After receiving very useful advice in a previous Meta Q&A, a certain troll has seen their posts becoming very short-lived. With the help of other community members, we close, flag, and delete the post quickly, without imposing a burden on the moderation team.
However, I got curious what happens with the "spam/abusive" flag, which is used to indicate that a user is being abusive of the Stack Overflow site itself, and which helps clean up the content once the post is deleted. It's easily seen that the flag is automatically handled as "Helpful", but then I also discovered that other effects normally applied as a result of such a "Helpful" flag don't wind up happening:
…If a post is flagged as spam or offensive and is deleted by a moderator or by community votes (10k, 20k, or review), the harsher penalties are not applied. The post content should still be obscured when seen by 10k+ users later, but the IP-level blocks and 100-point penalties are not applied as a result of this.
The explanation for why this happens is clear and completely reasonable. Better to avoid false-positive scenarios due to accidental flag choices, even if that means some posts slip through.
But: does this mean that I should then flag a genuinely rude/abusive post again, once the original rude/abusive flag has been cleared?
The reputation change for the user is moot; these are throw-away accounts that only have 1 rep point to start with. But IP-blocking aspect could be useful, depending on what this user is actually doing when they create these accounts, to at least slow them down a bit.
On the other hand, I'm well aware that diamond-badge moderation is a limited resource. At the very least, such custom flags might take so long to be handled so as to make them moot, and I of course don't want to add to the custom flag backlog if this is neither necessary nor desirable.
So, is it useful? Should I flag such posts again after the original rude/abusive flag has been automatically handled by the post's deletion? And if I shouldn't, is there at least some follow-up process that could eventually activate the IP-blocking?