Not a bug, but a feature request
This post is community tagged #gayporn. I assume someone was expressing their disapproval for the post badly. Community tags like #no are funny, but I think using them to sling playground insults without being associated with them should be discouraged. Can we get support for either voting against a community tag, voting for no tag or display the users who submit them to discourage this kind of thing?
i have a confession to make. i have been responsible for nearly every #no tag so far. ...and a few other malicious/facetious tags. i was wondering when yall would get around to discussing this. the best course of action is to simply Δ# it. community tags are very temporary and don't last very long unless everyone agrees with it. displaying who applies tags is probably a bad idea, because people might not like the way you've tagged their post even if it's accurate. tagging is probably the closest thing we have to a "downvote" and once you start revealing who's behind tags you will change their behavior significantly. imo, a bigger problem is bad submitter tags. for example #politics is often used where #uspolitics is more appropriate. this is hostile to non-US users and eliminates the space for articles about politics in general.
I thought it was likely one person! In regard to identifying taggers, I see what you mean about potential conflicts, especially if the mislabeling were to be applied to something that a poster was emotionally invested in. In regard to #politics, I guess I understand, but when would instances of "general" politics occur? In articles on political theory? Also, if we get too specific with tags, then what is the point? So, let's say that #uspolitics is used. What's stopping someone from saying, "hang on a sec, that's not U.S. politics, that's Maine politics. Use the #mepolitics tag."
That's what I use it for, political philosophy and theory. There is a danger of overly-specific tagging, but in the case of #politics we have an instance of extreme generalization that is actually harmful. We have to strike a balance and clearly we are too far towards the "general" end of the spectrum, so I am advocating a move towards specificity in this case. In your particular example, I'd use something like #uspolitics #maine, or perhaps just #maine and some other relevant tag. See #texas for some analogous examples. If someone wanted to community-tag it #mepolitics or start using #mepolitics on their own posts for whatever reason, that's their perogative.when would instances of "general" politics occur? In articles on political theory?
Also, if we get too specific with tags, then what is the point? So, let's say that #uspolitics is used. What's stopping someone from saying, "hang on a sec, that's not U.S. politics, that's Maine politics. Use the #mepolitics tag."
Personally, when I see a tab, sub or tag labeled "politics" then I assume it's an umbrella for all things related to politics. I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. However, I have the feeling that many users, especially if they are taking a look at the tags for the first time would likely think the politics tag is more general. I'm not saying that's "right" but might it not be easier for political theory and political philosophy articles to be tagged as such? I don't see how people would know without being told that #politics is for political theory and political philosophy, but then it's a topic that I read and post about less frequently than my other areas of interest as I have a fairly basic knowledge of it. I will admit that I have been using #politics in a way that you describe as incorrect. After reading your reply and thinking about it a bit, I think that most of what I have posted would definitely fall under #uspolitics or perhaps even #usgovernment.That's what I use it for, political philosophy and theory.
I use #politics as an umbrella too, most things I post under #politics have a second tag, like #philosophy or #anarchism.
A comment is the best way to voice your disapproval for a post, and comments are already not anonymous. I could see encouraging confrontation as an argument for allowing anonymous comments, but as an argument for anonymous tags it just means encouraging people to be lazy.