@SmokeDetector This one I could go either way on, but previous reports of similar content indicates we typically NAA these. The line between tping this and NAAing this is thin... I'd appreciate it if someone else weighed in. Willing to switch feedback.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, no whitespace in body, potentially bad keyword in body, repeating characters in body (263): Comparison Test Integral ✏️ by CalcHelp on mathematica.SE
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Rubiksmoose Just an explanation: MS will say that once per chat server for the first time you give feedback via chat on that chat server. All such messages will show up here in Charcoal HQ, regardless of which server on which you just gave feedback.
stackoverflow.com/users/10988143/rajesh-singh is this behavior acceptable (genuinely asking) they have linked to their plugin on a few answers although they have declared ownership...
@Mast the link isn't included in the why data, because if it was, then other watchlist entries which might trigger on the domain or URL path wouldn't be able to trigger (i.e. they would be shadowed by the watch which started earlier in the text).
@SmokeDetector Retracted flag, although it's still rude. This is another one that wouldn't have autoflagged if my proposal on Teams were implemented. :)
@Mast That pattern looks like it's already caught by Blacklisted website in body and Blacklisted website in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Mast I know that there's always at least one human in the loop to prevent a fp autoflag from completely nuking a post, and I'm willing to accept the risk of declined spam flags on the rare occasions when that human intervenes.
Although I'd prefer we tweak the rules to, for example, not always have "offensive" and "toxic" triggering together and doubling scores.
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad keyword in answer and Bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@RyanM That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Mast I saw that, what I don't understand is the case-insensitive match that doesn't match the link text, only the URL that was already watched by the domain
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, link at beginning of body, pattern-matching product name in body, +1 more (434): Keto Body Trim Ingredients by bdytrmsktto on meta.SE
@VictorVosMottor That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@VictorVosMottor That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@VictorVosMottor That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@VictorVosMottor That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@VictorVosMottor That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
