Discussion Topic: Chat flags again again. Suggestion: Require a reason be entered, which is shown

Question

In my other post yesterday, I suggested requiring the initial flagger in chat be in the room proper, to discourage people cruising the transcripts from doing drive by flaggings, and a point came up: what if we required a reason be entered for the flag, which was then shown to validators and, if successful, the flagged person?

On one hand, the cynics among us will say that the reasons will always be simple, like "I was offended". On the other, it would still take enough time that some thought might be put into it for those who are flagging out of actual offense taken, and it would change the way flags were seen by validators who paid attention. Furthermore, it would create a means of fostering correction of the problem -- because, be honest, we've all seen flags for fairly random things, and stating what the problem is might help the flagged user correct themselves after the suspension.

I know this isn't the place for a feature request. This is not a feature request. I am gauging public opinion before posting a main Meta post.

Answer 1

This should not be implemented

First, the most important point is that a single per-site meta will not offer a good gauge of support for this proposal. This is not a feature request, but even as a discussion it would be much better suited to the main meta. For example, SFF could be quite in favor of this suggestion, but Stackoverflow could be quite against it. Thus it could be quite well received here, and ultimately have no chance of winning widespread support.

With regard to the merits of the proposal itself, I doubt this would be effective. Consider:

• This is unlikely to help users correct their behavior, which the question puts forth as one of the reasons for such a proposal. Most situations fall into one of two categories: (a) the user knows very well that they are being rude, in which case a flag reason won’t give them any additional information, or (b) the user is not being rude at all, and the flag was in error (quite common) in which case a reason will only encourage people to avoid innocuous behavior—precisely what the suggestion is intended to prevent. Flag reasons are not likely to dissuade actual rudeness.
• The question dismisses the significance of reasons always being something trivial, but I suspect this will become the main reason to flag. Most of the time, what else can a flagger say about a post besides “This is rude”? Most flags are not for spam or obvious bigotry. We could well end up simply having a lot of undescriptive flag reasons, which would increase noise and help no one.
• If the reason is not clear from looking at the chat post, then it is likely either not flag-worthy, or the person looking at it lacks the expertise to evaluate the merit of the flag. Yet people validate dubious flags anyway. The issue is not that people lack information about why a chat post should be deleted. The issue (if there is one) is that their measure of what makes a post offensive is perhaps a bit too sensitive.
• Right now, a common point of contention is that people in other rooms are robo-validating flags without consideration of their context. The mere fact that there is a flag is enough for some people to validate. If a reason were included with each flag, it might well increase the confidence of robo-validators. “Not only has this been flagged, but someone else thought about it long enough to give a reason! Validated.”

Basically, what it comes down to is this: This probably wouldn’t change the behavior of flaggers, who could just copy-and-paste a generic flag reason. It wouldn’t change the behavior of flag validators, who might simply have more confidence in the validity of flags. And its effects on users are uncertain, and could be negative.