Timeline for A clarification request for declined spam flag
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2018 at 18:06 | comment | added | Tetsujin | If you're done with that paperclip, could I have it? >:) | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 7:59 | comment | added | Makyen | Perhaps the humans who chose to place all the flags were lacking "the human touch", but this issue isn't automation, it's getting humans to act more humanly, which is a much harder problem :-(. | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 7:58 | comment | added | Makyen | No flags were automatically placed on the post (metasmoke record). The post wasn't even remotely close to being a candidate for automatic flagging. Every flag placed on this post was the act of a human, who individually chose to cast the flag. I agree that things could have been handled better. I'm just saying that this isn't an automation issue (i.e. it's not a maximising paperclips issue, or, at least, it's already been chosen that this is not the type of situation which should be automated, precisely because it does need the human touch). | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 7:20 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | Feels like there's a bit of lost-in-translationness on the original post, but eh, there's that. The rejection, looking at everything though seems fair to me. | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 7:14 | comment | added | A J | We, though, were flexible in the beginning. I posted a comment asking the OP to state the affiliation with the site, but, as I said in my question, he declined to have any affiliation yet his profile said something different. So, that answer got flags. He later deleted that answer and posted it again as a new answer, so I left a comment asking him to improve old one rather than reposting. Since, both posts were deleted, I had no way to retract my flag or do any action. | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 7:07 | history | answered | Journeyman GeekMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |