More flagrant misuse of the "off-topic" flag

[jasonhernandez74]

In the thread about government suppression of data (that seems to be what it is about), it was said,

@joerich

It’s not just the feds, my city government is threatening me with legal action for wandering the open space nature preserves, taking photos and posting on iNat even though they seem to be not bothered with people exercising their dogs on the preserves off leash. I personally believe it is because I have been monitoring their beaver eradication (officially known as depredation).

This can clearly be seen to directly relate to the topic of government suppression of data, and to be placing it in the context that it isn’t just at the federal level. But when it was asked,

@insectobserver123

What? On what grounds? Are they arguing that you are not authorized to be there or that you can be there but cannot take pictures? Or that iNat posting is somehow illegal?

By this point in the thread, various aspects of the problem had been brought up, and attempts to understand this facet are also clearly on-topic. Yet joerich’s next post was flagged as allegedly “off-topic.” Well, of course we can’t see it to evaluate whether it really was or not. But logically, given when and where it appears, it is logical to suppose that it was a direct reply to the question he was asked. If his original bringing up of this aspect was clearly on-topic, and the question asking for clarification was on-topic, who seriously believes that a direct reply was “off-topic”?

Incidents like this erode trust in our moderating team. They smack of arbitrariness; at best, only spottily enforcing some narrowly circumscribed view of a thread topic. And let’s face it, plenty of threads are allowed to wander somewhat from the original poster’s intention, as long as they stay on the same general topic. Governmental suppression of data at various levels may not be exactly “environmental data loss from public data sources,” but the original question was

@donna165

do we have to worry about other US science organisations that are funded out of the public purse?

which is a broader question than what our moderator tried to limit the thread to. Thanks to this heavy-handedness, Octobertraveler even worried that bringing in an educator’s concerns about access to data would be considered too political or potentially also “off-topic.” There was also extensive discussion about whether biodiversity science generally would be targeted and about the pendulum swinging from progressive to conservative and back again. None of which was deemed “off-topic.”

It just seems too convenient that we can’t see for ouselves whether that one post among all was so much further off-topic than all this.

@tiwane

The reason Discourse (which runs this software) no longer allows people to see hidden posts is that doing so would mean that basically any hateful or insulting content would still be there

That explanation would have credibility if it applied only to flags for hateful, insulting, or inappropriate content. However, because it equally applies to “off-topic” content, it does not have credibility. We do not need to be protected from that.

[insectobserver123]

What I would like to see is some way to see what rule was broken by a flagged comment, just like on iNat itself, where a hidden comment will say “intentionally incorrect joke ID” or “hate speech” or “insulting comment”

Seeing a response to my comment hidden made me think that person (joerich) might have been uncivil and attacking me, but I noticed another user asked staff about it and staff said it was hidden for being off topic, so I decided to PM joerich and ask what they had said, it turns out they were just answering my question

I understand that staff need to be able to keep threads on topic, but if this is done by hiding (as opposed to splitting off a new topic) I want to know the difference between a civil comment that I can ask the person about (if it was a response to me) vs a comment that was hidden for directing hate at me

[papernautilus]

The moderation seems odd and a bit heavy-handed to me.

[bouteloua]

Good point - I added a “notice” to the topic of the hidden post.

For what it’s worth, most hidden content here is flagged by members of the community, sometimes multiple before a moderator sees it. Sometimes moderators or staff do agree with the flags and hide the content (or keep the post hidden if enough people already flagged the post) but we will not take action if a flag seems unwarranted (following our collective community and forum guidelines).

[insectobserver123]

I like this, I think it is important for the reader to have a way to tell the difference between off topic vs antagonistic/inappropriate

[tiwane]

Per the Forum Guidelines:

Hiding posts: to remove inappropriate content from view, such as personal attacks, bad faith arguments, trolling, off-topic posts, and repetitive posts coming from the same user. The poster should be able to edit the post after a 10 minute waiting period, and the newly-edited post will appear again. If the post is flagged after that, it will be hidden unless a moderator or staff member unhides it.

So in any case where the post is hidden, the original poster can edit the post and it will appear again (unless they’re suspended or silenced for hate speech, etc). The unhidden post’s edit history should be publicly available and anyone can see what the original post was unless it’s hidden by moderators, and we don’t really do that unless there’s something that should really be hidden, like hate speech, links to specific observations that are being negatively called out, etc. As to why joerich didn’t edit their post or contact a moderator to appeal I don’t know, but those are both pathways that are available to anyone and we’re open to them.

I think it’s important to keep in mind that flags are not punishments, they’re tools for the community to use to help maintain the forum. No one was being punished here, we were trying to keep that topic focused. Some topics, especially in categories like Nature Talk, can be more freewheeling and loose. For a topic that’s discussing sensitive, diffcult to moderate issues like the one being discussed here, I think it’s important to keep it pretty proscribed and not let momentum build in a negative direction, which can happen quickly online.

For what it’s worth, over the last month the forum has been averaging around 150 posts per day and about 1 flag per day, so flags are incredibily rare here.

It sounds like some people would like more transparency, which I understand. One thing we could do is write a post in the thread when post(s) are hidden, but then what to do if the person amends their post and it’s fine? I’d personally like to give someone a chance to do that before interrupting a discussion, but maybe a litlte moderation post doesn’t interrupt things as much as I’m worried they would.

Another option would be to add a staff notice to the top of the thread like @bouteloua did here. It’s possible many people may not see it if the discussion is well below the original post, but if it becomes a norm then people would know to look there.

[insectobserver123]

@tiwane

Another option would be to add a staff notice to the top of the thread like @bouteloua did here. It’s possible many people may not see it if the discussion is well below the original post

For me the notice shows up directly on the hidden post, not at the top of the thread (this is good)

[sgene]

@tiwane

As to why joerich didn’t edit their post or contact a moderator to appeal I don’t know, but those are both pathways that are available to anyone and we’re open to them.

Why can’t whoever thinks the post is off-topic just state that in a regular comment first? If a person doesn’t know why they are being flagged, they can’t know how to remedy it, and they might not want to risk trying to state it another way for fear of being kicked off the forum. It seems much more polite to let everyone know that the issue is being off-topic before flagging it.

[bouteloua]

If a post is flagged as off topic, the user will get a message that specifically calls out that it was flagged for being off topic and what they can do about it. https://meta.discourse.org/t/understanding-post-flags-in-discourse/275

In this case the community was already informed that that conversation was outside of the scope of the topic. Anyone could have started a new topic or a direct message about that other conversation.

[joerich]

I personally hate conflict but it seems like I have stirred up a little both at home and here. When I first commented, I was thinking censorship in general. But others seemed to be thinking of censorship at the federal level only. When I realized this, I also realized that I probably could not rework my local censorship comments to satisfy the topic. I want to thank @insectobserver123 for messaging me.

[insectobserver123]

I see nothing indicating that this was off topic (until the notice you added). There is a staff comment a while back asking people to stay on topic, but nothing to suggest that the hidden comment was hidden for being off topic

[octobertraveler]

So, now, I’m confused–maybe I’m remembering an older policy. I thought that off-topic comments were spun off into a new thread by a moderator? They are hidden?

[jnstuart]

I think if the off-topic generates enough discussion in parallel with the original topic, it gets moved to a new thread.

[insectobserver123]

I thought the same, I thought it was only hidden if it was off topic and also antagonistic

[jasonhernandez74]

@insectobserver123

I thought it was only hidden if it was off topic and also antagonistic

In my experience, “off-topic” is often misused in the same way that DQA votes can be: to get rid of something that someone would rather not see. This may not be the case most of the time, but it happens often enough that I’m automatically suspicious of it.

[tiwane]

See the Forum Guidelines (available at all times on the sidebar) for both guidelines and an explanation of the tools moderators use to moderate the site.

Again, though, anything hidden can be edited by the person who posted it and it will appear in public once edited and saved. The person who posted is notified it was hidden and why it was hidden, and their original post is publicly avialable in the edit history of the post (click on the pencil icon). It’s not a punishment, it’s a way to let the person know they should edit their post or perhaps start another topic.

[DianaStuder]

@tiwane

publicly avialable in the edit history of the post (click on the pencil icon)

where is that?

[grampianshiker]

I think it only appears if the post has been edited - so most of the time you won’t see it. I think I’ve noticed it at the top right near the time/date of posting?

[joerich]

The flagged and hidden post is in quotes. It was in response to insectobserver123’s post asking why the city was threatening me.

“They are saying that since it is an open space preserve and a wetland I am not authorized to be there. However, the city has an open space preserve map and on the page they say that dogs must be on a leash but people, pets and bikes should stay on trail. Over the three years I have lived here I have seen many people exercising their dogs off leash on the fields where I roam and I have never seen anyone stopping them. I have even been told by an employee that it was not in his job description to do that. The only reason I can see that they are threatening me is that I have been monitoring their beaver depredation. They, as far as I know, do not know the photos of the dead beaver and broken dams are on iNat. I posted them on iNat to document the observations - photo, date and location.”

Given the interest, I have contacted my city manager asking for clarification on what laws I was violating. I have received one response to a Public Records Act request (PRA) from the Placer County on the number of beavers they have taken and the justification. I have received a response from CDFW and also a phone call for a PRA is sent to them which contained very little information so I will be filing another PRA with CDFW being much more specific with my request. I will be filing a PRA with the city for all citations issued for violations in the open space preserves for the last three years. I also sent a long two part email to my city council person. The first part I had written before the depredation to extol the virtues of the beaver on Orchard Creek while the second part was to inform her of the depredation and my opposition to it. I concluded the email saying that I want to work with the city in the future concerning the beaver and the open space. I also plan to obtain the open space management plan as I feel the preserve is being severely degraded by noxious invasives.

I also want to say that I strongly believe in iNaturalist.org and what it is accomplishing. It is providing a valuable scientific service worldwide. It personally has greatly helped me with my health because while I am out wandering the fields my pain level is greatly reduced. I also greatly appreciate the community. Thank you all.

[jasonhernandez74]

@tiwane

their original post is publicly avialable in the edit history of the post (click on the pencil icon)

Well, that’s something at least. But although it may not be intended as a punishment, it can feel like one. Especially in the case of a long thread, when someone is a latecomer and compiles replies to several quotes as they read through (as we are advised to do instead of making several posts), and already have these written when we come upon “Oh, incidentally, let’s only discuss this narrow subject.” Thus invalidating replies they wrote before they read that part.

It feels like moving the goalposts.