Thank you, dear baker
>Awfully jaded when it comes to report systems.
Don't be, anon. Mods have done a great job protecting our free speech. Yes it means some of us have to tolerate content that makes us uncomfortable, but we prefer that to having information screened before it ever reaches us.
>it seems to work when multiple anons report legit flooding, not on "run of the mill shilling."
That's because we're a free speech site and want to keep it that way. If we base whether to ban on the term "shilling," then you have to define what that term is based on. Different groups of anons are woke to different levels of truth, and are triggered by different labels that various factions might use in their attempt to discuss it. If we were to base what QR mods as "shilling" sheerly on content, then who is to decide which content is acceptable or not? How would anons know whether one or more mods was comped in what they choose subjectively to ban?
Better to block only illegal content, and to ban only based on clear spamming via the objective standard of posting logistics such as volume or speed.
>There are forums out there with automated report systems where enough reports equates to a forum suspension.
Is that what you're suggesting we do here? Do you not see how that would allow bots & bought reports to censor political speech?
>NO NO NO
Oh good, kek.
>Just explaining where my jaded feeling comes from when it comes to seeing a report system.
Ah. Yeah we really mainly use it to report illegal content, just to help the mods out. But they're always lurking, they're usually on it breddy fast. Shills are annoying af, but they're part of the price we pay for free speech. That's how I see it anyway.