content: The most commonly suggested method was that we simply use our downvoats to police them.  -  Many more just simply consume the content and nonchalantly upvoat what appeals to them.  Does this not suggest that perhaps most of the community doesn't view the bots as a problem yet?  This is one of those things that you "know one when you see one."  Leaving a rule or guideline so vague is a difficult way to proceed. Because the views on what counts as actionable is quite different depending on who your asking. But by leaving it mainly up to, "know one when you see one", it ends up falling to the mods. So without further defined definitions of what the community would consider actionable, we are left with a couple mods defining it. There are a few users that people considered bots, but we have confirmed that they are not. They post a ton of content, but to a single host site.  So then we end up in a situation where its being suggested that they are banned because all the content they post is from the one site, possibly (probably) monetizing the content they are submitting. But what they are doing is very similar to many of the Original Content producers we have in /v/videos. We desperately want to foster original content here, so how do we determine what should stay and what should go?  but clearly bot, accounts will eventually be used to push ad styled content at the least  This actually remains an easy one for us to deal with at the moment. Under the guidelines for spam, advertising is not allowing. So we would (and have) remove that content when we see it. This would also give us something to point at with repeated offenses to ban the user. A clear and concise rule we can use to take action on the account. I really appreciate you taking the time to help us figure this out. Thank you.