Give Moderators a "DDelete" button (Demerit/Delete)

[DiamondCardz]

Relatively simple idea that I think could help to reduce spam quite a bit. When a post is deleted, allow moderators the option of deducting 1 merit. This could be via having two buttons (Delete and Demerit/Delete or DDelete) or something similar. Obviously you wouldn't be able to go below 0 merit.

Delete would be used for deletions that are for relatively minor offences or just for managing topics (e.g. deleting the 'reserved' posts in the art contest thread), DDelete would be for removing posts that are clearly just post farming, trying to meet signature campaign requirements, etc.

And yes, if you lost sufficient merit through DDelete, you could be demoted, although I think this would be incredibly rare considering you'd lose 1 merit a pop.

Opinions? I think it would make people think twice about shitposting and also provide people with a better metric to measure spam than simply "deleted posts" (as posts can be deleted without necessarily breaking forum rules).

[1713878136]

1713878136

[1713878136]

1713878136

[1713878136]

1713878136

[1713878136]

1713878136

[1713878136]

1713878136

[LoyceV]

Opinions?

Always See LoyceV's deMerit source application.

[Deathwing]

I would actually prefer if the moderators could also specify how much (de)merit they are going to take. The staff could have a "shitpost level" sort of scale and higher that is, higher the amount of merit you'll potentially lose if the moderator decides that way. This would definitely put the spammers on the scope.

[LTU_btc]

I doubt that theymos would want to make merit system moderated. Things like merit and trust are left to community. Maybe your idea isn't bad, but it would add additional work for moderators, while they already have enough things to do. Rather giving demerit button for moderators, it would be better to add demerit sources as LoyceV offered. Though I'm not big fan of demerit thing.

[malevolent]

Do you guys really want that? Even if only mods were allowed to arbitrarily demerit posts, I think it would do more harm than good. Juicy drama being the 'harm' part.

[Philipma1957cellphone]

I would be willing to be a demerit source with my main account. Philipma1957

[DiamondCardz]

Do you guys really want that? Even if only mods were allowed to arbitrarily demerit posts, I think it would do more harm than good. Juicy drama being the 'harm' part.

Surely with this system any drama being caused would be getting caused anyway by the deletion of the post? So this wouldn't cause any 'extra' drama, because these would be posts that would be getting deleted and causing a mess anyway

I'd be good with that system. If I lose a couple merit then oh well, I'm not personally going to kick up a fuss.

[kawetsriyanto]

Relatively simple idea that I think could help to reduce spam quite a bit. When a post is deleted, allow moderators the option of deducting 1 merit.

I think it's not a proper punishment for a deleted post. You must know that got 1 merit is not so easy for some people. Then, why to make 1 merit be easy to lose with your idea? Anyway, a deleted post is not only about spam, so I doubt your idea will be effective to reduce it. [IMO]

[DiamondCardz]

Relatively simple idea that I think could help to reduce spam quite a bit. When a post is deleted, allow moderators the option of deducting 1 merit.

I think it's not a proper punishment for a deleted post. You must know that got 1 merit is not so easy for some people. Then, why to make 1 merit be easy to lose with your idea? Anyway, a deleted post is not only about spam, so I doubt your idea will be effective to reduce it. [IMO]

I think that you haven't read my post properly, because I'm not suggesting a blanket removal of 1 merit every time someone's post is reduced. Please spend the 30 seconds to read my idea properly and then comment your opinion - I can tell you haven't as you wrote 'a deleted post is not only about spam' while my post addresses this directly.

[PrimeNumber7]

The root problem is this:
The merit system appears (from what I can tell) to have been implemented after signature spam had been a problem for a long time. Prior to the merit system being implemented, there were many accounts with a high ranking (including many 'farmed' accounts) that, even today have not produced substantial content. These accounts were grandfathered into their rank when the merit system was introduced.

These so called "zombie" accounts have continued to both post nonsense posts and are participating in signature campaigns such as YoBit and many altcoin campaigns that do not care about post quality/substance.

Proposed solution:
Partially remove the rank grandfather --
If an account was a Full Member immediately prior to the implementation of the merit system, they will need to receive 1/10 of the merit necessary to achieve each rank, up to Full Member, and after they are a full member, they need the full amount of the merit.

As an example, someone who was a Full Member prior to the merit system being implemented, would need 1 merit to become a Member, 10 Merit to be a Full Member, 160 to become a Senior Member, 390 to become a Hero, and 990 to become a Legendary member. To explain, the first 1/10 of the 'air dropped' merit the person received is worth 10x, and each subsequent merit the person receives is worth 1x. This would only be for ranking purposes, and not for trust system purposes.

As another example for someone who was a Senior Member immediately prior to the merit system being implemented, they would need 1 merit to become a member, 10 to become a Full Member, 25 to become a Senior Member, 275 to become a Hero member, and 775 to become Legendary.

If this is too controversial, everyone could retain their publicly displayed rank, but those who are demoted, would only lose their signature features.

[tsaroz]

The root problem is this:
The merit system appears (from what I can tell) to have been implemented after signature spam had been a problem for a long time. Prior to the merit system being implemented, there were many accounts with a high ranking (including many 'farmed' accounts) that, even today have not produced substantial content. These accounts were grandfathered into their rank when the merit system was introduced.

These so called "zombie" accounts have continued to both post nonsense posts and are participating in signature campaigns such as YoBit and many altcoin campaigns that do not care about post quality/substance.

Proposed solution:
Partially remove the rank grandfather --
If an account was a Full Member immediately prior to the implementation of the merit system, they will need to receive 1/10 of the merit necessary to achieve each rank, up to Full Member, and after they are a full member, they need the full amount of the merit.

As an example, someone who was a Full Member prior to the merit system being implemented, would need 1 merit to become a Member, 10 Merit to be a Full Member, 160 to become a Senior Member, 390 to become a Hero, and 990 to become a Legendary member. To explain, the first 1/10 of the 'air dropped' merit the person received is worth 10x, and each subsequent merit the person receives is worth 1x. This would only be for ranking purposes, and not for trust system purposes.

As another example for someone who was a Senior Member immediately prior to the merit system being implemented, they would need 1 merit to become a member, 10 to become a Full Member, 25 to become a Senior Member, 275 to become a Hero member, and 775 to become Legendary.

If this is too controversial, everyone could retain their publicly displayed rank, but those who are demoted, would only lose their signature features.

It's a better option to disintegrate merit with time. Take away 1 merit for every 100 posts. That way the user would be concerned about making good post to hold their status.

[JaredKaragen]

here's the rub for me when it comes to merit that fades away....

I don't go merit hunting....   I post in generally a few places only here.... and usually its as the market/technology develops and needs my touch.    I go through many periods of being quiet....

I have yet to find a sincere person that thinks I am not deserved of my status (which I had to actually earn the long way over years of posting)...   

But if I get penalized for not being merited... I mean...  WTF.  Feels like a swift kick in the nuts.....

[hacker1001101001]

Not earning merits doesn't logically mean the user is spamming on the forum or doesn't add value to the forum and his rank should be demoted for it. It sounds more stupid to give this power to just specific peoples ( Mods here ), which would generate obvious drama.

I don't think something like Dmerits is necessary anyways, as not earning much merit's automatically pauses the growth of the account in the current system, which give the same effect needed.

Proposed solution:
Partially remove the rank grandfather --
If an account was a Full Member immediately prior to the implementation of the merit system, they will need to receive 1/10 of the merit necessary to achieve each rank, up to Full Member, and after they are a full member, they need the full amount of the merit.

Your solution could help in stopping the less active account from shilling but still not all users are prone to post here for merit's and earn them often, so good users could also get buried under this rule and loose their years old status.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I don't buy into the idea of demeriting a post when it gets deleted. Understandable it'll be a nice idea to combat abusers hiding behind deleted posts to avoid been questioned but what about victims of self moderated thread? If you put in efforts into constructing your reply then someone (be it merit source or average user with smerit) deem it fit to reward your efforts you shouldn't be deprived of that just because your post get deleted not forgetting even quality posts can get deleted for some understandable reasons like;

• If the whole thread gets deleted, the quality posts get deleted too
• If the post reply you were replying to, gets deleted, your post can get deleted too
• Post from a self moderated thread can be deleted irrespective of the post quality, etc.

Suggesting a demerit should only come into the picture when abuses are involved apart from that I don't buy into the idea of demeriting a post for any other reason.

[PrimeNumber7]

Proposed solution:
Partially remove the rank grandfather --
If an account was a Full Member immediately prior to the implementation of the merit system, they will need to receive 1/10 of the merit necessary to achieve each rank, up to Full Member, and after they are a full member, they need the full amount of the merit.

Your solution could help in stopping the less active account from shilling but still not all users are prone to post here for merit's and earn them often, so good users could also get buried under this rule and loose their years old status.

The threshold to rank up is low, so it should not be difficult to get the necessary merit, years after merit has been introduced. Additional merit sources could be added to help find good posts by these older members. 

[kawetsriyanto]

I think that you haven't read my post properly, because I'm not suggesting a blanket removal of 1 merit every time someone's post is reduced. Please spend the 30 seconds to read my idea properly and then comment your opinion

I have read your post for more than 30 seconds as you suggest. Don't worry, I understand enough what you stated above. You have your opinion, and this is my opinion. If there is something to attract you, you can consider it, if not it is no problem for sure.  

~snip~

Agree, mate. That's why I said "a deleted post is not only about spam" above.

[pecson134]

-snip-

It's a better option to disintegrate merit with time. Take away 1 merit for every 100 posts. That way the user would be concerned about making good post to hold their status.

Probably not a good idea. If someone post a constructive and informative post 100 times then from that hundred posts that a certain person made no one merits his comments, instead of increasing the merit it would decrease by one. This would sometimes happens since getting a merit is so hard to get and people are hard to impress these days.

[Findingnemo]

Delete would be used for deletions that are for relatively minor offences or just for managing topics (e.g. deleting the 'reserved' posts in the art contest thread), DDelete would be for removing posts that are clearly just post farming, trying to meet signature campaign requirements, etc.

Possibility for a generic shit post to get merit is merely less and even if they found doing it too often or many times then they will surely get under the radar of spam/scam busters and will be tagged for merit abuse this is the reason why theymos not interested on implementing demerit button which was proposed many times already.

[JeromeTash]

But the way most of the accounts spamming have never earned any single merit and a majority of them are usually newbie accounts in the altcoin section. So how are you gonna demerit such accounts in order to discourage them from spamming.

I think higher ranking Accounts that spam in other boards and get their posts deleted are few as compared to those in the altcoin boards so i don't think the move will provide a net positive result. It will instead cause more drama and friction in the forum as someone said above.

[tranthidung]

Demerit aims at deleted posts (for whatever reasons posts deleted, by OPs of self-moderated threads or by moderators or by users themselves) will cause massively complicated problems: for users, for moderators, and for the forum.

There is nothing wrong if someone send smerits to any post that they like, agree or disagree with. I (and you all) don't have any power or options to stop others send sMerits to our posts but we all have rights to delete our past posts.

I remembered a long time ago, when I joined the forum and visited the campaign thread of BitVest, just due to my curiosity, I saw people complained about their incorrect postcounts, which come from forum's cleaning-up process. Demerit deleted posts will potentially cause nearly same massive complaints.

Moderators have so many reports each day to handle, and I doubt that they want to have one more task to do everyday with Demerit button.

Another reason I don't think a demerit button is needed: merit system has worked nearly perfect by now. Merit abusers will not rank up to high ranks, above Member rank, in my opinion. Even if they rank up to Full Member rank and above by abuse, they will do not get acceptance from managers of good campaigns, who mostly check some factors before choosing participants from applicants: ranks, earned merits, average post-quality, and trust/ feedback/ flag.

If I am a manager in process of choosing participants, I will look at post history (it takes around a few seconds to scan through) to quickly screen and eliminate shitposters from list of potential participants. Shitposters are unable to make average-quality posts no matter how many merits they earn (10, 100 or more, does not make sense).

Let it be because they won't go any distant place than truly good posters. Report button is here for us to report their bad posts, include bad posts received merits, is enough to stop them earning financial benefits from shitposts.