I actually already posted a potential solution to this
Separately, there is an argument that bans for plagiarism should be delayed by a week, or 20 posts from the time a moderator discovers the infraction. The purpose of this would be too see if they will continue plagiarizing many times, or if they did something stupid on one or two posts. Someone who copies 5-10 of their next 20 posts is clearly not someone we want around, while someone who copies 1-2 ever might deserve some leniency, especially if they make generally insightful posts. This would help decide if someone will have *really* "learned their lesson" and wont make the mistake of copying content a second time.
That's not a solution. 1 of 20 is still horrible and who's gonna track the ~1000 users every week?
So I don't think a signature restriction would work at all--they'll just abandon the account.
Then it's equivalent to permaban for those users - great. But it gives the option for the few that might be genuinely remorseful.
The merit solution has problems, too, unless it's a very high amount. We know merit gets traded and sold.
It should be a high enough amount to force most shitposters into a voluntary permaban. 50-100 should do it. If one or two buy/hack/etc enough merits to get back to spamming we'll get them next time. Now that I think about it - if someone wants to waste merits (legit or not) on this - more power to them.
I voted for keeping things as they are.
I voted for the merit option AND to keep as is. Not my fault that voting options are bipolar
