@ArtOfCode That's not the correct way to look at it, though. If dealing with spam was solely the responsibility of the site it's posted on, then users with 1 rep (or 101 rep, with the association bonus) wouldn't be able to flag stuff as spam. But they can, which means that dealing with spam is a network-wide effort.

@enderland From our POV, you seem oblivious to the fact that spam is a network-wide issue, and since we have the permission of the SE team, any objections raised by individual communities don't mean anything.

@quartata :(

@Cerbrus I didn't think that discussion was getting heated, but I'm a penguin so I'm naturally cool.

@Andy That objection is ridiculous. You don't need permission from a community to start flagging things normally, and Charcoal has considerably better flagging rates than basically everyone on the network.

@JanDvorak Nope, only spam.

All non-spam flags are done manually

@Magisch I hadn't even heard of spamram before our meta post

@JanDvorak I agree. I only flag NAA if it's extremely obvious (like gibberish, a comment on another answer, or a different question)

@YvetteColomb Could you please not?

@JanDvorak Yeah, it's not the best example, but technically gibberish could be considered either NAA or R/O. R/O is a red flag, so it gives feedback to the system, but no sane mod would decline/dispute a NAA flag on gibberish.

@Magisch "by the way the person who left it lives right over there"

@ArtOfCode That analogy makes no sense. I disagree that we should have asked permission from the individual communities; we asked permission from those who are most affected by it - the SE team. They said yes, and their decision is final.

Opting out of autoflagging is one thing. I don't think there's any good reasons to do it (except if we started getting a large number of FPs with the autoflags on that site, but then that's a sign of a bigger issue, and we'd stop the autoflags ourselves), but if a site really really wanted to opt-out, we can allow it. Opting out of Smokey reports is another thing entirely, and I don't think that's a reasonable request to honor.

If there was an issue with Smokey reporting spam for a site, they would've complained sometime in the previous 3 years.

@JanDvorak IMO the protocol should be that the site mods should come to us with a reference to a meta consensus. We can assume that the mods are acting in the interest and with the backing of the community - if they aren't, that's an issue for them, not us.

@SmokeDetector f

@JanDvorak How many sites were created within the last 72 hours? :P

@Mithrandir Man they're just asking for the jokes :P

IMO, we've done our due diligence by posting on Mother Meta. If people want to remain willfully ignorant of the goings-on of the network by not looking at Mother Meta, then we can't and shouldn't cater to them.

If users/mods want to create meta posts for their sites, then by all means they should. But we've done our part.