[Suggestion] Deduction of merits for deleted posts [with exceptions]

[Alone055]

The quote below has been taken from FAQ: Everything you need to know about forum 'activity, account ranks and merit:

Can I be demerited or lose merit?

No, not currently. Even if your post is removed the merit will still stay.

I want to ask, why?

I know some will say, "Sometimes a deserving post with merits gets removed because of a removal of a thread/topc." or "What if a post is deleted from a self-moderated thread?", that's why, I have added it in the title as well, there should be some exceptions and I will talk about them as well, but first of all, let me explain why I think merits from deleted posts, specifically the posts that are deleted by moderators for violating the rules, should be deducted from a users total merit count.

So, I was surfing the forum as usual, and I saw this user posting AI-generated content. Upon checking his post history, I found a few more such posts, so I reported him to the AI Spam Report Reference Thread and his posts to the moderators. Among the reported posts, one post (that he had generated using an AI) had received 4 merits. Now, I have reported the post to the moderators, and it will probably get deleted, at least it should because I have also submitted proof for it, but the user will still have the merits received for that post, and I think he doesn't deserve that.

Below is a snap that I took of the post I'm talking about for reference in case the post gets removed by moderators:



This is just one example, there are hundreds of such cases. Users are posting crap, AI shitposts, and content that no one understands, and still ranking up because they are getting merited by their buddies who managed to get some merits probably doing something similar in the past.

So, I think merit deduction on deleted posts by moderators should be implemented.

Now, talking about exceptions. I know that when a thread or topic gets removed, users who might have posted in that thread and received merits will also have their posts removed as a result of the thread getting removed, in such a case, the merits should stay. But if OP had received merits and it gets deleted from a moderator for breaking a rule, he should lose the merits.

Another exception is when a post gets removed from a self-moderated thread/topic, the user shouldn't lose merits because the creator of the self-moderated thread can also remove posts and it doesn't always have to be a rule-breaking thing in that instance.

However, I strongly believe that merits received on posts that are deleted by moderators for breaking a forum rule should be deducted from a user's profile.

Looking forward to your thoughts on this.

[Charles-Tim]

Since I have been on this forum, I noticed that merit is not censored. Admin and moderators do not interfere with merit system than theymos giving merit sources smerits monthly. It is people that are discussing about it in a way if anyone that is seen doing manipulation can be given neutral trust.

No need for his merit to be removed. If truly the person used AI and people agree to it, why not just leave him neutral trust and state the reason and put the reference link. It is better this way.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

Now, I have reported the post to the moderators, and it will probably get deleted, at least it should because I have also submitted proof for it, but the user will still have the merits received for that post, and I think he doesn't deserve that.

Below is a snap that I took of the post I'm talking about for reference in case the post gets removed by moderators:

Moderators will delete these posts if they consider your reports are good and these posts are shitposts. Merit will stay but in merit history, you will see it's as "(Deleted/Off-limits/Ignored)".

With the user, he will very possibly be banned and I have no issue with merit of a banned user. Sometimes, merit history will be helpful for checking too, so deduction of merits in your suggestion is not good. It's like cleaning all history for the banned user.

[Churchillvv]

I also would like to ask! how exactly d o you want this your suggestion to be implemented? is it by a long and gigantic coding? because basically the forum is built of SMF so making changes like this requires a lots of coding and time since it has been a for a long time.

Well I wouldn't agree anyway with your suggestion even though it makes sense because they have been an existing pattern of stereotyping shit posters of AI content generators which Charles-Tim mentioned above and probably even though such user emerges as a higher ranked member he's still going to be know for such actions because the trust system keeps it open to audience to see his tags, which is enough punishment for me and reducing the merit or deleting the already earn merit from them is not what I think.

[Alone055]

No need for his merit to be removed. If truly the person used AI and people agree to it, why not just leave him neutral trust and state the reason and put the reference link. It is better this way.

Well I wouldn't agree anyway with your suggestion even though it makes sense because they have been an existing pattern of stereotyping shit posters of AI content generators which Charles-Tim mentioned above and probably even though such user emerges as a higher ranked member he's still going to be know for such actions because the trust system keeps it open to audience to see his tags, which is enough punishment for me and reducing the merit or deleting the already earn merit from them is not what I think.

I know about that, but as I have observed; neutral feedback or trust mostly doesn't stop them from participating in bounty campaigns and they would still rank up, join them, and keep doing what they are doing unless they get banned, and in most cases, users aren't banned for doing something that gets them a neutral trust. Bounty campaigns usually only has a rule against red trust and say nothing about neutral trust.

With the user, he will very possibly be banned and I have no issue with merit of a banned user. Sometimes, merit history will be helpful for checking too, so deduction of merits in your suggestion is not good. It's like cleaning all history for the banned user.

They don't get banned all the time, and it won't clean all the history of merits for banned users but only the ones that they received on posts that broke forum rules. Besides, we have tools and platforms that archive data from the past for reference in the future.

I also would like to ask! how exactly d o you want this your suggestion to be implemented? is it by a long and gigantic coding? because basically the forum is built of SMF so making changes like this requires a lots of coding and time since it has been a for a long time.

Obviously, it can only be done by coding.  I'm not an expert when it comes to coding or web development, but I think it shouldn't be that big of a problem, a condition added on deleted posts by moderators for deleting the merits received in that post should do the work, but whether how easy or complex this can be, only @PowerGlove can tell us.

[SatoPrincess]

No need for his merit to be removed. If truly the person used AI and people agree to it, why not just leave him neutral trust and state the reason and put the reference link. It is better this way.

Well I wouldn't agree anyway with your suggestion even though it makes sense because they have been an existing pattern of stereotyping shit posters of AI content generators which Charles-Tim mentioned above and probably even though such user emerges as a higher ranked member he's still going to be know for such actions because the trust system keeps it open to audience to see his tags, which is enough punishment for me and reducing the merit or deleting the already earn merit from them is not what I think.

I know about that, but as I have observed; neutral feedback or trust mostly doesn't stop them from participating in bounty campaigns and they would still rank up, join them, and keep doing what they are doing unless they get banned, and in most cases, users aren't banned for doing something that gets them a neutral trust. Bounty campaigns usually only has a rule against red trust and say nothing about neutral trust.

Just because someone has managed to get the required merits doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to get accepted into signature campaigns. The neutral trust on their profile gives campaign managers the right information about the account and I don't think any campaign manager would want to hire a plagiarist/AI spammer. The campaign you referred to has removed a participant that was caught plagiarizing, that’s one of the cases that I am aware of.

[Text]

I’m not fully convinced that such a system would be beneficial. I think penalizing all rule-breaking posts by removing their merits might have unintended consequences. Neutral trust and the forum's trust system already serve as a deterrent, public feedback is often more effective in the long run.

The technical complexity of implementing such a feature, as highlighted by @Churchillvv, may not be as straightforward as it seems. This operates on existing systems that require significant effort to modify. We might need to focus more on community-led trust systems and moderation to address misuse rather than a sweeping merit removal process.

[SatoPrincess]

I don’t think this system will work. If we are to implement this then automatically deleted posts with associated merits will be removed.  This will affect innocent users, for example if I get merits in a thread and after a while the OP decides to delete the topic, is it fair that I lose those merits?

Theymos wouldn’t approve demerit button, I don’t think he will consider this either.

[Wapfika]

If this suggestion will be accepted. This feature should be available only to the merit sender giving them the option to remove all the merit sent on the deleted post or topic.

Merit is unmoderated just like the trust system which means any user can give their merit to whoever post that they find merit deserving post based on their standards. If you are not the merit sender then why bother about the merit sent by the others on deleted post?

[Alone055]

I don’t think this system will work. If we are to implement this then automatically deleted posts with associated merits will be removed.  This will affect innocent users, for example if I get merits in a thread and after a while the OP decides to delete the topic, is it fair that I lose those merits?

The quote below is from the opening post:

I know some will say, "Sometimes a deserving post with merits gets removed because of a removal of a thread/topc."

~
~

Now, talking about exceptions. I know that when a thread or topic gets removed, users who might have posted in that thread and received merits will also have their posts removed as a result of the thread getting removed, in such a case, the merits should stay. But if OP had received merits and it gets deleted from a moderator for breaking a rule, he should lose the merits.

[un_rank]

Merit abuse of itself is not a problem the admin is willing to get into, the idea is that as long as they are not sources, their smerit number will be steadily declining and they will eventually run out. If the admin is not willing to regulate merit abuse directly, why will they want to do so indirectly?

If this idea is considered even on a selective basis it adds more workload to the mods and will bring about multiple other threads and replies that makes it not worth executing.

- Jay -

[notocactus]

whether how easy or complex this can be, only @PowerGlove can tell us.

You can ask theymos first because the head admin did some demerit transactions in the past.

First, check the announcement of merit system.
Merit & new rank requirements

There is currently no such thing as a "demerit". I'm hoping that the positive merits alone will be fine. I could add demerits pretty easily later on if necessary, though.

Next, I can inform you that theymos did some demerit transactions when community reported abuse of one or two merit sources (I can not not member names of these merit sources).

QuestionAuthority and maybe one more merit source.

Search here with deMerit for the account used by theymos for this purpose. Note that it was rebroadcasted to demerit in very early weeks or months since merit system kick-off.

Merit transaction of deMerit account

I posted about it in 2020

For users who are curious about the -44 merit transaction, there are 17 transactions like that (with negative amount of merit), according to the last Friday merit data dump by theymos.

Details:

Code:

        cat |      Freq.     Percent        Cum.
------------+-----------------------------------
  neg merit |         17        0.00        0.00
  pos merit |    369,275      100.00      100.00
------------+-----------------------------------
      Total |    369,292      100.00

For negative merit transactions only

Code:

     amount |      Freq.     Percent        Cum.
------------+-----------------------------------
        -44 |          1        5.88        5.88
        -10 |          5       29.41       35.29
         -9 |          2       11.76       47.06
         -8 |          1        5.88       52.94
         -7 |          1        5.88       58.82
         -5 |          2       11.76       70.59
         -4 |          1        5.88       76.47
         -2 |          3       17.65       94.12
         -1 |          1        5.88      100.00
------------+-----------------------------------
      Total |         17      100.00

There are some very special cases that get demerit activities from theymos

Code:

        +----------------------------------------+
        | sent_userid   received_userid   amount |
        |----------------------------------------|
 32111. |           0           1724596      -44 |
216598. |           0             92110       -2 |
216599. |           0             81995       -5 |
216600. |           0           1316028       -2 |
216601. |           0            290351       -9 |
        |----------------------------------------|
216602. |           0            289011       -1 |
216603. |           0            249872       -9 |
216604. |           0            249436       -7 |
216605. |           0            165478       -8 |
216606. |           0              9645       -2 |
        |----------------------------------------|
216607. |           0            358020      -10 |
216608. |           0             15728      -10 |
216609. |           0           2536607      -10 |
216610. |           0           1246188       -4 |
216611. |           0            355462      -10 |
        |----------------------------------------|
216612. |           0             92110      -10 |
216613. |           0           2472107       -5 |
        +----------------------------------------+

This issue was discussed in 2019 too.
Give Moderators a "DDelete" button (Demerit/Delete)

[Solosanz]

I know about that, but as I have observed; neutral feedback or trust mostly doesn't stop them from participating in bounty campaigns and they would still rank up, join them, and keep doing what they are doing unless they get banned, and in most cases, users aren't banned for doing something that gets them a neutral trust. Bounty campaigns usually only has a rule against red trust and say nothing about neutral trust.

So, the point is to stop shitposter who rank up from their buddies to participate in signature campaign?

Deduction of merits for deleted posts isn't enough because there are many low quality post weren't deleted, it wouldn't enough to downgrade the shitposter.

De-merit is better, the post don't have to be deleted and it can downgrade the shitposter, if someone who abused de-merit, that user will receive punishment or taking off their ability to de-merit.

[notocactus]

Deduction of merits for deleted posts isn't enough because there are many low quality post weren't deleted, it wouldn't enough to downgrade the shitposter.

De-merit is better, the post don't have to be deleted and it can downgrade the shitposter, if someone who abused de-merit, that user will receive punishment or taking off their ability to de-merit.

I don't see difference between deduction of merit and demerit in context of this thread.

The discussion is about already deleted posts, whether earned merit of these deleted posts should be demerit or reverted. OP did not suggest to delete posts of shit posters, then demerit them. Two conditions come in orders, post deletion first, demerit / deduction of merit comes later.

[iuseAItotalwithfellowAI]

I've got no problem with people suggesting changes to how merits work, but honestly, implementing a system where moderators have to manually deduct merit points from users who post AI-generated content just seems like way too much hassle. I mean, if someone is posting shit that needs to be removed, can't we just click the nuke or ban button already? It's faster, easier, and gets rid of the problem without having to deal with all this bureaucratic nonsense.

So yeah, your suggestion might sound good in theory, but let's not forget - moderators have better things to do than babysit idiots. Just nuke it already! By the way, speaking of which, I'm actually generating this reply with an AI myself - so take my opinion for what it's worth!

[Mia Chloe]

When you try to merit a particular post, you get a prompt saying are you sure you wish to continue this action? Because it can't be undone. Personally I see no need for a system where moved posts or delete or posts have their accumulated merit removed. If you check the merit system, there is actually no particular rule where a post must meet certain conditions before it can be merited meaning everyone merits based on their view about a post although the forum suggests quality posts be merited.

There was a very popular member (Ratimov later Symmetric) who literally left the forum based on certain things and before he did he deleted literally over 70% of his posts (many of which were highly merited and useful posts). So based on what you are saying, then literally almost all his merits would vanish in thin air. His actions may have been wrong however he earned those merits based on past contributions.

Admins can demerit but rarely have I come across a case like that.

[Findingnemo]

I've got no problem with people suggesting changes to how merits work, but honestly, implementing a system where moderators have to manually deduct merit points from users who post AI-generated content just seems like way too much hassle. I mean, if someone is posting shit that needs to be removed, can't we just click the nuke or ban button already? It's faster, easier, and gets rid of the problem without having to deal with all this bureaucratic nonsense.

It doesn't necessarily have to a job done by moderator or anyone at all, some tweak like any post's with the merit gets deleted by moderator will deducted from the total merit earned so if a mod delete a post for spam that has merit will be dealt at the same time like two birds in a stone but the only problem is with the exception.

About the Idea I don't think it's really necessary, not much of those AI spammers can't get enough merits above member rank to be honest before getting caught and already there's a rules that might get them to be banned if they're using AI so it's even better right than just losing their merits.

[Alone055]

So, the point is to stop shitposter who rank up from their buddies to participate in signature campaign?

Not only for signature campaigns but to stop them from ranking up and continuing spamming the forum, so the primary purpose is to stop spammers from ranking up, it's basically what the merit system is for.

Deduction of merits for deleted posts isn't enough because there are many low quality post weren't deleted, it wouldn't enough to downgrade the shitposter.

If a post is of low quality, it gets deleted if it's reported, and if it is not, it doesn't fall under this discussion at all. My suggestion is for posts that break a rule and get removed. The posts that aren't removed are not reported but if we report them, they get deleted eventually.

implementing a system where moderators have to manually deduct merit points from users who post AI-generated content just seems like way too much hassle. I mean, if someone is posting shit that needs to be removed, can't we just click the nuke or ban button already? It's faster, easier, and gets rid of the problem without having to deal with all this bureaucratic nonsense.

There is no manual removal of merits with my suggestion, the merits should get removed from the total count automatically when a post is removed by a moderator. If a user gets nuked, there is basically no need for a merit removal because he is already out of the forum with that, it is for those who aren't banned but are violating rules but still earning merits for such posts.

[AVE5]

There's this saying that injury for one is injury for all who're in the same roof.
I really appreciate the fact that the Op is trying to discourage cheating of earning merits using the AI to generate attractive merit posts but let's consider the other way if the post is deleted and the merits is deducted from the Op of the post, what happens to others forum members that may have earned merits along the post because it wouldn't make sense to penalize others where just one user is the problem but if there's a static that others below such penalties wouldn't be affected aside those violated that'd be better.

[Sandra_hakeem]

Yunno, i wouldn't wanna get into any sort of argument whatsoever about this (cause that's really typical) but there was a similar topic in the past about this... I believe there's a reference on this thread by someone already.

The merit system was created to slow down or, for the most part, limit the possibilities of shit posters, bounty hunters and spammers ranking up fast enough. Yunno why it's not censored? Theymos wouldn't wanna alter anything currently as he deems the system imperfectly perfect and that's all you gotta know.
Now, that's like saying we gotta create a means in-between; that's only gonna give people some sort of privilege that only the admins should have ..  ^{not even the moderators}