@NisseEngström That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer Append -force to the command if you really want to add this pattern.
@cigien In general, users get a pass on being required to disclose affiliation when the question is specifically about the thing they are affiliated with and they are linking only to official documentation.
That doesn't mean it's not a good idea for them to mention their affiliation, just that they are not required to do so.
This was something that came out of the discussions a long time ago about when disclosure would be required for those who are affiliated. Basically, we want experts, who are often affiliated with the thing they're an expert in, to be answering questions. We don't want them to be promoting their thing, but we do want them answering questions about it, when there's a real question asked by a non-affiliated person and isn't a question which is being seeded in order to promote.
@cigien np. Thanks. It is something of a special case, and can be a fairly fine line.
@cigien The issue that's attempting to be covered by requiring disclosure is people promoting their thing without disclosing their bias for it, even by just answering a general question with something like "this library [link] will solve all your problems". If someone is answering a question (by some unrelated person) which is specifically about how to use X and the person who wrote X is answering, but only linking to the official documentation/website for X, then that's not promoting X.
Or, at least, not promoting it in a way which most people object to.
That doesn't mean it's not a good idea for the person to disclose their affiliation, although doing so might bias people for or against the answer.
The context in which it was discussed is that there are a number of users with quite substantial contributions (100's or 1000's of answers) on the specific topics/things with which they are affiliated. Requiring them to disclose their affiliation in every single post was seen as quite burdensome (and likely to reduce their participation, participation which is beneficial overall to the site) for very little benefit to the community.
!!/reject 6644 "Quite a few FP, and only a couple of TP. If we see more of this, we should look into rather specific expressions rather than just watching the site itself."
@SmokeDetector fp- I have to disagree with the consensus here: this is wildly off-topic, but not spam. It looks like someone is trying to ask a question about some bot activity on the blockchain, and a better-written version of the question might be on topic on a relevant site.
