consider auto-timeout-ing a user who trips spam/filter after already being silenced

[Ixrec]

In #modchat discussion of today's moon spam incident, several suggestions were made, and we believe the optimal solution is:

• Add Banished and Welcome to SpamBypassRoles. Anyone who we manually put in there, it's on us to deal with; Izzy getting involved only confuses things.
• If a silenced user spams, automatically apply slow mode to that channel.

Finding an API for this took a minute, but it appears to be:

        socketTextChannel.ModifyAsync(cp => cp.SlowModeInterval = 10);

Until and unless we do #103, "a silenced user spams" should only be possible in welcome. Izzy doesn't know about welcome or moon directly, but I think implementing this as "whatever channel the silenced user spammed in, make it slow mode" should be fine. Let's say five minutes.

After all the debugging today, I have no reason to believe a silenced spammer could break Izzy even if we never get around to this, so level: minor.

[Ixrec]

I suppose the thornier question is when do we disable slow mode. Since one of the likely scenarios here is a multi-user raid, trying to automatically detect when it's safe seems like a bad idea. I think we should either not auto-un-slow at all, and have the mod log say it's on us to change it back, or set an auto-un-slow job at a hardcoded time in the future like 20 minutes on the assumption any raid would've been dealt with by then.

[CloudburstSys]

Add Banished and Welcome to SpamBypassRoles. Anyone who we manually put in there, it's on us to deal with; Izzy getting involved only confuses things.

This will not work, remember that Izzy removes the member role instead of giving the Welcome role. Best solution to match this is add welcome and the-moon to SpamIgnoredChannels.

[CloudburstSys]

Since one of the likely scenarios here is a multi-user raid, trying to automatically detect when it's safe seems like a bad idea.

Perhaps track how many spam events fire within a specific period and if it exceeds that Izzy enters a mode similar to LargeRaid, where she'll engage slowmode in all channels the users spam in until the count of events firing in that channel drops to 0. To be safe, this specific period could be Slowmode length + 1 minute.

But slowmode manually having to be disengaged by a command (e.g. .slowoff) is also a good idea since it'll leave less to track on Izzy's side.

[Ixrec]

This will not work, remember that Izzy removes the member role instead of giving the Welcome role. Best solution to match this is add welcome and the-moon to SpamIgnoredChannels.

I should've been more explicit: The Welcome role is occasionally used when we want to manually put someone in #welcome. The idea being proposed above is that Izzy doesn't do anything to spam generated by a user one of us manually put in these channels, because that means a human is already on the case.

[CloudburstSys]

I should've been more explicit: The Welcome role is occasionally used when we want to manually put someone in #welcome. The idea being proposed above is that Izzy doesn't do anything to spam generated by a user one of us manually put in these channels, because that means a human is already on the case.

That makes more sense

[Ixrec]

Izzy doing something on filter/spam violations for an already-silenced user came up in modchat again recently. This specific slowmode idea wasn't even mentioned, and in straw poll terms the old auto-ban idea essentially got 1 Weak Against and 1 Weak For which is hardly a consensus.

Thus I think we should formally shelve this issue until there's a clear demand.

[Ixrec]

Today timeouts got suggested as yet another thing Izzy could do in this scenario, and I like that option much better than auto-ban or auto-slowmode. Assuming we have the APIs to do an auto-timeout. EDIT: we do

[MercurialPony]

I'm actually not opposed to banning users either. In fact it's more fun if a regular gets themselves banned in which case we can award them the terminated badge (I'm assuming that's what it's for, right?). But either way works for me

[Ixrec]

I believe that updates the hypothetical straw poll on auto-banning to 2 Weak Fors and 2 Weak Against (now that we've noticed the timeout option I'm WA) 😅

If the mod team sentiment swings to a clear consensus on auto-banning it should be an easy change.