On most sites on the network, it takes six red flags (spam or rude) to delete a question or answer. In December 2016, two sites that were getting a lot of spam had the threshold lowered from six to three. Ours is one of them.
A few things have changed since then:
Our spam levels are no longer through the roof. We get less spam than Meta.SE (which never had a lowered threshold) and we're on par with other sites. We average about 1-2 posts per day that are deleted by red flags.
The Charcoal project has gotten a lot more effective. A team of active users from across the network, combined with software that's very accurate, kills most of the obvious spam within minutes. The borderline stuff still requires more review, which takes time, but most of our recent spam was not borderline, and if it is borderline, it's ok if it hangs around until users can review it.
The other site that had this lowered threshold just went back to the default threshold.
Shall we do likewise? I don't think we need the special exception any more, especially if we're the only site on the network that has it (which can be confusing -- see the question that that link is an answer to).
For the most-obvious spam, handling time wouldn't actually change -- currently Charcoal casts only one flag and requires users to provide the other two. With the higher threshold, Charcoal would cast four flags, requiring users to provide the other two. This is how it works on every other site. The obvious spam will get deleted as quickly as it does now. The borderline spam might take a little longer, but I don't expect it to be excessive.
Everything I've said about spam flags applies to rude flags too, though the vast majority of red-flag deletions here are spam.