I am grateful to the Charcoal and SmokeDetector developers and users for their substantial, commendable efforts to fight spam on Stack Exchange sites.

However, in relation to this specific proposal, I want to comment on a specific point, which is made twice by the OP:

It will only take 1 or 2 manual flags from users to spam-nuke an autoflagged post, instead of the current 3. [...]

 

There are currently 3 manual flags required in addition to the automatic flags to nuke a post; this increase proposal still retains at least one manual flag.

(Emphasis mine.)

A reduction to two manual flags would still permit human peer review, i.e. confirmation or disputation of a human's decision by another human. This seems to me to be the minimal essential safety check against humans going rogue. It is less safe than requiring three manual flags, but at least it does not forego peer review altogether; and of course it would cut the humans' workload by (about) a third. I would be supportive of this.

A reduction to one manual flag would eliminate this crucial safety check. I would not be supportive of this.

Edit: I see that Monica Cellio has already made essentially the same point, and so has Mad Scientist.

I am grateful to the Charcoal and SmokeDetector developers and users for their substantial, commendable efforts to fight spam on Stack Exchange sites.

However, in relation to this specific proposal, I want to comment on a specific point, which is made twice by the OP:

It will only take 1 or 2 manual flags from users to spam-nuke an autoflagged post, instead of the current 3. [...]

There are currently 3 manual flags required in addition to the automatic flags to nuke a post; this increase proposal still retains at least one manual flag.

(Emphasis mine.)

A reduction to two manual flags would still permit human peer review, i.e. confirmation or disputation of a human's decision by another human. This seems to me to be the minimal essential safety check against humans going rogue. It is less safe than requiring three manual flags, but at least it does not forego peer review altogether; and of course it would cut the humans' workload by (about) a third. I would be supportive of this.

A reduction to one manual flag would eliminate this crucial safety check. I would not be supportive of this.

Edit: I see that Monica Cellio has already made essentially the same point, and so has Mad Scientist.

I want to comment on this point, which is made twice by the OP:

It will only take 1 or 2 manual flags from users to spam-nuke an autoflagged post, instead of the current 3. [...]

There are currently 3 manual flags required in addition to the automatic flags to nuke a post; this increase proposal still retains at least one manual flag.

(Emphasis mine.)

A reduction to two manual flags would still permit human peer review, i.e. confirmation or disputation of a human's decision by another human. This seems to me to be the minimal essential safety check against humans going rogue. It is less safe than requiring three manual flags, but at least it does not forego peer review altogether; and of course it would cut the humans' workload by (about) a third. I would be supportive of this.

A reduction to one manual flag would eliminate this crucial safety check. I would not be supportive of this.

Edit: I see that Monica Cellio has already made essentially the same point, and so has Mad Scientist.

I am grateful to the Charcoal and SmokeDetector developers and users for their substantial, commendable efforts to fight spam on Stack Exchange sites.

However, in relation to this specific proposal, I want to comment on a specific point, which is made twice by the OP:

It will only take 1 or 2 manual flags from users to spam-nuke an autoflagged post, instead of the current 3. [...]

There are currently 3 manual flags required in addition to the automatic flags to nuke a post; this increase proposal still retains at least one manual flag.

(Emphasis mine.)

A reduction to two manual flags would still permit human peer review, i.e. confirmation or disputation of a human's decision by another human. This seems to me to be the minimal essential safety check against humans going rogue. It is less safe than requiring three manual flags, but at least it does not forego peer review altogether; and of course it would cut the humans' workload by (about) a third. I would be supportive of this.

A reduction to one manual flag would eliminate this crucial safety check. I would not be supportive of this.

Edit: I see that Monica Cellio has already made essentially the same point, and so has Mad Scientist.