zlacker

>>lawles+(OP)
Thanks for sharing. The way things are here, this will soon be censored - sorry, I meant flagged - here as well.

>>lbrito+ox1
Attentive readers will note how often the "this will be censored" comments appear in threads that spend many hours on HN's frontpage.

>>dang+yI1
I get the irony, but its a bit meaningless since we can't compare the quantity of these (yet) uncensored posts with those that have been taken down, and thus aren't visible.

More importantly, other commentors here have already admitted to flagging this entry. The way flagging exists now rewards one-sideism and partisan behaviour - all it takes is a relatively small group of discontented people to take down a story that is otherwise interesting to the vast majority of posters. A counter-flag option would balance things.

>>lbrito+UN1
> all it takes is a relatively small group of discontented people to take down a story that is otherwise interesting to the vast majority of posters.

That's not accurate, because if a story is interesting to the vast majority of users, it will get lots of upvotes—and lots of upvotes is enough to defeat a small number of flags. In that sense, we already have the counter-flag option you're arguing for.

>>dang+7V1
What was the ratio of upvotes to flags when this thread was taken down last night?

>>wswope+vW1
What do you mean by taken down?

>>dang+942
One of the archive.org links to this story was flagged a few hours after taking off last night. Might’ve been this one?

>>46361571

I assumed this thread had been axed and manually reapproved. Probably likewise for some of the other people posting inb4s.

>>wswope+UJ2
I think they were all flagged to varying degrees. That's partly why I asked for clarification - there are so many things your question might mean that I wasn't sure which one to answer!