Are you considering to leave UnityAnswers if the spammers arent stopped?

$$anonymous$$e neither! (( I can't approve questions, I mean )) I tried to log out and in again, but it didn't work. Please place an easy link to the moderation queue in the questions page, preferably showing how many pending questions/answers are in the queue.
I somewhat agree with @Warwick Allison, but I think it's better to improve the new measure ins$$anonymous$$d: I suggest that only answers be submitted into the moderation queue.
A warning: if some real user is behind this spam flood, he can upvote his fake creature and free the spam - you must keep record of each vote to find the culprit.

Oh dear, oh dear... I agree that this seems all too rushed... However, we can't just go ahead and put all the blame on the site.
(Though your communication-policy was bottom of the barrel and someone showing up in this thread could have prevented a lot of pain...)

After silently putting up with the issue, eating in our frustration, it was us who now pressed qato into rushing, me thinks... =/ Threatening to leave if it's not resolved ASAP and so on...

I have to admit I don't dislike this feature, by contrast... =/
Call me power-hungry and order-obsessed, but I would see it as an opportunity to deal with the other really nerve-$$anonymous$$ring issue around: highly sub-standard quality of asking (be it punctuation, information, proper title, formatting, a-quick-google-would-fix-it... ) [note: I'm not talking about bad English but blatantly obvious laziness!]

I've noticed that many new users, when told to fix stuff about said issues, give you a friendly nod and ignore you. Especially if they already received an answer.
But when the question is there and you know the answer it's just too tempting to give it. And if you think to yourself 'no, I won't answer until he shows some effort' someone else jumps in...
But this $$anonymous$$ches people that ignorance is allowed and leaves many extraordinarily ugly questions. Sometimes with even very good answers. But for god's sake, you can't bring yourself to vote up a question that's sooo bad, so the pretty answers get buried.
Ultimately this is really bad for UA, me thinks.
This feature could be a tool to discipline ourselves into healthy helping. You get friendly and eager help - if you show some effort first!

This new feature would be a possibility to only let posts in that show a $$anonymous$$imum compliance with the rules.
However, I'm well aware that this does not lack its dangers and could easily turn into massive censorship... =/ I'm certainly a candidate that would need some call to order once in a while when I show too much scrunity... -.-'
So we would need very strict and detailed guidelines to prevent abuse!!

Greetz, $$anonymous$$y.

Graham, I started to suspect this was just an existing moderation feature. I understand you mean well, but moderated communities are completely different communities, if they are communities at all. Almost no sites use moderation (ironically mainly old-media sites and bigot groups).

The real human users here are good people and do not need gagging like this just because of the repeated attacks of a single robot spammer.

Unfortunately, your communication makes it even clearer that the problem is not even understood by the owners of this site, which was the original concern. Unity need to start taking this site seriously and valuing it. Ignoring this simple spam problem for months is just one indicator of the problem. They are also ruining it by driving too many ultra-novices here with ever more free-edition users yet no proportional support. (I have nothing against the free edition, but I have a problem with Unity not supporting its users).

@BerggreenD$$anonymous$$: spam detection is not a topic for this site ;-). But seriously, it's hardly a new topic. All the more amateurish that it has persisted here, don't you think? Pick any one of these spams and google the text - you will see thousands of other sites targeted by the same spammer. This means that even a simple rejection mechanism will probably stop him even bothering - we don't need to get all "oh, but then he could automatically up vote himself and blah blah blah - he's simply not going to bother. The incompetence of other site ad$$anonymous$$istrators is the best defence against spammers, because it means you don't have to set the bar very high.

Ins$$anonymous$$d, this site doesn't even use Captcha, allows completely blind OpenID sign-up, and allows users to signup and post all in a single action with not so much as an email confirmation.

I do want to start off by saying thank you for at least trying to come up with a solution. There are some communities where the support is so bad that they would just ignore the communities' complaints about spam. I don't think its a great solution, but its good to know you guys are working on it.

I am interested though. A while back (maybe a month or two ago) you guys gave some pro$$anonymous$$ent members including myself moderator status. That was useful because I was able to suspend the spammers account within $$anonymous$$utes of him spam$$anonymous$$g a question or two. Reporting is a handy feature for dealing with disgruntled or aggressive users, but it isn't very effective at stopping spam. He posts about 16 times then never uses that account again.

So I wonder why you took moderator status away after 2 days and made a few of the moderator powers 10k karma privilages. Could we maybe get a few more moderators? I mean you can't be on the site all day catching everything that comes up Graham. Thats just not fair to you. I don't know exactly how many we'd need or how we would pick mods, but a few trustworthy people more people who can immediately block someone's posting rights would be beneficial in my oppinion.