Should YA abolish the report abuse flag, since it's being used irresponsibly?

Question

Aren't thumbs up, or down sufficient enough to show your disagreement, or dislike of another user's answer? If you give a thumbs down, the answer you don't like is automatically hidden, so one doesn't have to see it, unless they wish to by clicking "show".
Isn't it abuse by reporters of a question, or answer, if they're merely reporting it to hurt an asker, or answerer?
Even more so, isn't it abuse by YA to remove a question or answer just because it was reported, WITHOUT having investigted the report FIRST?

I ask this in Politics, since most of you will understand the reasoning in asking this.

What say you all?

Answer 1

Again, about an hour ago, a young woman reported someone because she didn't like the question. I asked a similar question to you, and the young lady responded in a huff threating to report me (i broke guidelines?), and saying she reported the question because the asker "is a foreigner who always asks anti-American questions" I think we need more accountability to the report button. If you report someone, you'll have to justify it, and if your reporting is frivilous as this young lady's was, if you report people in lieu of debating them, or because you disagree or don't like their questions, you should lose points or eventually get terminated. Also, I've reported ONE person, because he began to stalk me, answering my questions with overtly sexual and offensive responses, and this went on for several days, I reported him and warned other women and it turns out this creep had been deleted four timed for similar offenses. I think it is necessary, and those who abuse it should have consequenses. Also, I think some people are too young or immature to have the power of reporting someone, so there needs to be oversight.

Answer 2

I agree with you that the "Report It" flag is, of itself, being abused. I've complained to Y/A several times about this when appealing violation notices. Unfortunately, Y/A, without investigation, will take the word of the ones doing the reporting over that of those being reported. I think there should definitely be a thumbs up/down option for questions as well as answers. It was at one time. We all know there is an appeals process and I have used it with some success but it can be a hassle. I still don't understand what blocking accomplishes. But since fairness is not a high priority on Y/As agenda, and politics is a volatile subject which bites both ways, I suppose we'll just have to use native intelligence in our questions and answers and hope there are enough others here to do the same thing and help keep the board interesting.

Answer 3

I think that Yahoo! should read the reports before issuing a violation. There have been some clear abuses that should be dealt with like using pornographic pictures in an avatar, using profanity, or making derogatory inflaming and racist Q's &As. Some people have turned this into a chat room and carried out personal attacks against other users. Asking the same annoying questions about Carter and government cheese are technically against the guidelines. The chat room or repetitive questions are merely annoying and not worth wasting time on, much less reporting. Clearly there has been a concerted effort by some neocons to abuse the reporting system by reporting questions and answers merely because they disagree with them. These reports many times are not actually violations of the guidelines but since Yahoo! does not read them the posting gets yanked, points taken away, and sometimes the account suspended. Now that cons are becoming the victims of these tactics there is a rash of questions just like yours. Clearly Yahoo! needs to do something about these bogus reports. I say actually read them and make a decision. If Yahoo! would start issuing violations for bogus reports they will stop.

Answer 4

You are absolutely correct. YA indiscriminately removes questions and answers merely because someone reports abuse. They do not substantiate whether or not the complaint is valid. They merely zap it, which is utterly ridiculous. I can understand removing vulgar posts or those maliciously attacking someone. But the whole concept of debate requires disagreement, and in some cases critical disagreement. Once a regular contributor, I now rarely visit YA because of their abuse policy.

Answer 5

i presumed that fluctuate into firming down. humorous to get stated for a diet answer or Bible answer, all documented and real. One individual a pair of weeks in the past substitute into stated and asked could I tag all of them? because this component is going international it somewhat is not proper to many and not the comparable rights. so a procedures as locals that do it for the comparable reason, it style of feels that what is going around comes around and that when attacked human beings start to rally. then you definately've alliances formed. You in no way be responsive to it it somewhat is 2 human beings in a dorm or in a small city that talk, yet one component for confident if it gets going lower back Yahoo will finally end up without one at here and can't can charge for the classified ads they run whilst ever you answer a query and that they lose gross sales. humorous with reference to the man that asked why am I stated and asked approximately tagging all of them, i went to the positioning and ninety% jor greater of the bargains there have been human beings asking "Why' or "What did I do". So whilst it hits Yahoo they might take a greater suitable look until eventually then you definately could flow the process the multiplu computing device bargains and ultimately get somebody and have it fixed. inspite of the undeniable fact that in the event that they get hit because of the alliances then the conflict is on and the place there is tyranny there is liberty! one component for confident Yahoo needs to envision on it and human beings could deliver e-mails. basically like not many understanding athey can flow lower back and vote for his or her answer after it is going into community vote casting. commonly one answer were getting it and that answer had like 2 thumbs up and eight thumbs down and something have been many thumbs up so as that tells you what form substitute into doing that. carry in there. you are able to consistently digital mail human beings and see in the event that they are having the smae concern and attempt and choose who's doing it. Say it they are bumped off and it stops, then you definately be responsive to who's doing it. Take care. you additionally could make your internet privte for a collectively as and scope out the answerers.

Answer 6

Right - so the person who asked for child porn sites and others asking similarly perverted questions should be allowed to get what they want then?!!!

Sadly YA have filters for political and other things which they not only violate but also suspend accounts. Worse they do not use these same filters to trap pedophiles, sex pests or other perverts!!! So yes we need to keep the violation button but we also need YA to honest and come clean about their censorship on the site and the reasons for it!!!!!

Answer 7

I have an account that was suspended, all I did was refute some of the right wing dogma here and was reported enough to be suspended, one of the violations was actually a joke about liberals, poking fun at myself, no cursing or innuendos whatsoever and I was reported. Its ridiculous.

Answer 8

I think part of the problem is the people who are supposed to determine the legit from the non legit. It even says when you report people that only certain people count when they report people. They don't count those who report everybody, but they mention flimsy criteria which sounds like they just respond to reporting what they don't want on there.

Answer 9

seeing as how many viewpoints in regards to politics are opinions, I agree with you wholeheartedly in abolishing the report option.

Freedom of speech should not include a censor option. And I see the report button as being a censor option.

Answer 10

I think this "report abuse" thing is automated and there isn't a live person on the other end really reading the complaint. If that's the case it sucks!.