Also, have you ever considered reducing the number of allowed posts per day by ONE for each DELETED POST an alias puts up? i.e. if you were allowed 10 posts per day, and 8 of your posts today were deleted, tomorrow you get TWO posts... like that.
If the goal is less deletions, I'm not convinced this would be a deterrent.
I could be naive here, but I don't think most non-subscribers purposely post messages they know will be deleted. I know that many of the Users I talk with throughout the day (and review a lot of deletions) Users are vehemently defending the post and protesting the removal.
I would also be concerned about the additional workload I think this would create. I would imagine that we would spend our time debating with Users even more than we currently do whether a message should have been deleted.
Touching on what Dave said, I also think there would be an additional pressure for bias to creep in on the person removing the message. There are gray areas, there are posts interpreted differently depending on who is reading them, some Mods allow more ot than others, etc.
If we wanted to make a change similar to this, I would favor something along the lines of rewarding Users who stay within the TOU. For example, X posts when you sign up. As soon as 50 messages have been posted with, let's say, less than 3% deletion ratio, then it ups to X. After this, let's say 500 posts and less than 3% deletion ratio, then you're increased to X. Then a sliding scale downwards also. If you've achieved X posts, start violating the tou regularly i.e. 100 posts with greater than a 10% deletion rate, then you'd be dropped back down to the previous level.
This would be an incentive for people to learn the rules and stay within the TOU which I think is what we're looking for here.
I understand there could be many of the same concerns I pointed out earlier. However, I think it would be more successful to reward instead of punish.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
