Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

11
  • 13
    I'm a bit confused. you spent the first half of the announcement explaining that there was a team for moderation tooling (which includes tooling for the community not just moderators) and how it was separate and how the sprint was going to focus on something different... but then the sprint is focusing on "community tooling", especially the function and use of flags, which falls squarely under moderation tooling
    – Kevin B
    Commented Jun 12 at 18:29
  • 9
    Just go with it for this sprint. ;) But moving forward, there will be better demarcation.
    – Bella_Blue StaffMod
    Commented Jun 12 at 19:43
  • 4
    I asked for awarding Marshal Badge multiple times during the previous sprint. While this is certainly a lower priority feature, it is very much a low-hanging fruit and something that community has asked for multiple times, and it was well-received every time (see the linked posts in my answer and its dupe-target). It is also in-line with the theme of this sprint.
    – M--
    Commented Jun 12 at 21:35
  • 3
    So, if I understand correctly, if the things I want to point out aren't related to flags / community tooling, then I can just sit on it and wait another three months for a new sprint and hope its theme covers whatever I'd like to report? I have to say, I don't like this. There's tons of issues to be raised about various themes. If you really want to have a theme for sprints from now on, it should at least be chosen by the community so it decides what it thinks is the most important at the moment. Commented Jun 13 at 7:04
  • 6
    @Bella_Blue "Just go with it for this sprint.": What?? You can't just say one thing and say the opposite in the next sentence, then tell us to "just go with it"? At least, please edit the post to clarify, because as of now it really looks like "We won't talk about sugar anymore. Now, let's talk about candy!". Maybe swap the "Going forward, [...]" and "Now to kick off [...]" paragraphs, and perhaps make the former start with something like "This is the last sprint that will be focused on moderation tools, as going forward, [...]"? Commented Jun 13 at 7:10
  • 5
    @RedStoneMatt, Issues can be raised on Meta at any time. That is, of course, where the list of community asks we decided to work on for this sprint came from initially. So when prioritizing the most highly-voted issues, it naturally led to a common theme. As stated in the post, the Moderation Tooling team will continue to address tooling-related requests throughout the year as part of their work, ensuring these are not overlooked. But going forward, the Community Asks Sprints will focus on addressing requests that fall outside the Moderation Tooling team’s scope.
    – Bella_Blue StaffMod
    Commented Jun 13 at 11:15
  • 2
    I yell into the ether, yet again: Please roll back the annoying VOTE experiment that replaced the upvote/downvote score. Commented Jun 17 at 19:13
  • 1
    happy sprinting! what's selected for development this sprint?
    – starball
    Commented Jun 23 at 16:42
  • 3
    This sprint should be done since a few days. Can this announcement be un-featured and the results be posted and featured?
    – Adriaan
    Commented Jul 2 at 9:26
  • 1
    @Adriaan I've updated the post to note the conclusion of the sprint and when to expect a followup! re: un-featuring, this post will remain featured until the results announcement goes up.
    – Frog StaffMod
    Commented Jul 2 at 16:01
  • @devlincarnate As much as I don't like it, seems like it was a success: "Update April 10th, 2025 -- This feature has been graduated. Voting increased with both lower-rep users and high-rep users". This might be a case where running a userscript locally (to change it back to 0) is actually a more "correct" decision, if that's what you would prefer to see. I don't particularly want to cut off the nose to spite the face.
    – Robotnik
    Commented Jul 10 at 4:25