StackOverflow lets anyone flag posts that they think are off-topic/spam etc, and then the unpaid, elected jannies can decide whether to approve or reject the flags.
In this specific situation, a user flagged an answer that contained "a gibberish text that is in no way related to the question and a link to a crypto exchange website".
They didn't get the response they expected:
I got a rejection for the flag with the generic rejection reason "Rejected - a moderator reviewed your assessment but found no evidence". This was not only very surprising for me, but also disappointing and demotivating.
They want answers and they're concerned about how it will look on their permanent record:
So could someone please explain to me why this flag was rejected? Or was this a mistake on the part of the moderator? A mistake which, I should note, shows up negatively in my flagging history.
In a later comment they refer to seeing the rejected flag as "like a slap in the face".
Wait a minute, aren't the jannies meant to be on strike? Why are they still cleaning the flag queue?
I support the strike, but on the other hand I just cannot stand spammers.
lol @ cleaning a multi-billion dollar tech company's spam queue while you're meant to be on strike from your unpaid "job".
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Broo these jannies are so darn pathetic.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They really are. They never participate in SO itself and spend all of their time cleaning things up and getting into pointless fights with their overlords in meta.stackoverflow.com.
Most of them use their IRL names and link to their employers in their bios. Have none of their employers noticed that they spend their entire working day on SO? (this is why I don't have my real name as my rdrama name)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
There should be a badge for anyone who puts their LinkedIn in their bio.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
LinkedIn lets you see who sees your profile, I think? Pretty sure
just automatically goes to the employer of anyone who visits it's page
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's optional - you can opt to not see who visits your profile, but in return you won't show up on anyone else's.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Governments around the world should just implement all female incel hunting squads. If a male is suspected of being an incel he will be hunted down and r*ped by these incel hunters at gunpoint. Once the incel has been properly fricked by roaming gestapo slut police, he will no longer be incel. This is the de facto solution to the incel catastrophe that has been growing across the planet. The only true way to destroy all incels, is to destroy all inceldom at the root, by forcing them to have s*x.
Snapshots:
archive.org
ghostarchive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context