@SmokeDetector Technically, that was repairable, but off-topic. It was deleted by a moderator, leaving the spam/rude flags in existence, but not deleted as spam/rude.
@SonictheInclusiveHedgehog Charcoal feedback, while usually lining up with flags, shouldn't be used to interpret "this should have been marked helpful".
Corollary is also true - tp feedback doesn't always mean "someone should have cast a red flag on this". It means "we would like to have blocked this at the system level"
I'm using a bit of mod judgment to say that was a poor attempt at spam.
@PetterFriberg Ultimately, it's all about making sure our statistics for autoflagging and internal reviews are accurate. Complex subject, and when you try to take the subjectivity out of it you get a complex set of almost-objective stuff.
Normal to be confused if you don't live in this day to day
@Undo I just feel that your old teaching was to be really careful about being overzealous about flagging. So I'm a bit lost, already the previous answer it's enough with old rulez to NAA (a non working link on a norton question, red flag?)
@PetterFriberg This is an edge case, don't read too much into it. I'm making a call as an SO mod that it was a poor attempt to promote... something... and I would have accepted red flags on it.
Less a "charcoal leader" thing and more "SO mod judgement" thing
