← Back to context

Comment by mariusor

1 year ago

Why do you think that democratic flagging needs a solution?

> democratic flagging

how is it "democratic" when a few people can kill an article they don't agree with?

"democratic" would be upvotes & downvotes canceling each other out, which we already have.

  • Well, if you feel a flag is underserved you can vouch for the submission/comment. I think a vastly smaller number of vouches is needed to unflag something than the number of flags it took to flag it.

    I know there's the downside of not being able to vouch for something until it got buried, but even so I think the end-result is reasonably democratic.

    • I searched the FAQ for the word "vouch" and got zilch.

      Explain to me the utility of flagging as opposed to simply downvoting (I'm talking about comments, not submissions).

      especially, why is there no accountability for it? Are there "frequent flaggers" who should sometimes have their flagging privileges revoked?

      2 replies →

    • Can you vouch for submissions? I've never seen that option. I can vouch for comments but not submissions

  • > "democratic" would be upvotes & downvotes canceling each other out, which we already have.

    Submissions can't be downvoted; we don't already have that.

You can't unflag, can you? It is not like voting.

  • You can vouch for a thing, but only once a certain threshold of flags has been met. I've encountered the complaint that when this threshold is reached it's usually much too late to bring the submission back to the attention of the people, so the process is not exactly symmetric.