Topic: Give Moderators a "DDelete" button (Demerit/Delete) - page 2. (Read 692 times)

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.

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.  


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

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. 

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.

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.



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.

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Always See LoyceV's deMerit source application.

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).