There are a couple of chatrooms on chat.SE where strong language is considered OK. By this, I mean that room regulars may use possibly offensive language (no racial slurs, just words like f**k) and talk about possibly NSFW stuff (no pictures, just text. Jokes and the like). It's always in good humor -- there's no hostility here, just a more adult environment. I personally don't see much of a problem here; it may scare off a few users but I'm not really sure if that happens much. The main site is supposed to be professional, and its looks reflect that. Chat is supposed to be informal, and it looks informal too. I personally would be surprised to see such language on main, but not so much on chat.  Sometimes, these things get flagged. There have been multiple occasions when a user sits and looks for stuff to flag in the transcript. Not only is this annoying, but it also leads to people getting chatbanned. If strong language is allowed in chat, I'm not sure if disallowing users from flagging is the way to go here, flagging is an escape route for legit problem situations.  So, I have two questions here:   Should strong/NSFW language being used in good humor (not meant as an attack) be allowed in SE chat if the room regulars are fine with it? As in, should we allow a per-chatroom policy on the language being allowed? Rules against personal attacks et cetera still hold. If so, should anything be done about users who go through flagging everything? By "something being done" it need not be a mod action like suspension, it could simply be something like linking the user to a policy or explaining what sort of things are allowed in the chatroom.   To be perfectly clear, I am talking about offensive/strong language used in good humor only (and not in a way that is attacking a group of people or a person in absentio). If directed towards someone, it must be as a joke where you're reasonably certain the receiving party (usually a regular) will not take offence.
120702
Along the lines of the discussion (poll) on , what is the policy for them in chat?  In my mind, there is a very large difference between proper SE site content (posts and comments) and chat.  Chat far more fluid than the "fixed content" of the site, and the occasional expletive here and there rapidly fades into the past.  True, there's a transcript for chat, but one needs to go reaching into the past.  Also, just to be explicit, I'm simply talking about vocabulary, not intent or context.  Saying "F*** these g**d*** if statements" is wholly apart from "Abc's mother looks like a coprolite"  This is part of the   , where people in different rooms see a flagged message containing profanity, and without context reach far too easily for the "valid" button.  If we don't care so much about the language as the idea, that would go a long way (people could instead click "not sure", not that they would, but that's another matter).
8942
Simple request, really.  Can we add a detection for the     Please avoid extended discussions in   comments. Would you like to   automatically move this discussion to   chat?   prompt, so that if one of the users in the "extended discussion" has under 20 rep it doesn't appear?  I think a lot of the users this apply to will have low rep and it may take some back and forth to get good info out of them.  New suggestion: how about if a sufficiently high-rep user is clicking on the link, the low-rep user gets a field promotion sufficient to chat? Low-rep users are particularly prone to post questions to lead in this direction of needing to move to chat.
52157
There's been problems with abusive comments since the site started.   We still haven't managed to conquer the issue.   Users can be issued chat bans and post bans. The API automatically bans IP addresses with validated spam flags. (Would it be difficult to implement comment bans? Would mods have the power to impose comment restrictions?).   Although comments have been classically referred to as second class citizens, rude comments on the site are the one place that is driving people away.   Can we implement temporary automatic comment ban on 'x' number of validated rude comment flags? It would probably be better if the exact heuristics were not disclosed publicly, much like the serial voting scripts  This question  was asked 7 years ago. Can we revisit it?  This question is related, but is asking for a more complex approach:
114931
In response to the effect  is referring, I am proposing one of two possible scenarios:   Disallow flags on chat messages older than X hours, or Remove old flagged posts from the transcript, but no suspension occurs (as in the aforementioned question).
5672
For some or other reason, typing @ᔕᖺᘎᕊ in a chat room pings everyone who's been in that chat room for the last 7 days...    Seems to work in all chat rooms (I only tested 2 as I don't want to upset too many people...)  How should we proceed?
11131
It came up in chat that a spammer's account needed destroyed; their posts had been deleted but their name (which was offensive) still showed up on the front page as updates to posts and their user account hadn't been deleted.   Someone in chat wanted this fixed but there "wasn't anything to flag" so they complained in chat rather than flagging, which would have directly notified moderators. For future reference how should I tell users to handle a situation like this? Just flag a related post with the "Other" flag reason and explain the situation? What if there's no "related" post?
103595
First time I had to use the offensive flag. The answers were obviously offending/spam but it took quite a while to delete them. I was interested in how long it actually took, because an off-topic question posted later got closed much faster.  Instead of finding this information, I noticed the offensive (and also spam) flag's description is formatted very different. It also contains less information.      "flagged as" seems redundant - I know that I flagged it, and I'm on the flag summary page after all. The normal flagging doesn't tell me that. It is Helpful, but a normal flags are helpful. (fixed) There is no information about the time I flagged it. The normal flag's "helpful" text contains a tooltip showing the time of it's acceptance, the offensive/spam flags don't.   I like that it's red, but I think the format should be more like that of the other flags. It should show the time somewhere.
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!
89926
We have a few cases of chat accounts remaining without valid parent account:  and  for example. What should mods do when that happens:  delete the chat account notify the SE team so they can reattach or clean it up leave it as is: it's a normal situation
39617
Well it might not be a huge issue to some (I suppose it depends on how you use the chat system) but when I "Ignore this user everywhere", their messages still appear on the sidebar for the 'other rooms you're in' if they say something. Albeit I can ignore this feature and the text within it, I just find it odd that I can still see it.   This is only a nuisance when you truly are annoyed by a user and ignoring them in the chat was the best possible alternative to leaving the room or starting an argument (no references here, but any long time chat user has been annoyed by some help vampire at one point in time or another and would just prefer to ignore them for good).   If you have no clue to the sidebar or preview I'm talking about: this is for you,    I have chosen to Ignore this user everywhere (Neal) and then switched to a new room, yet that users response appears in my 'preview' for the 'other rooms you're in' if he is also talking in them.  Note: My ignore of Neal was mostly due to jest, this in no way is to reflect on Neal but the chat feature (I hate to ever single anyone out here).
47876
Guys, I just wonder if people are allowed to have civilized discussion (on any IT topic) on this forum without actually being accused of starting a row. I'm asking this question for a reason that few days I've asked few questions referring to VM, JIT etc. and compared them to C++ way and despite the fact that I've explained myself that I'm not starting any agro with anyone, that I'm really just genuinely curious, my post was first closed and then removed. I'm asking: What's wrong with asking nonstandard questions which sometimes my be quite difficult to answer? Thanks
27304
Is there any restriction as to what languages are allowed in SE chat rooms? I have seen many people speak in German, Russian or French in the  chat room, but whenever I speak in Persian (to a friend who understands me), some people start nagging that I should only speak in English! In a recent case, one of my chat messages was removed by a moderator because somebody flagged it as non-English! Is there really any rule that restricts the spoken languages in chat rooms? If not, based on what rule was my message removed by a moderator?
120388
I've been wondering that for a long time. And if it is rude, then why does everyone say commands/imperatives without saying please? I personally phrase them into questions, or say "you have to","you need to","you can't"...and such. Does anyone else do that? Just me? I feel like everyone is bossy but me lol.  Also, I was wondering if saying "come on" is rude. It sounds mean or just negative when people do. Also when people say "let me" it also sounds mean-ish because it sounds like you are commanding permission from someone without them having any say.
30111
I've just started getting these messages:     Please avoid extended discussions in comments. Would you like to automatically move this discussion to chat?   Why should one avoid doing this? I think it adds to the site...  (Tagged  in more ways than one!)
55820
Can I use salty, -laden language on Stack Exchange sites, like ?       For more information, see  in the .
117090
A  on  made a  about flagging comments. The part of it I'm questioning is:     If there are more than one comments that should be removed, don't flag them individually because that can make it difficult to see what's what. When viewing a post, moderators see an overlay with the flags on that post. If there are multiple flags, the overlay can obscure the post itself. Instead, flag the post and leave a custom message explaining which comments can be removed and why.   That seems very inconvenient for the flagger, especially if there are a lot of comments.  If the above is only personal preference, shouldn't it be marked as such, rather than as part of the guideline in the post?
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