Fulfilling signature campaign post quota by recycling own posts

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I don't even think he'll be banned for spamming: posting the same thing after you deleted it could be considered a bump.

A bump?  It might technically be considered that (even if it's stretching the definition), but it's not a bump in spirit and I think we all probably can agree on that.

What if we tag stake.com, their manager and the participants for spamming?

That would be considered Trust abuse.

Trust abuse without consequences, though, unless one or more DT members decided it was so egregious that counter-feedback needed to be given or the person(s) who tagged those involved with the post recycling needed to be tagged.  Sometimes you just have to use the tools at your disposal.  Having said that, I'm not tagging anyone for this but nor would I harbor a grudge against anyone who saw fit to do so.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Well, I guess this is one way to avoid using AI to generate posts, right? 

His posts also included AI.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg64186919#msg64186919
Have his posts been checked against the tools used in the Nutildah topic?

These are just three posts that indicate that the AI was at work, but there are many more such posts. After that, it can be assumed that the posts written by the AI were subsequently paraphrased by another tool.

[LoyceV]

I don't even think he'll be banned for spamming: posting the same thing after you deleted it could be considered a bump.

A bump?  It might technically be considered that (even if it's stretching the definition), but it's not a bump in spirit and I think we all probably can agree on that.

We agree, but the point was I don't think they'll be banned for this. If it's spam, it's gone already. Even plagiarism won't get you banned if you delete it by yourself.