Not a huge griefing problem but annoying nonetheless. Someone joined a channel I was in yesterday and started randomly starring and unstarring chat messages over and over. There was no way to stop them without a mod or channel owner so we just had to keep asking whomever was doing it to stop. After a few minutes they did, but it begs the question why there was no limit to what they were doing. I can only assume since they didn't hit the overall cap the system can't take any action (and you can't see who is doing it to report them).  I'd like to see some sort of short term rate limit on stars. Say 2 stars in a 30 second time period. And deleting the star doesn't reset the timer. Doesn't stop anyone from bulk starring, it just slows them down to where someone else can catch on.
93255
It appears that you get to blink stars on any message as frequently as you want, as long as you want. Some child on The Bridge has just found out about this and the only approach I can think of - banning people at random until the abuse stops - is not something I feel like applying right now.  Please fix this, either through rate limiting, not counting unstar events towards your 30 star/day limit, shadow star bans or whatever means necessary and super-linear combination thereof.
93854
Is there a way to hide specific messages in chat?  Sometimes people send things to chat channels that I personally find offensive or cause distress, the only option I can find is to hide all posts by the user that posted the message. or to flag the message for mods to deal with. I can imagine that mods have better things to do than moderate chat messages that I personally have a problem with, that might not bother other people.   I would prefer a way to hide just specific messages, so that I can still see what a user is saying but without the one or two messages that hurt my eyes, and without getting moderators involved.  Is there a way to do this? If not, what avenue should I pursue in order to suggest it to be added to the chat functionality of the site.
47294
Spam gets fairly heavily punished - 100 reputation penalty, if I recall correctly, and the content itself gets hidden in the revision history.  Now if we just have some rubbish:     dfajiojaifojadiofjadhigaowkokaomdiovnuiyhioqejgioqejgio   I'm not talking about someone posting a question or comment as an answer (i.e. possibly just not knowing the rules or being frustrated with not having the required privileges), or someone making some really horrible attempt at answering the question, I'm talking about an answer that clearly shows absolutely no observation of any content on the page.  This, in my opinion, causes a similar amount of harm to the site - I'm inclined to say the fact that someone posts spam isn't as important as the fact that they're posting something that needs to be deleted, since we're likely going to delete it pretty quickly, and they're (likely) behaving maliciously, or am I wrong?  Why don't we treat this equally harshly, or why do we treat spam as harshly as we do?    Side notes:  I'm sure I've seen a few times where users get punished for posting spam when their link is likely actually relevant to the question and useful (should I flag these? They are still link-only answers, so they shouldn't really come back, and often I'm just not sure enough). While false positives are bad, it seems worse that we're treating worse behaviour better.  I'm assuming that's not what "abusive" in this reason is referring to: (I'm also not sure, off the top of my head, how this one gets treated)     It is offensive, abusive, or hate speech
45960
I have answered two questions:       On the first one we've posted 12 comments, and on the second one only 7.   But - Why am I only getting the Please avoid extended discussions in comments. Would you like to automatically move this discussion to chat? notice in the SECOND answer, while the first one has more comments?
12279
From time to time certain chat rooms (JavaScript and probably PHP, too) attract the attention of a fellow help vampire who thinks he can start sucking from the people in there.  Often their message end up being flagged as offensive (and those flags are likely to be validated, too, because people are annoyed by such behaviour) but it's kind of an inappropriate use of those flags.  I'm proposing a new chat flag type, which is especially meant for help vampires. Flagging it would present the flag to 10k users and owners of the room where the flag originated (no matter how much rep they have). When the flag is validated it would cause messages from this user to be shown with a low opacity for maybe three hours. It could also notify the user that help vampirism is a bad thing and that he needs to improve his behaviour.  Repeated flags of this type - obviously with some time in between in case multiple message which are really part of the same conversation are flagged - should then result in a temporary ban from the room where the messages got flagged. If that doesn't help the next step would probably be a temporary ban from all chat rooms.    For clarification, I'm not talking about the quick "this line doesn't work, why?" stuff but the kind of help vampires who get cocky even though they just got e.g. a link to a SO question which has a perfectly fine and fitting answer. Because hey, you didn't give them teh codez!
42583
Possible Duplicate:          I just tried the new feature to move a conversation to chat, and got the message indicated in the title.  The whole reason the comment chain got so chatty is because this is an inexperienced person who doesn't quite "get it" and isn't likely to get a lot of reputation any time soon. Isn't this exactly the sort of conversation that should be taken off-line?  I think if someone is invited to a chat by someone with enough reputation, it shouldn't matter what their own reputation is - they should be allowed into the chat.
4328
On   requested a self-suspension to take some time off.  Now his profile boldly reads:     This account is temporarily suspended for rule violations.   This is not right.  Anyone viewing this profile without knowing the back-story may reasonably assume that he has in fact committed rule violations severe enough to warrant a suspension.  I don't know how frequent self-requested suspensions are, but even for one case it is a shame to possibly degrade the community's opinion of this fine individual.  Could we please have a "needed time off" reason for suspension, or some other non-derogatory wording?
91813
We have incidents where we get 10+ flags from the same room in rapid succession. This happens on multiple occasions and we have reason to believe it's a single user doing this.  I don't think it's of value to allow a single user to flag more then n messages in a small time period.  If we could have some anti-flag spam measures put in place, then that would be great.
20321
New users who have less than 125 reputation are subject to a , network-wide.  Today, however,  was able to post two questions within 8 minutes of each other, bypassing this rate limit: , and  today. (Both links are 10k-only.)  How was this user able to bypass the network-wide question asking rate limit? (I'd imagine one easy hack would be to exploit a race condition, but if that were the case, the two questions would be posted at exactly the same time, not 8 minutes later.)  Is it because the rate limit only considers the IP address, and not the account, so if the same account makes the post from a different IP address, it's allowed?  This is not a duplicate of , as back when that was asked, the rate limit worked quite differently, and wasn't even enabled on some sites; today, according to the very first link, it is now enabled network-wide.
21924
Of course spam posts should be flagged, and if they come up in review, rejected.  Over on Mi Yodeya during the past 24 hours I’ve helped delete and reject four spam posts through the review queue, and I can only imagine that others were posted over the course of the night. To clarify, I’m referring to edits and answers that were about 99.274% words that I don’t think any decent person would use in everyday discussions, even if someone got them really angry.   Thing is, if the only thing we can do as a community is delete his posts/reject his edits, and as moderators to ban his account, can’t he just create a new account? Further, some of these posts . Maybe the mods can ban his IP address? I’m not one, so I have no idea what kind of power they wield in that respect. But he can always just get a new computer.   I don’t have the numbers to see what this is like on other sites, but I know this doesn’t happen often on Mi Yodeya. I wonder, then, whether this is the optimal solution, or whether an automatic spam filter be put into place - say, a new review queue that automatically deletes posts or rejects edits that can then be voted on whether to be reposted if it’s a false alarm. Perhaps it can be automatically triggered by certain keywords (like ****, %$#^, or @$+^).   Now, all of these posts that I voted to delete/reject came up in Suggested Edits and First Posts. Maybe such edits would show up in Low Quality in general, and that just wasn’t the case here because of precedence rules. I don’t know. But perhaps the above would be a better solution, if this is even as big of a problem as I’m making it out to be.
32171
What is the best method to deal with harassing users?  For reasons unknown I have become the target of what I believe to be an abusive user.  Within a few days he had downvoted nearly all of my answers or questions.  He has left comments on a number of my questions which aided in making the connection between him and the downvotes.    I know rep isn't really a big deal, but at this point this has become absolutely obnoxious.Is there no way to limit a user from downvoting another user repeatedly?  I have emailed SO, flagged his comments, flagged my own post and left a comment for the moderator (at the suggestion of the SO staff).  But nothing thus far.  I have a record breaking ~700 rep and he ~10K.    Edit:  Just to clarify, I understand that a wrong answer or less appealing answer should be downvoted.  I have no issues with this.  The downvotes I'm referring to didn't happen over days or even hours.  The majority of them occurred in the same 30 minute time span.
8662
Some months ago, I linked to  in the CSS chat room and  in case anybody who cared happened to drop by:  In case anybody else noticed that  questions are now highlighted a little differently, I'm actively investigating this; here's the meta thread  It was unpinned quite some time ago by one of the other room owners. I don't need it anymore anyway since the issue has been . I notice, however, that it's still visible in the starred list, with the only regular (not pinned) star being my own:  When I try to click on the star to unstar it, chat thinks I'm trying to do otherwise and simply tells me I can't star my own messages. I can easily delete this message, but I'd very much like to unstar it instead, thankyouverymuch.
52568
I don't particularly think I can add more to what Monica's said about what went wrong, and . Things could have gone better. I don't really see people getting any happier about it.   I'd like to ask for a few things going forward.   Firstly - that a community team member should be dealing with social media criticisms, and we really should also be giving our communities the benefit of the doubt. In situations like this - something like "Hi! We've noticed you have an issue with the content you see on SO's sidebar. We'll see how we can help" would have been a better starting point than knocking a site off HNQ. Under most circumstances, I'd actually trust Adam - as a former community team member - to deal with it, but in this situation, we basically had folks from two different teams that don't actually deal with users directly in such circumstances try to help, in good faith and, well it didn't work that well. We need to have someone specifically dealing with these things.     We also need a clear idea of how the folks who deal with these things need to engage with the affected communities if action is taken.   For most part, the community team's had to do damage control when they're the folks who should have been dealing with it. I do realise in the past few years they've basically been pulled in 20 different directions and have been constantly dealing with backlog - but one of the consequences is it feels like the management of SO and SE has been drifting further and further away from the community.   We've constantly been told that we need to make SE better for new users and we need to attract them and grow. I've occasionally accused SE of being short sighted. I think this is one of those situations where I'm starting to feel there's tunnel vision - since the end result of it is folks who would traditionally supported SE feel that traditional methods seem neglected.  You have one of the best community teams I've had the pleasure of interacting with. They're engaged, passionate and some of the best folks I've interacted with on the internet. You'd be down a lot of core users if not for them. They're also smaller than they have ever been, with a smaller team than some medium sized site. (This is a difficult thing for me to talk about - since I've expressed an interest in the role before). We constantly hear promises that they'll improve processes - and that they'll tackle the backlog. And what we really really really need is people on the ground listening. "Hey guys, so someone has issues with the site. Could you guys tell us what you think? Could we do something about it?" goes so much further than anyone realises.  We've been really really patient, but we shouldn't need to tweet at folks to get your attention. We've been really patient. We really would love SE to grow, but not at the expense of its heart.
99544
It's a bit frustrating that, even though I'm above rep 100 on Stack Overflow, I'm still restricted with the most basic 'idiot prevention' limits on the other sites as I start there. Really, is it necessary to prevent me from creating a new tag or posting more than once in 20 minutes? I can see holding off edits, or even comments, until I've proved to have a brain in the domain in question.  You could see this as a request for a feature.
9762
While doing some flagging (yes, I'm a little bit addicted) I stumbled upon the user . At first the case seemed clear, Spammer, but...and that's a big one, he seems to be a productive member of SU and SO (his account on SF isn't there anymore, but it's still in the Data-Dump of the explorer, not sure what happened).  He does never seem to link against StarWind-Software, except with his name and profile. He also  that he's a developer there...so...at what am I looking here? I can't really place him somewhere.
54363
I was peacefully reading the Gaming.SE blog, when suddenly, GASP I . I diligently look for a way to get rid of it... but found none. , so I'm doing a feature request. Ah, also, if someone is kind enough to remove that spam, thanks! D:
28369
It seems the spamfilter on the "Help and Improvement" queue has some problem. From  (from the review of  question).  I think,   Well, "there are" happens quite often in spams, also often in hams :-) Maybe in the case of a 3k+ user it is not really probable he would try to spam.   On my tries it seems, the first word of the edited message is considered always spammy.