Yesterday, I flagged  as "not a real question" because the question was not in proper quality.        The flag has been declined by a moderator; however, the question has been closed by other users for the same reason.  I haven't flagged that question as spam/offensive; why did the moderator give that reason for declining a flag?
10578
I flagged a post and (choose one)   my flag was marked as helpful, yet nothing was done my flag was marked as declined, yet the post was deleted/edited/closed   Why?
67973
I flagged  five days ago because it seems off-topic to me. The question has been closed by a moderator few minutes after.  However my flag has not been marked as helpful (or declined, or disputed) in my flags summary page. It's just like the flag has not been taken into account (screenshot below).    Is a moderator can explain me?
25110
There are lots of questions tagged  that don't have a  response.  How do we interpret this? Is it because they are declined by default? We just have to wait for a response (the team is very busy)? Is Jeff the only one that reviews this questions?  I suppose the ones that have negative votes may (or may not) be declined by default, but there are quite a few with some to a lot upvotes that should have an official answer.
104229
I flagged something as spam, then was only 90% sure I'd done so, so I clicked the flag link again to check. It showed me this:    I had, of course, only raised the spam flag, not the offensive/abusive/hate flag, so the latter probably shouldn't be saying I did.    Ah, this may be a duplicate, I didn't search enough:        And if so, it's been around a while.
69917
Is it possible that, when you flag a moderator's actions, they can action the flag themselves? Or does it get escalated even higher to staff? I suppose the question then is, who would deal with the staff's flags?
16447
I flagged a  yesterday as a duplicated question and now its status is set to eventinvalidated. I can see this in my Flagging History section.  I'm not sure I understand what it means since the post is still there and has not been deleted. It's the first time I have seen this status.  Could someone enlighten me about that?
29052
I don't think anyone wants to be the thought police, and I'm particularly wary of censorship on a part of the site that is a user's personal self-statement, and is a little off the beaten path.  On the other hand, I'm also concerned that we may not want a site where clicking on a user to see their other posts would expose folks to racist or other bigoted terms that almost everyone would agree are inappropriate for civil discourse.    Don't forget the "be nice" rule".  Note that I don't want a "flag user" rule, which I know has been beaten to death already, and further think that swears and semi-inflammatory opinions, etc. should generally just be ignored - I'm only asking about terms that provoke serious emotions around racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual orientation issues.  What, if anything, is the appropriate response in such cases?
111545
When a moderator comes across a question that deserves to be closed, they should not. This should be left to the community to handle.   Here's a fresh example right out of the Stack Overflow oven: "".   It's a crappy question, to be sure.  It is long, ranty, and flame-fodder.  It should have been closed, but not by a moderator.  It is not the moderators' jobs to decide on their own what is and is not proper content for a site.  That is the job of the community.
95183
I noticed from a question about flagging vs closing (forgive me, I cannot find the link, please post it if you know it), that flags are CONVERTED into close votes for questions automatically. Can somebody confirm this?  If confirmed, I was wondering why the link (again, for questions only) is simply not removed to avoid confusion?
55514
I'm out of close votes again today. But I still have 100 flags. How do the mods feel about me flagging questions for closure, even though I would be able to VtC myself, if I weren't already out of votes?  Related: How do the mods feel about me flagging a question for closure (a super obvious code-dump, for example), even if I have CVs remaining, in an attempt to preserve my close votes for less clear cut close decisions?
121607
Have a look at these Stack Overflow questions,  and . Doesn't it fall under the following flag category?     Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. Include attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results.   And yet a user having access to moderator tools is answering the question instead of putting it on hold or raising a flag.  So, is it the time to rethink about how moderation privileges should be granted? Or some kind of flagging mechanism should be introduced for users belonging to 10K+ reputation category?  Have a look at . What's wrong with it?   Reading all the answers and comments, Stack&nbsp;Overflow seems to be following double standards. Rules are there, but not for everyone. It's totally on luck that either your not-so-good question will be accepted by the community or not.   for example.
101385
I happened to glance upon my flagging history and I realized that there was an entry missing from the spam section in it. I had marked 6 posts as spam, out of which 4 were deemed helpful and 1 was declined. I'm not sure what happened to the remaining 1 entry and why it is missing from the history summary. Here is a snapshot of the spam section of my flagging history.    Is this behavior a  or a ?  Note: I've checked my flagging history completely and there is no spam flag which is still in the active state.
23382
Earlier today I flagged this  using the following flag option:     Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead,  and what has been done so far to solve it.   If you look at the edit history, shown below, I interpreted the original post's title and body to mean that they were asking for another utility, like SlowCheetah, which is why I flagged it with the rule I stated above.  In addition, I try to do my best to also inform the user that their post does not meet the standards of the site by leaving a comment as you can see on the post.  The poster acknowledged the feedback and updated their question, rendering my flag now invalid.    Ultimately, my flag was declined, which harms me because as we all know declined flags work against a SO user's total flag count:  Reference:      How many flags do I have?      When you start out, you are allotted 10 flags per day. This number may increase to up to 100 flags per day:      You get one bonus flag per 2000 reputation.      You are awarded additional bonus flags when you flag correctly - one bonus flag for every ten net helpful flags (helpful flags minus declined flags).   I only have 8 declined flags, and IIRC, 4 of those are because of situations just like this. So is it fair to negatively affect a member's total flag count, when the flag at the time of submission was accurate?  As such, I propose a new flag status like "Inapplicable', which when used does not affect total flag count, or something similar to this, so that situations like this do not negatively affect a user's flag count.   I understand I still have to have faith that a reviewer or moderator will see the post for what it was at the time the flag was submitted, but at least by adding this option, you provide reviewers and moderator's a means to take action in a fair manner.  I want to continue flagging questions and helping posters as much as I can, I just don't think it's fair to members that spend a lot of time flagging and helping members, to risk reducing their flag count just because of a shortfall of the system and because, let's be honest here, not all moderator's can act at the same level of objectivity, we all have differing viewpoints and interpretations.  I suppose this bothers me more than other issues I've come across on the site because I flag posts to help keep the site focused and free of poor posts and yet receive no reputation for these types of efforts.  The only positive thing you can reap are a few badges, &lt;sarcasm&gt;yay!&lt;/sarcasm&gt; or a negatively impacted flag count.  Just doesn't seem fair IMHO when my affects contribute to increasing the quality of posts which is just as important as contributing a quality answer IMO.  And to add, this isn't the first time this has happened to me and many other members of the site.  And yet, nothing has been done about it. Perhaps as a community we start spending a little bit more time little details like this to help keep people feeling positive about their efforts, especially those that aren't measured by reputation.  Thank you for your time,  Cheers.
26854
One of my flags for "non-answer" was declined and I was wondering if I misunderstood what "non-answer" means. I saw someone post an answer that was just a block of code, with nothing in it that was even the slightest related to the question, it was just a random block of code with no explanation. Should I have not used the "not an answer" tag even though the description explicitly says that it should be used when answers "do not attempt to answer the question"?
121732
I spotted a  (10k-only by now) and when I went to flag it, the flag dialog told me that I'd already flagged it as VLQ:    The thing is, I'd never seen this post before. And a look at the flag history in my user profile confirms that I haven't flagged a post since yesterday:    Certainly, well before the 2015-02-04 05:36:21Z time of Mr. Miracle's post.  I was able to reproduce this on SO from the VLQ review queue: when you're presented with an answer, click on link at the right side of the page, then click flag. You get the "you have already raised this type of flag" message on either the "it is not an answer" or "it is very low quality" options, I gather depending on the original flag that pushed the post into the VLQ queue.
107170
When I try to flag a comment, I am offered the following possibilities.   rude or offensive not constructive obsolete too chatty other..     Which of them should I choose in situation when a comment contains something which would qualify as spam, i.e., post containing the same content would be ?  Admittedly, typically the spammers do not have  to post comments in other places than under their posts. (Which is the situation I saw a while ago and it prompted me to ask this.) In the specific situation, that I have already flagged the post, there is no need to do about the comment right?  I assume that the situation that a spammer would have enough rep to post comments anywhere is probably very rare (if it happenst at all). Still I would like to know also what to do in such situation.  TL;DR: If a spam comment is posted under an answer I already flagged, should I flag also the comment? What should I do in (probably very rare) situation when a spam comment is posted under a post (answer/question) which does not contain spam?
91807
There are historically locked posts (such as ) containing offensive answers (such as ).  I am not interested in flagging the question for deletion -- a moderator already decided that it's a bad question that should stay anyway. But being locked doesn't mean the answers are all "not offensive" or even "not spam".  I propose that locked posts lose their immunity to spam, offensive, and custom-reason flags.