Let’s ask how LLMs read this to try to stay neutral. (And the forum message clearly state that it will be reviewed by staff …)
My read is that OP is overreacting quite a lot.
The initial frustration is understandable: they spent hours preparing several feature requests, suddenly saw them disappear, and apparently the forum UI did not clearly say “held for moderator approval; your content is safe.” If it really looked like the posts had been deleted, I can understand the immediate alarm.
But after that, I think OP’s behavior becomes disproportionate.
They posted at 10:37, you replied at 11:01, and by 11:05 you had manually approved everything. So the entire supposed disaster lasted under 30 minutes. Nothing was lost. Yet before even waiting for moderation, OP characterized the situation as an “unfriendly and uncaring response”, despite explicitly knowing it was an automated system.
That’s the part I find unreasonable. There was no “response” from you to be uncaring. A spam filter saw a brand-new-ish account posting several topics containing links to the same external website. That’s an extremely normal spam signature. Their own description basically explains why it triggered.
Their question about which community guideline they broke is also based on a false premise. A spam classifier triggering doesn’t mean they broke a rule. The forum guidelines do say not to post spam, but an automated system inevitably has false positives. You explained exactly that.
Then, after learning that:
- it was automatic;
- the posts weren’t deleted;
- you’d already restored them;
- they could put the links back;
- and you’d manually approve them again if necessary,
their response is essentially “I want an apology.”
That’s where I get a fairly strong sense of entitlement / customer-service expectations. The framing of “I spent time helping improve your app, therefore this treatment is unacceptable” implies that submitting feature requests creates an obligation on the developer/forum owner to ensure a frictionless experience and apologize when an automated anti-spam mechanism inconveniences them.
And the final “That is not an apology that is a self-righteous comment” confirms that they’re no longer trying to solve the actual problem. At that point the problem is solved; they’re litigating how you spoke to them.
