Why don't we have a point system for bad posts?

[eternalgloom]

Sometimes you just come across posts that are bad enough, that you just wish you could do something.
Not all posts that fall into this category are suitable to be reported and the trust system also isn't the right way to deal with them.

Given that you can now give good posts merits, I think there should be something similar for bad posts.
I'm talking about a completely separate point system, which can be used for bad posts that do not necessarily break any rules.

I'm not sure if this has already been proposed in the past, I couldn't exactly find anything with the search function.

I have found LoyceV's thread about a deMerit system, but I don't think that's quite the same as what I'm proposing.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5033455.0

So, I'm not proposing to implement something to remove merit points from someone, I'm proposing to add a separate point system

Why a separate system instead of a deMerit system?
Because then it becomes much more visible to see which users often make bad posts. With a deMerit system, the merit points would just disappear without anyone noticing right away.

Just some food for thought, let me know if there's something wrong with this proposal.

[1715392540]

1715392540

[1715392540]

1715392540

[1715392540]

1715392540

[1715392540]

1715392540

[1715392540]

1715392540

[stompix]

And how would your system work?

We're going to have shit sources that could mark shit posts? How do you earn credits to tag a post as useless spam?
Or would anyone get those for free, and it will turn into a war where the one with more accounts will win the battle?
What is going to be the effect on an account getting points after points?
How are you going to prevent people from using these as a weapon, especially in Politics and in the Altcoins boards?

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I think the system would be abuse even more then the merit system is been abuse. What will be the criteria for a post to be marked as a bad one or will it be based on the readers opinion, in this case the moment you come into some kind of disagreement with another forum user he might turn to that point system to get back out you leading to the abuse of the system.
When it comes to post rating on forums (which I think your suggestion is kind of implying), the negative feature are mostly been abuse then the positive ones. That's why I don't think the system will be useful. The report button for bad and merit button for good posts are working just fine.

[klaaas]

Posts that are getting debunked receive comments [instead of a demerit] mostly where a good comment will receive merit.
May i see only red demerits i would rather read the reason with a post why and merit it.

[qwertyup23]

I appreciate your proposal and the idea behind it but the effect would be the opposite of what you are trying to implement. This would be very destructive and counter-productive especially that this can be an area for abuse, especially for newbies. Furthermore, this can actually cascade into toxicity around the forum community if such proposal were to be implemented.

Besides, let's face it: it is relatively easier to hate someone/something than to like them/it. The distribution of merits would be overshadowed by an amount of people disliking posts in the forum.

[khaled0111]

I don't think such system will work, and I doubt the forum really needs it right now (stompix stated few good reasons).
The most suitable thing to do is to ignore shitposters, it works like a charm.

I know you want a system to "punish" shitposters... Well, a user who have been here for long time and received 0 merit is a shitposter and is being punished by not being able to rank up.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Sometimes you just come across posts that are bad enough, that you just wish you could do something.
Not all posts that fall into this category are suitable to be reported and the trust system also isn't the right way to deal with them.

I've never come across a post that was so bad that it couldn't be reported to the mods.  Usually if it's a shitpost that's exceedingly bad, I'll report it and put the member on ignore so I never have to read another piece of shit post by him again and yes, there are some posts I read where afterward I want to get my time back from the member for having wasted it on nonsense.

This has indeed been proposed before, several times if I'm not mistaken.  The idea of demerits was floated shortly after the introduction of the merit system and at least once in the months afterward.  I've definitely seen it and similar ideas brought up before.  Theymos obviously doesn't want to create something like that, so it's not likely to happen.  Sorry, OP.

[Quickseller]

Sometimes you just come across posts that are bad enough, that you just wish you could do something.

This is what the report to moderator button is for.

[LeGaulois]

It's something that will surely be misused by people, either because they don't agree with the poster or they don't like him/her.
In the opposite, you can merit some posts that you disagree with and I do because despite that I find the post constructive to the conversation.
There can also be a social impact. Someone might feel excluded because he/she received bad points. This can go so far that the user no longer dares to post or hesitate.
If a "bad post" need to be controlled, we have the "report" button as mentioned above.

[mk4]

Sometimes you just come across posts that are bad enough, that you just wish you could do something.

This is what the report to moderator button is for.

Well, occasionally, there would definitely be some posts that aren't necessarily report-worthy, but you simply just disagree on; especially for the more debatable and more controversial topics(like the big/small blocks topic). But yea, I don't think a sort of de-merit system would work. I'd just prefer that people would school/call-out the craptalkers. We all know how easily a sort of downvote system can be abused, as evident on Reddit.

[eternalgloom]

And how would your system work?

We're going to have shit sources that could mark shit posts? How do you earn credits to tag a post as useless spam?
Or would anyone get those for free, and it will turn into a war where the one with more accounts will win the battle?
What is going to be the effect on an account getting points after points?
How are you going to prevent people from using these as a weapon, especially in Politics and in the Altcoins boards?

Okay, I clearly didn't think this through. Using these points for retaliation would completely destroy such a system.

I've never come across a post that was so bad that it couldn't be reported to the mods.  Usually if it's a shitpost that's exceedingly bad, I'll report it and put the member on ignore so I never have to read another piece of shit post by him again and yes, there are some posts I read where afterward I want to get my time back from the member for having wasted it on nonsense.

So, just because I'm curious, would it be okay to report someone if they're just posting generic 1 sentence replies to threads?
I recently came across someone like that (can't remember the profile) & I thought it wasn't worth reporting because their replies were vaguely on-topic.
Also, if I did report all the post, I'd have to report around 300 posts, since they were all pretty much the same.

Again, after seeing these replies, it's not a good idea indeed.

Edit:

Found the profile I was talking about, by going through my browser history.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1066957

[Quickseller]

Sometimes you just come across posts that are bad enough, that you just wish you could do something.

This is what the report to moderator button is for.

Well, occasionally, there would definitely be some posts that aren't necessarily report-worthy, but you simply just disagree on; especially for the more debatable and more controversial topics(like the big/small blocks topic). But yea, I don't think a sort of de-merit system would work. I'd just prefer that people would school/call-out the craptalkers. We all know how easily a sort of downvote system can be abused, as evident on Reddit.

The merit system is not for posts you agree with. It is for posts that are objectively high quality, or to otherwise draw attention to the post because it deserves reading.

[The Cryptovator]

Is it really need to implement? I don't think so. Since here is merit system so I am not agree with your proposal. Yes I know your proposal isn't related with merit system but you can't separate it from merit system. Because merit is for good post, and no merit for bad post. So whoever had not earned merit that means he/she isn't good poster. Is it not simple to understand who is bad poster? I can easily understand who is bad poster, so your proposal is just a propose of another abuse. 

[mk4]

The merit system is not for posts you agree with. It is for posts that are objectively high quality, or to otherwise draw attention to the post because it deserves reading.

Well, you're right. And people should definitely use merits in that way. But it isn't really farfetched to think that people are using it as a sort of "like" or "upvote" system. I mean, I've seen a decent number of sort of "meme" replies that has been given merits. But yea, this is the reason why I think a de-merit system wouldn't work and could potentially be abused.

[dothebeats]

I guess someone will surely misuse this and will cause quite a stir in the Meta boards on top of the Merit system. I'm thinking that this will similarly be the upvote/downvote system already in place in Reddit, and knowing how propaganda and general shade of disgust, hate and disagreement rules some of the topics of this forum, that will not end well. I guess reports can't handle such posts with little to no thought whatsoever, but I know that users will be smart enough to distinguish what a good post is from a bad post.

It's an excellent idea to weed bad and misinformed posts but then, you know how things work in this forum.

[crwth]

In a way, I understand that point of view where it can be an indication that this certain member is a shit poster or something like that. But one problem that I could think about is abusing the power of that deMerit style. Maybe a lot of people can gang you up or something like that.

In my opinion, the best feature that could lead to great improvement with recognition is the Badge thing with the reports and stuff.

[Quickseller]

The merit system is not for posts you agree with. It is for posts that are objectively high quality, or to otherwise draw attention to the post because it deserves reading.

Well, you're right. And people should definitely use merits in that way. But it isn't really farfetched to think that people are using it as a sort of "like" or "upvote" system. I mean, I've seen a decent number of sort of "meme" replies that has been given merits. But yea, this is the reason why I think a de-merit system wouldn't work and could potentially be abused.

Yes, some people use the merit system in ways in which it is not intended, unfortunately. I don’t think that is a good reason to create a new system (or add features to the existing system) that cause people to use the merit system in a way that it isn’t intended in greater numbers. If anything, changes should be made to disincentive the use of merit as a “like”/“agree” system; I am not sure this is possible though.

[LoyceV]

The demerit-idea would be used to get rid of undeserved Merits. Giving evil points for bad posts won't do much good, it's better to report them and have them deleted.

Ideally, all posts should be good. I'm still considering creating a thread in which I delete all posts that don't earn Merit, but it doesn't really fit any board.

[deisik]

Why a separate system instead of a deMerit system?
Because then it becomes much more visible to see which users often make bad posts. With a deMerit system, the merit points would just disappear without anyone noticing right away.

Just some food for thought, let me know if there's something wrong with this proposal.

This will wreak total chaos

We already have the trust system which is monumentally misused and abused, now you are going to add (more) insult to injury. I have already explained why any system based on negative feedback does more hurt than good in the long term overall but it seems to be worth repeating here. It is implicitly assumed that people are responsible in their actions and reactions but it is never the case in real life, so they will downvote posts just because they can, end of story

[mk4]

The merit system is not for posts you agree with. It is for posts that are objectively high quality, or to otherwise draw attention to the post because it deserves reading.

Well, you're right. And people should definitely use merits in that way. But it isn't really farfetched to think that people are using it as a sort of "like" or "upvote" system. I mean, I've seen a decent number of sort of "meme" replies that has been given merits. But yea, this is the reason why I think a de-merit system wouldn't work and could potentially be abused.

Yes, some people use the merit system in ways in which it is not intended, unfortunately. I don’t think that is a good reason to create a new system (or add features to the existing system) that cause people to use the merit system in a way that it isn’t intended in greater numbers. If anything, changes should be made to disincentive the use of merit as a “like”/“agree” system; I am not sure this is possible though.

I really don't think it would work well either. In addition to the point I've made, there aren't clear rules on merits in the first place. I think having a sort of de-merit system is just going to make things worse. People de-meriting posts that they simply disagree on, but not necessarily useless.

Anyway, I think I'm fine with how the forum merit and trust system works for now. Let's just see what more features the new EpochTalk forum will bring.