes it unfriendly Commented Apr 27, 2024 at 14:04
-30

I handled this comment. Declined the flag and deleted it.

Maybe the comment was not completely appropriate, but it was also posted in a moment of frustration by user who got downvoted without getting any kind of feedback and I thought that unfriendly unkind was a bit too much and that "No longer needed" would be a better option.

Maybe I handled it wrong. I will leave to other mods and community to judge whether my handling was appropriate or not.

23
  • 55
    An unfriendly/unkind flag marked as helpful leaves a record on the user, but it does not really affect them directly. Rather, it helps moderators understand whether that user has a tendency of making such remarks, at which point they ought to intervene, which is I believe flagging these incidents is important. I appreciate your transparency nonetheless. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 14:35
  • 28
    Dalija, I strongly disagree with your reasoning. Having high tolerance personally is a great thing, but we should not impose that on the community. If someone is being rude, regardless of their state of mind and what they've experienced, they were being rude. There is no requirement for feedback when downvoting and I am sure you and I both downvoted without leaving a comment many many times. Putting all that aside, even with your reasoning, I'd have disputed the flag not decline. Cont'd... Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 15:12
  • 20
    @M-- It's not possible to dispute comment flags Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 15:16
  • 3
    ... If it is not possible to dispute (I don't know if we can dispute comment flags), I will mark it as helpful. After all, the user who flagged the comment is right and we don't need to put ourselves in their shoes to justify their action. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 15:19
  • 39
    'Moment of frustration' or does not make a comment any more or less abusive. Either the comment is abusive, based on the content in isolation, or not. If I were a moderator, I would have 100% marked that flag as helpful, not disputed (even if you could) nor declined. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 15:33
  • 83
    I think you handled it wrong. :) The UU flag is precisely for comments like this. For when the user is frustrated and is not using friendly language. Once the user starts being verbally abusive and hurls insults directly at people then an abusive flag would be in order and possibly a mod message. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 15:45
  • 125
    I hear you all. I will adjust my handling. Thanks for the feedback. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 16:55
  • 11
    @M-- Spam flag comes with a heavy penalty. I know it does not have to be applied, but posting a link to own GitHub repository on related question does not warrant a spam flag unless you see that user is really "spamming" that link across multiple answers. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 17:03
  • 11
    @Ðаո Users care because declined flags can affect their ability to continue flagging. Furthermore, users hopefully don't want to improperly cast flags. A declined flag on a comment that is not deleted would probably have still warranted this question since it runs counter to consensus, but this situation was especially confusing because the flag was declined and yet the comment was deleted anyway. Commented Apr 23, 2024 at 21:28
  • 9
    I would have declined it too. When I was a moderator, users that would eviscerate others but "technically" not be unkind would seem to be the ones that loved to custom flag folks saying one word out of line against them. It felt like the rules lawyers were coming out to play back then. I see some similarities in this. Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 10:29
  • 7
    @GeorgeStocker Considering that the message in question was triggered by a downvote, that is the postcard message of taking downvotes too damn personally. I've said this way too many times now: if people cannot remain respectful in the face of adversity, that will inevitably hit them in the rear later on. Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 10:57
  • 3
    @E_net4 Except there is no direct feedback to the user except the comment being deleted. So they would notice that either way, but they will not get any upfront warning until they really cross the line. "If people cannot remain respectful in the face of adversity.." I can count number of people I know that can really do that using only one hand (maybe two if I try hard). Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 11:04
  • 6
    If the user is the one that tends to cross the line often enough, then such behavior will be noticed soon enough. And broader set of comments can be taken into account when deciding action. Not just the UU ones. Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 11:06
  • 26
    Downvoted because I disagree with the way the flag was handled, but I really appreciate that you took the time to explain your thought process, so here's a virtual upvote to you Dalija. To me this is an example of very good moderation: Made a decision after have thought about it, did not hesitate to explain the reasoning, and being opened to discussion to improve own moderation. Thank you :) Commented Apr 24, 2024 at 22:12
  • 10
    @Laf Thank you. I have very good role models in former and current moderators. Moderation needs to be transparent and mistakes regardless of how they are made (intentional but wrong action, or accidentally wrong) are always possible. Commented Apr 25, 2024 at 7:18
-42

Instead of flagging the comment and snitching, you could also reply to this comment and point out his misbehaviour. Most of the time, when the frustration has gone, the insight comes and the comment will be deleted.

And the term "weird" is really nowhere near as bad. His frustration is at least understandable.

But these are the "weird" times we live in. Most people are far too sensitive and turn a small thing, someone else's weak moment, into a tragedy. And the solution is usually not communication but censorship. What a shame.

13
  • 21
    "reply to this comment and point out his misbehaviour" We don't really want to start arguments in the comments. Flagging a comment is not "snitching" its just marking a comment that needs deletion. Deleting the comment is the simplest way to stop any potential arguments, code of conduct violations, etc. Commented Apr 25, 2024 at 12:09
  • 32
    This is exactly what one shouldn't do. It's escalating, and hardly ever have I seen anyone respond positively to something like this. Commented Apr 25, 2024 at 13:17
  • 11
    I've done my fair share of warning such users about the inappropriateness of certain actions on SO. The effects may vary, but are usually unproductive. Having received an e-mail accusing me of bashing new users for pointing out the lack of a minimal reproducible example, and one time also seeing a long defaming text file publicly on pastebin about me after warning someone of their misbehavior, it really makes me wonder whether my time is better spent doing things other than replying to unreasonable folks. The answer is yes, it is. Commented Apr 25, 2024 at 13:42
  • 1
    I think devops perspective is fair, especially that censorship has become the "solution" that's much worse than the problem. Commented Apr 25, 2024 at 14:53
  • 12
    @Deborah Meta-commentary does not belong on the main site in the first place. No one is stopping you from discussing about it constructively in an organized fashion, as what happens here on Meta, but the platform is not required to host those takes, much less in places where it does not belong. Commented Apr 25, 2024 at 15:06
  • 3
    @Deborah As to what the "solution" and/or "problem" really are, remember that there are always at least two sides of the story: a user who vented over a single downvote, and a volunteer who voted on a question and moved along without commenting. So we seemingly have 2 problems: that users do not always receive feedback when they were looking for it; and that users trying to help might waste their time or just be attacked in the process. In the former, feedback really isn't guaranteed under the policies established. Whereas in the latter, these cases are CoC violations. Commented Apr 25, 2024 at 15:12
  • 4
    No much more. There is also this persistent misunderstanding that quality voting and providing feedback are one and the same process. They're really not. Anyone can provide feedback at any time, including people who do not vote at all. Feedback about what is wrong can be given at score -50, 0 or +50, it makes no difference. Heck, someone who upvoted can still provide feedback on what can be improved. Its just not in any way linked. And then there is the most sad problem of all; giving feedback has a high risk of getting an outlandish response, so has become very unappealing to do. Commented Apr 26, 2024 at 10:54
  • 2
    i have to agree with the "censorship" quip, if nothing else, because it highlights that there is no corrective action available other than silencing a person. it would seem that this class of flags should come with a notification to the targeted user that there is a flag opened/completed so they can go review it and the commentary left by mods/community. this would help move any inflammatory content out of the Q&A and into the flag page, give the target user an opportunity to self-police, and also give the community a chance to help improve behavior --- rather than just rely on "censorship." Commented Apr 28, 2024 at 12:48
  • i feel like this is a salient point and site improvement opportunity that is being overlooked because the vast majority of users can't revision things as being any way other than the way they are, or otherwise disagree with other major points of @devops' feedback. Commented Apr 28, 2024 at 12:51
  • 1
    @wilson0x4d Your suggestion to notify users when their comments have been removed is not new, but it's not without its issues. Most of the comments are removed as no longer needed. Narrowing the comment flag notices down to U/U or H/B/A flags could be better, although there are implications which need to be considered with care. Commented Apr 29, 2024 at 8:16
  • 1
    @wilson0x4d But most important, let's not make it sound like opportunities for corrective action were completely overlooked. When enough flags for rudeness against a user's comments are marked as helpful, this automatically triggers a new flag against that user, which would call for a moderator to intervene, either by issuing a warning, or by warning and suspending the user. Commented Apr 29, 2024 at 8:19
  • 2
    And of course, on the overuse of the term "censorship", both in this answer and its comments, mandatory XKCD. Commented Apr 29, 2024 at 8:20
  • 1
    SO is (in my current understanding) intended to be a problem and solution, question and answer reference site useful to people trying to find relevant, useful information and/or trying to solve problems. "Snitching" is not a concept that applies here. If a post is incorrect, irrelevant, confusing, off-topic, rude, spam, etc. then it should get corrected or be cleaned up -- for the sake of all the other users of the site, who will have an easier time finding what they need. Ideally, with courtesy by all involved. Commented May 3, 2024 at 21:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.