On the one hand, under normal circumstances the journal owner is the only one who can delete comments -- or the comment creator, in case of non-anonymous comments.
On the other hand, when an account is suspended, all of that account's comments go away, without the permission of the journal owner.
On the gripping hand, what the spammers are after is visibility, and screening a comment based on crowdsourced input and human antispam review, and allowing the journal owner to confirm-and-delete, or deny-and-unscreen, sounds like a case of least-possible-harm to me.
I wouldn't want the team to have to do twice the work, so my proposed workflow involves creating some sort of a "verified spam by the antispam team" flag that would be attached to the comment while it was screened and sitting there, so that when it was then deleted-as-spam by the journal owner, it would not wind up back in the queue.
Re: re-using account names
On the one hand, under normal circumstances the journal owner is the only one who can delete comments -- or the comment creator, in case of non-anonymous comments.
On the other hand, when an account is suspended, all of that account's comments go away, without the permission of the journal owner.
On the gripping hand, what the spammers are after is visibility, and screening a comment based on crowdsourced input and human antispam review, and allowing the journal owner to confirm-and-delete, or deny-and-unscreen, sounds like a case of least-possible-harm to me.
I wouldn't want the team to have to do twice the work, so my proposed workflow involves creating some sort of a "verified spam by the antispam team" flag that would be attached to the comment while it was screened and sitting there, so that when it was then deleted-as-spam by the journal owner, it would not wind up back in the queue.
*ponders*