+1. The bot already exists and has been working successfully on SE in general for quite some time. This is merely increasing the threshold of votes it can cast. While SFF may not see the volume of spam, it is there. I am voting for it here, as well as on sites that I currently moderate.

"Yes. For the same reason that you want spam protection on your email account." I don't think this is a good analogy. Nobody (AFAIK) is complaining about the spam protections which are built in to the SE system, only about those run by a bunch of private users. I don't mind my email provider including a spam-blocking service, but I wouldn't necessarily welcome it if the guys living next door set one up on my email account for me.

@phantom42 The current response rate would include the bot. The post made last year announced we'd be auto-flagging. The post made yesterday/today was asking for feedback on increasing the number of automatic flags being cast.

So if it's been working so well for the past year, why is there a need/push to change it? We haven't had any noticeable spike or problem with spam of late that I've seen.

@phantom42 - Consider it from a network-wide perspective, not just from a SFF perspective. To reduce the time to deletion everywhere. SFF certainly isn't the highest traffic site or the site that will benefit the most from it, but it will certainly help on other sites and I don't see how it could hurt to have spam deleted faster here.

We are proposing a network wide increase in the number of flags. TheLethalCarrot was proactive and asked SFF specifically if we wanted autoflags. The change being proposed benefits the entire network due to decreased spam life. There is nothing specific about SFF that needed to be called out. As I mentioned, SFF gets relatively little spam compared to much sites. Basically, it'd reap the benefits provided to the smaller and more spam magnet sites.

If I wanted to consider the network-wide perspective, I'd seek out the network-wide discussion. This conversation is about the SFF perspective. Everyone keeps saying it's been working well for the past year. Great. Despite my reservations, it seems to work ok. I remain unconvinced that anything needs to change as no one has presented a convincing argument (IMO) that anything needs to change.

If there was nothing specific to the SFF that needed to be called out, why bother bringing the discussion here? It sounds as though you've already made your decision to change the settings network-wide. What is the point of this conversation?

@phantom42, I didn't bring the discussion here. I posted on Meta.StackExchange. It was brought here by a more active community member and the question is phrased as "Do we want autoflagging", not "should we allow more things to be flagged automatically". I answered that we do (and should) want autoflagging. One of the sub-questions was "how many autoflags", so I brought up the 5 flags that are currently being discussed on MSE. I responded here because I feel it's important that autoflagging remains on here. The original post is phrased in a way that could lead the community to not wanting it.

@Andy the real question is who is the "we" you represent? CHQ? SFF? While I've not been around very long I have been extremely active over the past 14 months over which, besides one question which was closed, you've not really taken part in the site, in almost 24 months. Now while that means you were once a member of the community, the "we" you represent certainly doesn't seem to be the current active user base here. So whether when you say "We do want autoflagging" holds any water beyond "yes the CHQ people want it" is questionable.

Both? I am an active member of CHQ and a member of SFF. I may not be as active as other members, but that does not invalidate my membership here. If you have a different opinion than mine, please add an answer so the community can vote on it.

Hi @Andy, I have a couple of points I'd like for you to hear out:

1. That should give you the idea that I'm in favor of automation. As am I (and probably many on this site); in fact, my very job is automation. If there's a task I can automate, I do it. If there's a tool I can create to help me automate, then I build it. However, this particular site is not necessarily about getting things done fast or efficiently; it's about community participation. Having a tool take away from that is a bone of contention.

2. Charcoal has automatically flagged thousands of posts, accurately, across the entire network. No doubt that Smokey is super-efficient and is in fact a good tool. I understand Charcoal has done a shit-load of work in the past years, and takes this role seriously, probably derives tons of personal satisfaction (not just badges n shit), but knowing that you've done good work. Please understand that this isn't about us berating your 'baby' as it were, it's about point #1 raised above...

(cont.) ... as well as the fact that this particular site (SFF) is a very tight-knit community with active members who have been here for long enough to know how both the network-wide system and the local site works and operates. Seeing 'outsiders' come in and enforce something (no matter the benefits) seems unfair ...

(cont.) ... and frankly offensive. (I'm sure you all wouldn't like me coming into CHQ and telling you what/how to do things, after all, I don't know the history of your system, or culture and haven't gained that ... trust).

.3 However, it's also important to point out that a lot of that spam that has been removed has been removed in seconds to minutes thanks to the existing effort of automatic flags. I'm sure I don't have to point out that when it comes to User VS Smokey, on this particular site, the difference is negligible. In fact, we've had whole discussions previously about how we aren't fussed with how the spam gets ...

(cont.) ... removed, just that it does. Which is why I believe, when it comes down to it, arguing the merits of Smokey VS User is not productive. This gives slightly more weight to the argument of "we like doing it this way, and it works for us".

4. I have spent some time the other day reading through your CHQ transcript and have gotten quite offended at the tone with which SFF has gotten treated. I think this might be a case where CHQ and Shog's network-wide purview has clouded the fact that within SFF, we may actually have a valid point or two and if not, those are opinions, not to be taken offense at. Shog and yourselves have said on numerous occasion that if each site wants to have ...

(cont.) ... exceptions or disagreements, they can, yet when we did, it became an argument and was quickly either voted against, or argued against (which by the way, that in itself skews votes) harshly and en masse.