or
CarLaTeX
Let's list what is needed before going public.

CarLaTeX
completed A delete option.

Related [feature request](https://topanswers.xyz/meta?q=353).
marmot
completed Add some kind of moderation tools allowing us to remove propaganda/spam/offensive posts.

Related [feature request](https://topanswers.xyz/meta?q=182).
Caleb
completed A way for users with SE accounts to validate their identities so that imports are linked to their account without it being a manual process to ping @Jack for every case.

Related [feature request](https://topanswers.xyz/meta?q=409).
frougon
completed IMHO, it would be useful to have a checkbox or similar when choosing a license for one's messages, that would mean “or any later version” (of the license).

Indeed, having code stuck to LPPL 1.3c could be a problem in the future when an improved version of the license comes out and the copyright holders are not all reachable anymore. If that was the copyright holders' intention, fine, but in my case, I would like to be able to choose this dual-licensing :

* CC-BY-SA 4.0 or, at the licensee's option, any later version;

* LPPL 1.3c or, at the licensee's option, any later version.

which could be summarized as { CC-BY-SA 4.0+, LPPL 1.3c+ }.

(I made up the brace notation, but not the '+' one, which is very commonly used, e.g. when saying that code is licensed under GPLv2+).
marmot
Maybe add some refereeing tools that allow us to simply delete posts that are content-wise wrong (but do not need get moderated away).

Related [feature request](https://topanswers.xyz/meta?q=382).
Raaja
in progress Option to report an answer as a duplicate or in violation of academic-honesty.

Related [feature request](/meta?q=574).
marmot
Oh My! A "Ja mei" option, which can be used similarly to the smiley and so on. Those who understand what "Ja mei" means will know how to use it, and the other may just not use it.
Raaja
won't fix An option to report users, similar to flags for questions.
To-do list before going public
Raaja
@marmot Finally I got a clear explanation for Ja mei ;)
Ja mei.
Raaja
@marmot I just flagged your answer #2 to see how flag works, and unflagged it ofcourse
frougon
Thanks @JackDouglas, that's good to hear!
Jack Douglas
::: quote 543 15058 807 dbdbdb 838585
hackerb9 *— 6 days ago* *in [Can/should we start a Linux (or *nix) community on TopAnswers](/meta?room=543#c15058)*
>Hi! I'd like to join the Beta test for the Unix site. I prefer my licenses to be upwards compatible with the future, so I always specify the version as an inequality (e.g., GPL ≥3.0). Any chance we can do that here?
:::
Jack Douglas
@frougon thanks, you'll be pleased to hear we have already started work on this after it was requested earlier:
;-)
Oh my!
It is impossible to really explain this. Some web sites claim that the translation is "Oh my" but this is not even close to the truth. "Ja mei" can have many different meanings, depending on the context and who says it. This is why it is so powerful.
Jack Douglas
@marmot is this a "Ja Mei" emoji, or am I not getting it: 🤭
Maybe, but there are others with better expertise there. I don't expect it to be a hard thing.
In case nobody here has experience with this, it might be worth a try to ask ArtOfCode over at codidact.
Jack Douglas
if not I guess perhaps it's the kind of self-contained task that someone else may take on…
is this the sort of thing you'd be willing/able to help with once we have the source up?
Caleb
If you did a manual process asking people to verify with TA:UUID in their SE profiles you would actually be providing _more_ information to SE I believe.
As far as I know, not a gram more than is already being manually entered into your database already in the form of a known ID for tha person on another site. At the end of the workflow all you get as a confirmation that your user is also user X on the oauth provider. The other side also gets a bit of data: that the user authorized themselves as something, but it doesn't establish the link the other way, only that they _used_ the workflow and that the redirect URL was site Y.
how much privacy data do we leak if we go that route? I really know nothing at all about oauth
There is one, but as you said, it doesn't matter
If we're talking about the same site and the same 3 names, I did not see any of them. But honestly I don't really care, signing that or not doesn't change anything.
Yes, there is the least seen on the site
Really? I did not see any of the 3
Not "all", there is one, curiosly
I proposed this mainly due to a recent experience (may be others would have experienced it too). For instance, a user can abuse someone, and while trying to flag it, they may delete the entire post itself. There the moderation will not be effective as much as flagging a user directly. If you still think otherwise, then I have no problem. You can skip that too.
ok I agree with your rationale
Yeah, very sad to see them all missing from the list
I didn't know the matter went even on press! OMG (please note who signed and who didn't)
samcarter
A nicely working example of a site using SO oauth: https://dearstackexchange.com/
Caleb
I assumed they didn't have one, but they do.
Actually no. SO has an oauth endpoint, it should be quite easy to just authenticate and link the accounts for real. The workflow for that is actually pretty simple.
good point but at least then only some will have to be done manually rather than all!
samcarter
(not every user on stackexchange is able to edit their profile, e.g. suspension, at least not without some tricks)
Jar jar binks.
Yes that would do the trick. Maybe adding a blurb to the profile showing them what to paste, then a way to request verification. Later an automation that scraped the profile using XPath would be an easy addition to complete the loop.
Ja mei. ;-)
how about asking users to add their topanswers user id to their SE profile text (subtly, like "TA:123")?
Caleb
@marmot I don't even know what "Ja mei" is. Can it really be a blocker to make this site public if ⓐ it's something in the genre of emoji and ⓑ some/many people aren't even going to know what it is?
Caleb
Even if it turns into just a documented workflow and form for requesting the link that prompts them to add something to their profile like their UUID to make manual validation easy **and reliable**, that would be okay. I'm less worried about the manual work involved (that's for the admins to decide if they can handle) than the inherent insecurity of an honor system relying on a user here pinging to say they are X somewhere else. Even if the usernames and profile pictures look like a match those are all easy to impersonate, and PII isn't available on either end to check.
Yes, I proposed it as that. If it's not something we're going to get I would reconsider it being a hard requirement, but I don't think word should get around about an alternative without that being an option for those that want it. It doesn't seem fair without.
samcarter
@Caleb Do you consider validating SE identities a go/no-go point?  Personally I think its nice to have, but can come later.
Ok, I'll start going through the chat history and flagging the ones agreed there
Caleb
Hey @All can some of the rest of you flag answers here that we all (or so ~3 of us or so) have agreed are just general requests, not requirements to leave private beta. It would be a lot easier to see what the status is if we _only_ had blocking issues listed here.
Jack Douglas
and re your "An option to report users, similar to flags for questions" answer, I think we don't want that. The emphasis should be on the content — a bad user is one who is producing bad or harmful content, and then the content can be flagged. Of course we need systems that try and prevent bad content if multiple flags are raised for the same user.
Jack Douglas
@Raaja re your answer "Option to report an answer as a duplicate or in violation of academic-honesty", you have the option of flagging but also commenting with the specific issue with the post in the question chat room. Of course this is 100% public rather than private communication with the cleanup crew, but that is in keeping with the philosophy here of not having more than we need to behind closed doors. Although secrecy is intended to reduce drama I think it often has the opposite effect on SE.
that is correct, normal flags hide a post from unregistered users, and then a further flag from a member of the 'post cleanup crew' effectively deletes the post.
@Caleb and @Jack don't like it, so I prefer to delete it
If I understand it correctly, flagging will hide the post from public view (not logged-in users) and then users with some kind of delete privilege are able to delete the post. (As for the imported question: you can now simply reimport it and the answers will be added - I tried this with the \pi numbering question and it worked)
Flagging means we can delete useless posts (for example the one I imported without answers by mistake)?
samcarter
@raaja @carlatex @skillmon @marmot @caleb Now that flagging posts got implemented, is this sufficient to go public beta?
^^
I totally agree with you!
also they dont want to talk about the dark-side. Deleting/suspending the ones complained is more easier than to find the root-cause and take corrective actions.
yep this is what I was trying to convey
Definitely! I don't understand how this should be constructive ...
They always keep all secret to the public saying there are privacy reasons, but it seems to me, from what you and @marmot said, they keep it secret also to the person concerned
Well, I actually don't know why I was suspended as I only got some very generic email without any specific reason, so I can only reflect on the events in the days prior to my suspension: S. plagiarising an answer from me, S. editing wrong grammar into other peoples posts and starting a rollback war when I repaired the grammar, S. converting my comment into an answer (without having to decency to ask first) but without giving credit to the artist of the image he uses and having mods delete my comment asking for the addition of the image source. At this point I decided to leave the site and explained my departure in my profile without naming him but with links to some of these actions. One or more of these things got me suspended.
you get more voting power the more stars you have, the idea being that people contributing good quality content are more trustworthy in judging whether stuff is of good quality. You have $1+\lfloor\log_{10} s\rfloor$ votes, $s$ being the number of stars you currently have.
I think I'm in the "other" cathegory
Not quite. It is impossible to translate it.
CarLaTeX
?
CarLaTeX
to reply to something you do not want to reply to
CarLaTeX
:)
CarLaTeX
@marmot Do you mean like
CarLaTeX
@Caleb I think what @Raaja is trying to say is that there are not fixed rules but any case is treated in a different way, depending on circumstances (should we say on mods' opinion?). And this was source of problems in the past. For example, @samcarter was suspended but no action was taken against the user who drive her crazy and push her to do the thing which is the reason of her suspension. In my opinion, in that occasion, that user should have been suspended, too, as other mods did it in other sites. After few months later, I was persecuted by a troll, and again the mods did nothing, and the troll drive me (and other users) crazy, till they sign off by their own. From that experience I learnt that asking for mods' help is completely useless, when I meet a troll, I simply ignore them.
Raaja
@Caleb With the one before the last, I replied to you saying that, even if we ask a question about the guidelines on meta, there is always a reply saying that they will evaluate things based on case-by-case basis.
I'm sorry, I'm don't really understand what you are saying here.
Raaja
That was the reason I gave-up on SE.
even if there must be a meta, always there is a so-called fair explanation stating that decisions were taken on case-by-case basis.
May be it was before my time.
clear ;)
I can understand coming to that conclusion (note I resigned 2 mod posts people I came to the same conclusion) but something about this doesn't scan. There is a difference between the dumpster fire the company became and the *MO* of every community moderator I interacted with. I find it hard to believe the elected mods were busting heads for *being plagiarized*. I could believe some of them took too soft a stand against plagiarizers, but there has to be more to the story than them suspending people for reporting plagiarism. And if they were doing such a thing a meta post should have set that right in a hurry, other mods like me from across the network would have argued down anybody that was trying to defend that kind of nonsense. Never mind the company (which I agree are, on balance, off their rockers).
No, there no discussion about this on SE meta. I for one decided that I no longer want to contribute anything to tex.se
Is there any documentation / rebuttal to that on the SE meta?
It is explicitly followed on tex.se:  by suspending the users from which the content was copied from and who flagged the plagiarised  post (experimentally shown in at least 2 users being suspended)
Yes, you have two stars. You can vote 0 stars, 1 star or 2 stars. I assume you voted before with 1 star, which you can now change to 2 stars (or whatever)
exactly that
but it is not explicitly followed in the SE, that was my concern. This made me to ask here to add that as an option in the moderation tool.
but seems like I can vote twice for the same post ;)
Something like this feature request: https://topanswers.xyz/meta?q=380#question ?
Once you have a certain number of stars, the second one is enabled
Raaja
so that we dont have to save the images everytime when we want to attach it to chat.
Raaja
also could we have a copy from clipboard option?
Raaja
![Capture.JPG](/image?hash=986f39eb4fd876afca22fdd2eadef50d9d67f21318bdc0c56dde1f6f56e4edb8)
Raaja
why do we get double stars? because I am able to vote for the same stuffs twice
Caleb
For now I think the generic "flag" system that hides posts and escalates for deletion will suffice.
Copying somebody's CC-BY-SA licensed content without attribution is a violation of the license. Whether here or on SE.
Raaja
@Caleb Yes I am talking about plagiarism indeed. Because in TEX.SE we often encounter users who just copy others' answers without providing proper attribution to the answers. So it would be nice to be have guidelines in the form of a feature.
Raaja
@Caleb Sorry I missed the go/no-go part, no for making this beta public, it is not a deal-breaker. But it would be a "nice" to have from its inception.
Caleb
@Raaja I think the [generic flag tool](https://topanswers.xyz/meta?q=182#a402) just now being introduced will probably cover the case for now (at least enough to get out of private mode), but I'm curious what you mean by "academic-honesty" in this context. Since you included it in the same line items a "duplicates", are you talking about plagiarism?
Caleb
Also, if you have a feature request please actually make a post on the main meta site. You can link the related post here, but this isn't the place to make feature requests, this post is supposed to be a go/nogo checklist for taking our site out of private beta mode.
Caleb
@Raaja Do you consider these things deal-breakers on making the beta public?
yes, that was @samcarter's and my consensus [earlier](https://topanswers.xyz/transcript?room=390&id=8180#c8180).
Thanks for the edits! My thought was that in academia refereeing does help a bit to keep some quality standards, but you are right, it is a lot of work, and the sociology might be tricky.
CarLaTeX
@Caleb Yes in the sense that I agree with you, it could be postponed
Yes, I have already told it to @samcarter in chat
@CarLaTeX Some for regular→meta transformation. It _will_ be a useful tool, but shouldn't be a blocker.
@Skillmon Likewise for your "ignore" tool, I'd suggest proposing that on the main meta as a feature request but I don't think it needs to be on our checklist for dropping the "private" from our beta status. That can be down the road.
@marmot I don't think a "referee" tool should be on the checklist to go public. Basic delet, flag, and other moderation tools yes, but content moderation is going to be something that takes a lot of experimenting and tuning over time and shouldn't be a blocker to getting more involvement. My 2¢.
Totally agree, a delete option is absolutely necessary.
I think it could come also later. The delete option is necessary, instead, also to clean the site before going public
@marmot same question also for you: is the refereeing tool for you a Go/NoGo thing or can it come later?