A current thread started to run high with emotion: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/bird-feeders-and-dangers/18437/31
In the course of the argument, two different users made statements which implied a threat of violence. One of these was flagged, the other was not. Why is that?
My working hypothesis is: because the latter was with the prevailing opinion of the thread, whereas the former was counter to the prevailing opinion.
Here’s why it matters: in order to reach trust level 3, a user
- Must not have received more than 5 spam or offensive flags (with unique posts and unique users for each, confirmed by a moderator)
Now, note that there is no time limit on this; it seems to mean no more than 5, ever. So if the same kind of statement is flagged for one user, but not another in the same thread, that is unfairly putting one at risk and not the other. The user who went against prevailing opinion is one step closer to being disqualified, whereas the one who made the same threat, but was with prevailing opinion, is not. See the injustice here?