Bitcoin Forum

The Merit system has been with us for six weeks now and is clearly having some success in reducing the spam. It is now very hard, if not impossible, for account farmers to provide a constant supply of high ranked accounts. This, of course, is good news for any of us who have become tired of finding any interesting content quickly buried under a pile of shitposts.

What this hasn't addressed is the large number of accounts already in the hands of shitposters. Let's be honest about what rank is all about - signatures and the ability to gain income from them. The ability of someone who is already in possession of, for example, a Hero account (or 10) to continue to get paid for every shitpost they tack on the end of a spam megathread has not diminished or been restrained by the Merit system.

Some campaign managers have taken the initiative to make minimum Merit requirements compulsory to join their campaigns but those managers were already the ones with high standards. They were not the problem, it has always been the managers that just blindly accept the first x hundred people to apply and pay them regardless of the spam they produce.

I have noticed that these spammers are very easy to spot now, they are the ones stuck on 100, 250, 500 or whatever merit number they were initially given. They haven't managed to gain one single Merit point in the last 6 weeks.

So to my suggestion:

Amend the forum to hide signatures of any account that hasn't earned at least 1 Merit in the last 2 months.

This will bar them from getting paid to post and not have any negative impact on anyone making even the tiniest contribution to the forum. Nobody loses their rank and even if someone is away from the forum for a while they can quickly get their signature back.

I agree with you. Accounts which won't get any merit (or specific number of merits depends on each rank because higher ranks should have more knowledge, more skills, more experience, so they will probably have more chances to earn merits) over a specific period (might be one, two or three months) should be disabled ability to wear signature.

Prerequisites related to merit points to join campaigns, bounties depends on those campaigns managers, not forum admin. So this suggestion is not appropriate.

Thanks for all of your recommendations, TheQuin.

That's the idea. It doesn't stop anyone joining a Twitter bounty or whatever but there would be no point paying anyone to post on the forum if their signature was hidden.



How is it complicated? I suggested disable (hide) the signature rather than limit it as many of the bounty sig campaigns have decided to continue to recruit Jr. Members and just put a text URL in it.

Yes it could be implemented I remember back then that I wasn't able to wear a signature for at least a weeks.
If those persons haven't receive a single merit there's a possibility that those individual is only posting without even reading the thread or the topic of discussion.

So it would mean that those person is only using the forum for their own interest.

It sounds like a good idea on the face of it, but I suspect that the bad managers will arrange for their posters to receive merit to bypass the restriction.

I did think of that. Unfortunately, any system devised by man there will be another man trying to game it. The problem they will face is that they will quickly run out of sMerit to abuse, that was why I suggested an ongoing requirement. Like the Merit system itself, it will take time for it to show its full effect.

Maybe it's time for demerits to be implemented. I think that if a demerit subtracted merit from the sender too, or cost twice as much sMerit it would minimize abuse.

I think that is a terrible idea as it will just be used to demerit posts that people disagree with and as part of personal vendettas. I suggested an alternative that I don't think has these disadvantages. Do you have any comment on it?

Eventually the account farmers will run out of merits to tip themselves. Hilariousandco has nailed a few accounts already for merit abuse, as has Lauda I believe. This is when we can successfully implement rules for campaigns(or theymos cam implement them).

Something like users must earn 5 merits a months for their account to display a signature if being done by theymos or managers can make a user earn 1 merit per week to stay in a campaign.

The problem is still gonna be the same managers whom accept anyone and everyone. If all aren't on board it will fail. Kinda why I feel theymos should implement the restrictions.

I like the basis of the idear, however i do think there are a couple high-ranking members that post only very seldomly... If they have only made 1 or 2 posts since the merit system was introduced, they risk losing their sigspace if this system were to be automated. Granted, those members aren't in a sigcampaign to begin with, but they do use their sigspace to promote threads, promote their own businesses, insert funny quotes, show the address of their tipjar,...

I guess it might be better if mods had the power to disable signatures for everybody who received less than 1 merit in the last month... That way the mod could use his own judgement wether or not the person in question is a spammer, or just a very low volume poster that just didn't receive any merits because of their low post frequency.

Just my personal opinion tough...

This idea is good, and suitable to apply for next campaigns with new rules from forum admin. I am waiting for this one. It will be better to restrict campaigns like this because it will help to eliminate accounts which have already stayed at higher ranks before the launch of merit system. Those ones should be prevent to join campaigns somehow, and your suggestion might be one of appropriate solution to control spamming-higher-rank users.

I strongly disagree with this.Even though the merit system is doing well,I don't think every quality poster is awarded merits.My point being,a participant could be a great quality poster but due to whatever reasons his unmerited posts shouldn't stop him from participating in campaigns.

This also means anybody who has earned 1 merit in a week but is a spammer to the core will also be eligible to display the signature.I can show you 10 shit one liner posts which have been credited with 10+ merits.

I don't think that it would solve the problem. The spammers would just send themselves (or buy) one merit point every two months.

Maybe if somebody received a large amount of demerits they could have their signature rights revoked, or maybe an increased cooldown between posts.

Making rules for campaigns to follow means that someone has to police them so my suggestion pretty much amounts to the same thing but automated.

As to the numbers, I suggested 1 Merit / 2 months, but really if it's 5 Merit / Month or whatever, that's just detail that needs to be finessed.

---

There is inevitably a little collateral damage as you suggest. My thinking is that a signature is a reward for providing content for the forum, so if you no longer provide content why should you continue to be rewarded in perpetuity?

---

They'll soon run out of sMerit. Demerit is open to hundreds of times the level of abuse.

I think disable sig for all is much easier and fair solution, changing this and that probably can introduce bugs into the system and probably can lead to unknown catastrophic vulnerability. This is not a place to make money and everyone should go by the same rule.

It is definitely easier but alas less fair. The forum allows its members to directly benefit from providing content by allowing them advertising space in return. You are suggesting that everyone should be punished because of the actions of some.


You should put that crack pipe down.

I like your idea of hiding the signatures of the signature campaign participants. This will force them to make a high quality posts in order for the signatures to be seen. Although I see that mostly will abuse it by just giving their alt one merit and they will be paid but it can be solved because you can track the merits of a certain user.

To be honest, I don't like the word demerit. Demerit if added in this forum will be abuse by many users. Lets say, I am angry with user X and lets say I will demerit him 5 times or 10 times not because he is a shitposter but because I am angry with him. This can happen with anybody that is why I don't like demerit in the forum. Just merit  ;) ;)

In my opinion, maybe all of the bounty campaigns must have a minimum merit requirement and all of the campaign manager must put a minimum merit of maybe 3-5 to Jr member, 15-20 to Member, 105-110 to Full member and so on and so forth. In this way, it will be harder for shitposters to join in the signature campaign because they don't have enough merits to join.

We should note that it might cause a dispute whether giving +1 merit for 'this' or 'that' post is abusive or not.
But this is not a big problem as we can discuss it openly.

Giving money to those shitposters is much more problematic.

There are a lot of cases where innocent people would be penalized under the proposed system. People who don't post that often, those who go on a break from the forum, people who post in sections where merit sources are still thin, etc would all have a much higher risk of unfairly having their signatures removed. The last thing I'd like to see is decent occasional posters begging for merit or posting when they don't want to just so they can keep their signature.

I think the better option is to just let the account farmers continue to get frustrated, and the moderators will find them eventually.

Is there any chance for all managers to gather and discuss a standard of merit requirement for the campaign they handle? In my opinion this is an interesting to do because managers can be served as spammer controller and this would be a great addition to the SMAS.

I do understand your point. I did try and make the requirement as minimal as possible for this reason. One Merit in the last two months doesn't really require being that active. Also, it is only tempory as the signature is only hidden until they do get a merit point.



Let's hope so.

---

The problem is that in a lot of the altcoin/ico bounties the managers don't give a shit and just want to get as many page impressions as possible regardless.

As I read some rules of the forum, I see this merit system has a big impact on reducing spam, but im not agree with this suggestion because I think it is easy for them to get 1 merit especially those account has sMerit stock on them so they can trade some merit points to other people that you call shitposters, and the second way is to create new account and then give 2 merit and get back the 1 merit, I assume those spammers and farmers not only have 1 high rank accounts, the effect of the system you are proposing will cause create more dummy account and they can level up their dummys until member rank. Sorry for my bad english.

Your English is fine but you should have read the thread as I've already answered this. That is why it is an ongoing requirement, they will soon run out of Merit to pass around.

I like that no demerits, im really glad i found this thread, coz im wondering how can i earn merits?

I was thinking about something similar and I tend to agree with your suggestion.
And I more concerned about Jr. Members than high ranked users. Now many bounties are still accepting Jr. Members, despite that they can't wear clickable signatures. So, they don't even need to get Merit if they want to earn from bounty campaigns by shitposting. Offcourse, they will earn less than high ranked users, but it doesn't really matter. Maybe they will never earn any single Merit, but they don't care much about it as long as they earning money on bitcointalk. Additional to what you said, I think that even basic signatures should be disabled if user haven't earned any Merits.

Thanks, yes that is what is concerning me about the Jr. Members. If they earn 1/10th as much they'll just make 10x as many accounts.


That is exactly what I envisaged. No merit in the last 60 days = signature hidden. So nobody would have a signature until receiving their first merit.

I actually liked the idea, but that, in my opinion, won't change a lot of things. We (or you, as you have started this) are talking about the spammers that have already surpassed the levels before the Merit system was implemented, and as we all know that every account have received Merits according to their rank at the initial Merit distribution, and thus they got half of that amount as sMerits to send to others. So if a person (a spammer, more particularly) had more than 1 accounts in higher ranks, they all must have received Merits as well, which they would probably use to Merit their own accounts in order to bypass this change as well.

Sending only 1 Merit to your own alt won't really make you suspicious, but receiving just 1 Merit would surely make you safe from the change that we are discussing right now. So if the spammers start exchanging 1 Merit between their accounts, they will all be able to tackle this change too.
So maybe something quite more effective should be done. Something that should not let the spammers skip it at any cost.

^^^^

if Theymos implemented some rules to becoming a manager, then set some standards around minimum merits.. bosh spam goes away

Mate, you have good ideas and I like your participation in the forums but the "best" example of the "partial" inefficiency of your idea is Deeponion...
I will let you enjoy hurting your eyes with ridiculous smerit given to newbies to get 10 smerit at any cost.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=1038794

I would say, I support your idea but further actions are required...

Yup, i would love to see it and called it as The Managers (group of super managers like The Avengers) while Theymos is Nick Fury, or maybe Managers League would do too, haha. What i want to say is the sam as TMAN,  since everybody can be a manager (especially the famous and skilled one) i guess it is a good thing if there are some rules to be a manager .

Sorry for that im using CP at the moment, back to the topic your idea will take a long time to eliminate those shit people maybe admins will came up with a better idea.
In my own real opinion the only problem here is that sMerit this system just cause unfair to other members here in your forum, I think the best way for many arguments about the system is to shut down the sMerit system (not the merit system) and assign those trusted high ranks in merit distribution. So that only the officials can send meriy to everyone, I think 1 official in every section excluding local section they can manage the distribution easily and those shit peoples can never increase their ranks unless they start learning and contribute in the community fairly.

Thanks. I know it is easy to get frustrated with Merit abuse, just look at this fella https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2896910.msg32299023#msg32299023 and it seems that DT are too busy arguing amongst themselves to bother tagging all the cases that have been found.

But... It is only a temporary situation, the sMerit will run out. That's why I believe putting in a system like this that requires an ongoing merit threshold or your signature is hidden until you get it will be more effective than trying to catch them all in the long run.

If Theymos implements rules, he then needs to enforce them.  :/

We need more moderators!

Then hire more eligible moderators.
If it would help the forum certain laws/rules need to be brought in stage.

I do not truly like the idea of managers making accounts have a certain amount of merit before they can participate or that they have to earn a certain amount a week because then you are leaving your participation up to if someone else feels that you have put out a quality post.  I also agree that there needs to be something in place to limit any type of account farming because that is not fair to everyone else and people get tired of reading a lot of the posts.  I wish the merit stuff would have started a week later because then i could have gotten my member status.  LoL.  I will get there eventually.  Have not had a big chance to post much lately as I have had other things outside of crypto consuming me. 

Bottom line for me...anything we can do to limit spam and make the forum better, I am for...just dont like leaving my participation in a bounty or something up to someone else and if they find my post is something valuable and worth merit.

Ouch! This is a heavy allegation. You make it sound like the campaign managers are accomplices in this spamming the forum struggles to eradicate.

Managers here express more laxity than their colleagues at the btc paying campaigns. I don't think they deliberately want to not be thorough but maybe the crave to keep the scarcely got jobs make them a bit relaxed with strictness to adherence to posting rules.

---

I think the forums have enough moderators. They only need to step up their game and be top notch getting defaulters to face the wrath of the forum. The existing laws need to start getting enforced.

---

Well done Joel. Your position can not be faulted.

Hah!  Easy for you to say...  What about cute trolls like me that people seldom give merits to?  I sure am a narcissistic assh*le in the forum at times, but I'm far from being a spammer.

And I'm not here to please anybody for merits.  F*ck that.

One way to make this forum better is to be extra stict for a year or so...

I mentioned this earlier but I am still a bit lost here.

The people with multiple accounts are just passing merits to their alt accounts aren’t they? Which means that the merit system isn’t affecting hem at all if they already have established accounts?

It looks like some alt account holders are highlighted but still with us months on.

Can’t alt accounts just have a temp bad on the highest activity account but a perm ban on the lower alts?

I wouldn't mind if the initial Merit drops by 1 point per month, but that would instantly create a sales market for Merit. A month later, the sales price would probably go up.

As an alternative: I would love to see more shitposters banned! Merit has closed the flood gates, now it's time to start mopping the floor. Each banned account used to be replaced by 10 new ones, but that won't happen anymore. Once gone, nothing will grow back in it's place!

Why should Mods demerit them, if they can ban them directly?

From my limited experience as a signature campaign manager: the quality of posters largely depends on the available budget. A campaign manager can only select the best possible posters if he has the highest budget at his disposal.

I think, that I am not the only one:
I did not receive a single merit since this new system started.
Maybe its because I am not making friends here. Maybe I am posting in the wrong threads. Maybe my postings don't reach that high quality which is needed for earning merits ... I don't know. I don't take care about it. It doesn't matter. In the meantime, I have said goodbye to the idea of being able to ascend again at all.
Again: That doesn't matter.

But getting a spammer's stamp on my account ... nah ... that matters.

So please take care, that you don't hit the wrong members when you try to solve a big (yes! it is!) problem here.

Regards!
McW


edit:
You should take a look here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3121688.0

It is very hard to earn merits. And when you let them drop every months, you will leave a lot of frustrated members behind...

Hiding signature of members who have been unable to get any merit to their default merit points will be a good idea but yet again, that won't still too shitposting. And need I remind you that not everyone who hasn't got any extra merit that ain't making good posts. So the idea won't favour those who are trying to produce quality posts and yet to get any merit. I would suggest spammy accounts or shitposting accounts gets demoted in rank.

That's another area people like the op don't see. Most merits gotten here, come from friends sharing their merits within their cliques and when you don't have friends, you might last forever without a merit except a good Samaritan stops by your post and merits it. Aol I stand to disagree with the OPs suggestions of hiding signature.

I believe that this system would lead to covert merit selling, and it would be very difficult to trade since they will only be distributing 1 merit at a time. I suspect that this would undermine the entire system.

If you don't have all the metrics and calculate all probable outcome, this is just like beating the bush, without concrete evidence, and simply just categorized everyone that received no merit for the last 6 weeks as spammer.

What about those high rank member who is exchanging Merit between them ? freely posting unnecessary comment and reply mostly just threatening, harassing, abusing low rank members, don't their post count as spam too, they have incentive to post unnecessary reply to build up their activity count and they wear campaign sig as well, they get away form being caught because they have friend Meriting their unnecessary replies

I really do like this idea. It doesn't need to be something strict, such as requiring 1 merit every week. But just have a default amount that's necessary to unlock signatures. Just 1 merit. No time limit; no restraints (EDIT: On second thought, maybe 1 Merit every 120 days). I think what a lot of the naysayers here neglect to realize is that in due time, sMerit decay should take effect, and default sMerit (from when the system was introduced) will run dry. When this happens, there won't be as much merit to easily toss around, as it currently is.

But if this was made a default option, then shitty campaign managers would then be forced into actually reviewing their applicants, rather than just accepting anyone and everyone. "Joe, but they would just merit the accounts they accept into the campaign!" Let's say their campaign is for 50 participants. They'll need 50 sMerits to give to the participants, which means they'll need to receive 100 Merits in order to do so. This is not an easy task in itself.

I think it's a simple solution, and once implemented, does not need much oversight to enforce it.

---

It's because most of your posts are in Altcoins and Altcoin Speculation. Those really aren't great places for your post to receive merit, and there are some pretty hefty megathreads where your post may be overlooked within a matter of a day or two. If you look in the Meta and Services boards, there are currently TONS of ways to get your meritorious posts recognized to earn a few merits here and there.

---

I disagree. Yes, it's fine and dandy when you have a watchtower filled with members who patrol the forums and report posts to moderators... But try for yourself. Pick a board, any board. Add that entire board to your watchlist. And then try to go through each thread and each post and act like a moderator. Read each post and see if it meets the forum requirements and rules. I think you'd be surprised as to how many posts are actually made on a daily basis here. And then imagine the times when you're not able to be online; what do you think you'll come back to? A forum that took a break and paused all of its activity because you were not online?

This forum needs more moderators. The existing ones are doing a great job, but the forum has grown immensely since most of them have been hired, and there are more shitposters than ever.

Having read through the thread there seem to be a few themes in the responses.

1. What about the fact that people can abuse this by giving merits to friends or alts or buying them.

- This is 100% true but it shouldn't be the basis for not implementing something. It's like saying 'we won't make drugs illegal because people can still get them from other sources'. There is no measure that will be perfect but if it stops some people and makes it harder for others then it's a winner.

2. What about the people that don't spam but haven't earned merit.

- These are the guys who'd lose out in this case, there are people who just don't post much or might have been inactive for a while, it's unfair that they lose out.

The biggest suggestion I have and I've said it before and seen it said before in this thread and elsewhere is to stop JR Member accounts. Right now there is no barrier to entry for these accounts, they just sign up, spam 30 posts and they're ready to earn. Remove signatures completely for JR Members and then that problem is gone.

After the problem of an ever increasing number of JR Members is stopped then it shouldn't be so hard for moderators to keep a handle on things and clean up the rest of the place. I always liked the idea of having some system that flagged accounts to moderators if they'd not received a merit within a certain number of posts for example. It wouldn't be an automatic ban or neg trust but would just bring their accounts to attention.

The irony of this thread? It looks like everyone in support of the OP is wearing a paid signature ad. Many of the people you will be penalizing are not. That should be the first sign that you're barking up the wrong tree.

Why should someone lose signature privileges because they don't post very often? Or because they're inactive for a while? Or because there's not enough merit to go around? Or because they're not in a social group that customarily merits each other (like Default Trust cliques, the Wall Observer regulars, etc)? How do you even know that merit distribution is adequate to begin penalizing those who don't earn it?

If some posters aren't receiving merit, it doesn't necessarily follow that post quality is the determining factor, either. I've seen no change since I said this one month ago:


I've raised the matter in Meta a couple times, but no one responds. They just continue to cheerlead, "The merit system is working so great!" Well then, let's see some statistics, please. And a handful of anecdotal data points about "exceptional posters" isn't nearly enough (IMO) to start actively penalizing most forum members. My sense is that there's too much passing around of merit within social circles and not enough given for thoughtful posts.

And you can be damn sure that no matter how meritorious a post is, you will not receive merit if your opinions are not agreeable. Nobody hits the "like" button when Debbie Downer is bringing everyone down. But this is a fucking forum. How popular you are (or the extent you're willing parrot popular opinions) shouldn't decide whether you can display a signature. It's fundamentally problematic to penalize people on such an uneven, subjective basis. That's the opposite of what a forum should be.

Do you want people to freely exchange ideas? Or do you want to create incentives so they post when they don't want to, and express ideas they don't agree with, just to make sure they crank out enough merit?

Merit can (and is being) gamed, and winners and losers will be created -- and not clearly as a matter of post quality. That's okay if the result is an unevenly distributed impediment on the ability to rank up. Big deal, right? But I don't think it's okay if we're talking about stripping basic forum functionality from most users. Fuck that.


What's your basis for saying that? Your anecdotal experience in the context of the initial sMerit distribution? There are millions of forum members.


I really hope theymos doesn't stand for this kind of bullshit.

I suggest prohibiting signature campaigns entirely as an alternative.

I don't think so. Theymos stated that he don't want to destroy the marketing industry in the forum (signature campaigns, in particular); but he will probably think about this 'last' (might be last) solution if the merit system failed to control / eliminate spammers out of the forum. I strongly believe that Theymos will not launch new rules which prohibit signature campaigns, because as you can see merit system has shown strong positive impacts on the forum users (on different ranks of users, from lower-ranked to higher-ranked users).

I do think that the scam/spam accounts who got ported over from the old system are now slowly losing sMerit, but it would take at least 2 or 3 months before they're completely gone. We're talking about people with 500 or 600 merits... that means they can send 300 merits = 30 member accounts.

And for signature campaigns, Member accounts is all you need to get in.

The merit system is still young, barely 2 months old. I would give it a month more for the landscape to develop.

But after reading through some of hte ideas on this thread, I would propose the following:

1. A DT Merit attribute. Just like DT1 and DT2 people, we should have a DM1 and DM2 system for merits. I've stated it before -- the merit system is evolving into a quasi-trust system where people don't give merit on mere post quality, but on Trust as well. That said, we can cut the number of false sMerits being thrown around by simply diminishing the weight of each sMerit given by spam accounts.

For example, if an account doesn't get a merit within X number of days, then he's no longer DM1 or DM2. The sMerits he gives out during this period are equivalent to 0.5 merits. E.g.: non-DM1/2 account sends 2 sMerits to Z, Z only gets 1 Merit.

But if an account receives a merit within X number of days, he's either in DM1 or DM2. Then his merit weight is normal: If he sends 2 sMerits to Z, Z gets 2 Merits.

I believe this is a fair system that doesn't delve into demeriting or merit decay. But it does help "drain the swamp of sMerits." With this in play, spammers are forced to send 1 merit to an account before that account can send merits to another account... And this kind of activity is easily detected by the mods because you'll see one inactive account with lots of sMerits suddenly gain 1 Merit out of the blue, and like a couple of hours or minutes later, that account will suddenly send out a bunch of merits to another account.

2. Signature Hiding. We can also implement hiding signatures for ACCOUNTS BELOW A CERTAIN RANK. I'm not sure off-hand what the number of spam accounts have reached Hero / Legendary level, but I'd say anyone below Full Member should get a timer. This seems rather fair, yes?

If a Jr. Member or a Member doesn't get a merit within 30 days then their signatures get hidden. It's a little Nazi, but i'm sure that will do the job quite nicely.

I'm not sure, I've reported a few posts and they end up getting deleted pretty quickly.

Hey tokeweed, that name I haven't seen around for a long time, you just reminded me of the Cloudhashing thread. I'm sure you don't want to please anybody for merits but I see you got a few anyway.

Sure being strict and banning all the shitposters would be better but there's no sign of that happening. I've reported copy pasters that don't get banned, I've posted in the Known Alts thread about farmers and the Merit abuse thread about that. It's very rare that someone gets tagged. So I went off to come up with a way of automating it.

It's certainly not meant to punish anyone like you or anyone that just doesn't post very often as @squatter and @SaltySpitoon pointed out. I'm sure it would be easier for the moderators to whitelist the few people affected by seeing they obviously are not shitposters than trying to ban the thousands that are.

I can say the idea is brilliant and I think it will become effective. My only comment is this will become unfair if the number of merit sources is not enough. So if this will be implemented in the future I think Theymos should make sure that the number of merit sources is enough.

We should find them and have a review of their posts and merit them if they have merit worthy posts. not everybody here has a few merit source friends to notice their contribution.

This


This


And This



Possibly I've been wrong, but most merits are distributed among coteries and groups. The posts that tend to belittle others and point fingers are the ones that have been receiving merits as well. Posts like ICO ANN and Bounties ANN by Bounty managers are receiving merits( WHY ???).

I've rarely tried to please people and have also tried to increase the quality of my posts in the past months, but I've rarely received merits from unknown sources, just people that know or those I have merited (dunno if it was a gesture or anything but I never asked them for it).  

A lot of people have been harping on the Sig campaigns thing. Here are a couple of things:

Q1. Why do companies have Sign Campaigns?

A. To
    (a.) To grab eyeballs so that people know about them and invest or use those services.
    (b.) To pay posters who make good posts on BCT.

I think it's the (a.). (Correct me if I'm wrong or have a wrong notion anywhere in this post.)

Q2. Do people make decisions to invest in ICO or use a service based on the Sign Holders?
A. I've seen people wear the Signature of a Mixer, I have looked into the service and it looks AWESOME. I wouldn't care if a racist half-wit is wearing that signature and spamming endlessly (actually someone racist is wearing it), I have and will use the service.

I've also seen many good posters wear the sign of a Mining company and I have looked into it again, will I invest, HELL NO!

Q3. What's the use of merits and such regulations then?
A. I hate to say it, but the winners are ICO Bounties that need to pay less (Sorry Satoshi, but Centralized Institutions are winning), because people won't rank up. I think the only useful system is the TRUST, that too when u are trading and not proselytizing your political opinions. As for rest, all Ranks and Merits should be abolished and each Bounty Manager shud be made to count posts and assess the quality and pay for them. ICOs are happy to have 100 Jr. Members Shit-Post and say Good Project while grabbing attention to their projects, because that also is a form of marketing. Why do the PAUL BROTHERS and their gangs have Millions of views when all they make is SHIT, because even cringe is appealing and makes for good marketing.

Q4. What's my proposed solution?
A. Read the BOLD part up.
EDIT : Initiatives such as SMAS list by Lauda is a good reference point and I applaud them, although I'm on the list (Rightly so!) and believe that it has little utility in terms of marketing. (Again grabbing eye-balls is more important !)


My 2cents : All of us can agree that Sign campaigns pay well, but do they pay to make good posts or to grab eyeballs. If it was to make good posts, add that in Article Bounties. I hope someone points out valid loopholes and assumptions that I made.

Thanks.


P.S. Can some marketing veteran point it out that my logic has fallacies, but remember that most investors in ICOs are extremely clueless and not a reformed crowd that they would care for quality of adverts or advertisers. We also have instances in the past to prove it. MIOTA raised a small seed on forum and was being called a SCAM all the time. The marketing was shit, but most of us can agree that the project is doing good today.

@McWorse

I gave you a merit for making what I thought was a rational reasoned post. I think your problem could be that you spend too much time on the Alt Boards, and some of us think that the Alt Boards attract the spam posters who are the cancer affecting the forum. There are a lot of great boards here, and a whole new life outside the Alt-World.

yes you are right. it is very hard to get merit in the post.
It takes lots of time for myself to get 10 merits.
I know how much i have to work to get the merit.
but this thing give me lots of knowledge about crypto.
Thanks to the forum. I am very happy where i am right now.

Thank you very much Jet Cash!
The thing is, that I place my main focus on Alts. Alts are the reason, why I am here. I am interested in new and (hopefully) good projects and this is the best platform to get informations. Nowhere else in the www does so many knowledge come together as here. So when you look into the altcoin sections, you have to make some differences in your view, because the cancer is not the Alts. The problem is the lack of moderation. But ask me, how you can moderate something like this... I have no answer. Except you have a full army of mods. People are spamming with multiple accounts, destroying many serious threads. They think, if they spread FUD, they can manipulate the prices. They think, they can do what they want. I don't know, how we can call this kind of users to order. Every idea I have may hit the wrong people:

- implement a strong post limit for newbies and junior members (one, maybe two posts per day), no post during the first 120 hours after registration, exept in a section for important questions.
- create sections where it is impossible to post for newbies & junior members, but where they can read. Once they are a member, they can write one post per day in this sections. After some merit they can post more.

The hurdles have to be high for new members, but they should always have the possibility to make themself heard. But the admittance to the main sections should be restricted. Until they have proven that they deserve access. Once they have access ... maybe they are proud. They consider their accounts valuable, protect their status and don't throw it away so quickly.
?

Now, one could object: What about the sig-campaigns with 10 to 20 requested posts? Isn't it mean, that newer members can't take part? I think no. The system of the sig-campaigns will adapt. Has to adapt. This is first and foremost a platform on which you can exchange information. And somewhere after that, it's about making money. Right now, it's the other way around. And that rotten tooth needs pulling.

Regards!
McW

How could you even bother talking about receiving merits? you are a shill for crapcoins, you think that XRP is better than Bitcoin and it should replace it in market. if you are blind to the truth, how could you contribute something worth a merit?

It is the wrong place to discuss this. Specially, when facts hitting religion. Because from a technical point of view: XRP is better than BTC. Anyone who denies this isn't worth discussing with. I never said, that XRP should replace BTC. I never said, that I like the system behind XRP. I never said, that I like the global financial system. Quite the opposite! But I can differentiate. Sadly, most of us here can't. You seem like a good example for that...

In my opinion this will harden the hearts of under not merited.

This will knock out everyone who aren't merited yet. Take note op that it will be more complicated. More postings will come in every sides steps of this forum then more earn shitpostings posted garbages maybe including me, hope not so.

I would suggest you stick to your local board as that looks like it was written in the unintelligible language of Genglish (Google translated English). Your posting history shows you are indeed the very type of shitposter that the merit system is trying keep out.

Your definition of spammer is someone who has never been merited.  :o

I can only congratulation McWorse (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=967026) for receiving 1 merit in last 6 weeks (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3122415.msg32317179#msg32317179)!
Congratulation! You are no longer a spammer!
I hope that one day I will receive 1 merit because I don't want to be spammer any more!  :D

Do we have statistics about:
How many accounts are unmerited?
How many accounts have never merited any one?
How many accounts merited friends?
Bought merits?
Exchanged merits?
Sent merit to alt accounts?
Sent merit because someone said something against person they don't like?

How many merits were sent because 2 persons have the same point of view of certain things? Do you have an example where someone has sent merits even if they disagreed? If you don't agree with someone you won't send him merit, that is how merit works in 99.99999% situations.

I sent you merit because you made constructive post, but I don't agree with anything written in it.


Hurray! I am not spammer any more! THANK YOU JET CASH! :D

I was the one who turned McWorse into McBetter. :)

I probably shouldn't have done it, but I gave you a merit as well. Now you are a whammer and not a spammer.

It must be the euphoria that results from deciding to buy a Samsung 860 SSD.

That wasn't quite what I meant, I said they were easy to spot because most spammers have not received any merit. That's not the same as everyone who has no merit is a spammer.
So if my suggestion was implemented^* it would not be saying that anyone whose signature is hidden is a spammer, just that they didn't do enough to earn the privilege.

I did say this earlier but it is worth repeating and expanding on a little. This forum is pretty unique in allowing members to benefit from being given some advertising space under their posts. That's a privilege, not a right and it's given in return for providing content to the forum. I think it is pretty reasonable theymos brought in the merit system as a way of trying to halt the influx of spammers that have taken advantage of this generosity on his part. Of course, you can argue it is not a perfect system, it can be gamed (for a while), some deserving people miss out.... etc. But can you devise a better way? Or even if you think you can, then remember that theymos is the boss here and we are his guests, so just accept this is the way he is doing it.

theymos has already said that if the merit system fails to stop the shitposting then the next step he will take is to remove signatures altogether. I think that is punishing everyone for the actions of some and I think my suggestion reduces the collateral damage. I can't devise a system to completely eliminate it but if anyone can I'll listen to it.


The first two will be answerable with a bit more work. People like LoyceV have started on that sort of data. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3078328

The next 5 questions pertain to abuse of which there has been much. But that is a big part of why I came up with this idea. Having an ongoing requirement to keep signatures on display would force them to use up all their sMerit and at some point in the future, they'll be f***ed.

The last question follows into this:


This is one of the imperfections, people will use it as a 'like' button. But is anyone really alone in their opinion rather than opinion being split and there being people on both sides with merit to give?

I do hope as time goes by that the supply of merit is increased substantially and all constructive posts receive merit. Until then we have a tight budget and many will go unrewarded but I don't think it will always be that way.


* It won't be, so no need to worry. The only staff member to reply is SaltySpitoon and he is against the idea.

Edit:

I've noticed Foxpup gave me 6 merits for the OP of this post and also gave merit to 4 replies including this from SaltySpitoon https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3122415.msg32297210#msg32297210 and this from squatter https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3122415.msg32334973#msg32334973 both of disagreed with me. So I don't know Foxpup's view but he seems OK with giving merit to both sides of a debate.

It's quite difficult to decide how to award merit. I've given out getting on for 200 smerits, and that is mainly in ones with a few twos. Obviously I don't have time to check on a member's posting history or attitude to the forum. I have to go by my subjective opinion of the posts that I read, and there isn't any forum guidance on the policy of awarding merit. Apart from the obvious restrictions on sales and reciprocal awards of course.

I really have to rely on my use of the ignore option to avoid awarding merit to a member that I think is abusing the system, and I know that some people are on ignore to avoid personal inconvenience, rather than because of a breach of the forum rules.

There were some hints given by the admin like one should not give merits to a post just because he agrees to it. This is a valid point but I know most of the new members act based on emotions and do not use logic while awarding merits. However, this should not be big issue in my opinion for the form. What matters the most is that merit sources should be most careful while awarding merits. I hope admin has given them some directions regarding how to award merits. If they are giving merits to responsible members here, the cycle will continue.

I've seen a lot of high ranking members that are still shitposters and seeing their posts seems like they didn't really know anything useful to contribute to the forum. It's a shame for them so this idea would be good for all of us here. We had enough of low ranking members who are constantly creating similar threads over and over again asking questions that can be easily answered if they put even a little effort on researching about it.

There have been a few threads about awards, but they aren't really helpful. There are some obvious things that shouldn't be done - selling merits, exchanges between friends, and using merits as rewards for various actions such as ICO promotions. Really good technical help posts should receive awards. For example, if someone posts a detailed guide which helps a member to recover lost coins, then I think he should be rewarded. Unfortunately, this often doesn't happen, mainly because the advisor is a Legendary, and the feeling is that he doesn't need merit. I think that ranking should be a secondary consideration, the main factor is the quality of the post.

Another difficult area is the social aspect of Bitcoin Talk. It's primary function is as a help, advice and discussion forum about Bitcoin, and recently about other crypto-currencies. However, there is a lighter social side, and keeping this active is of benefit to the forum and its members. Should merit be awarded to good entertaining posts on the social boards?

I really think that what deserves merit should be left to the individual. I usually favour posts that I learned from, made me think about something differently, answered something better than I could, or even just made me laugh.

But I always come back to this post (my highlighting):


We're all being stingy with merit because there isn't enough yet. Everything that makes a contribution should get merit.

I'm sorry Mr TheQuin, but I couldn't see your post. :)

- as if I would dare to put you on my ignore list.


This is where I come unstuck. I think a post like that has no business in a discussion thread, but it should be in an article hosted somewhere ( Steemit or YouTube spring to mind), and a link plus brief comment posted in the thread. The chances are that If the poster does that too often, I would put him on ignore, rather than give him a bunch of merits.

I don't really post anywhere other here so that wouldn't be too good for me. I think it's OK to write a good long OP once in a while..... whether I bother to read too many of them is another issue.

That wasn't really the point of quoting that post. Is was the 'everything that makes a contribution should get at least 1' part that matters.

We'd be swamped with merits, and surely that would defeat the whole purpose. For some reason, I seem to be the only person with merits to award, and I suspect that that is because I only give them out in ones and twos.

I noticed that just after I had given merit to four posters in the Steemit thread, somebody started another Steemit thread.

Four posters could have created bedlam if I had awarded merit in the new thread. :)

I'm very familiar with that kind of person.
But would not dare to refer him/her.

However those kind of thread give me knowvalance, I think it is better to put it that way rather than getting spammed with various thread that wasn't helpful at all.

If that long thread is helping the community with some knowledge that they could use somehow I deem it is meritorious in itself despite who created the thread.

Unfair. A lot of people like to take vacations away from the forum to come back refreshed. If you want to take the entire summer out of the computer which I recommend everyone to do if possible, and forget about things and get some sun... you would come back with your account penalized for doing so. Doesn't sound like a fair deal to me.

Then you have people which are generally very inactive, but when they post they post very high quality stuff, like gmaxwell and others. It wouldn't also be fair for them to get their account eventually go down in merit points/ranking because of that. Even if older posts sometimes get merit points, on a long enough timeline, the tendency would be to lose points since older posts get buried eventually, penalizing inactive users, which again, doesn't make sense. One should be free to post or not without losing the efforts you did in the past.

I'm not sure if you fully understood. It would just mean that the signature was hidden until the next time they did get a merit. Nobody gets de-ranked or loses anything. I also already suggested when a few other people made a similar point that it would be a lot easier for the moderators to whitelist the few accounts that would effect rather than try to ban the many thousands of sig spammers.

hiding signatures after no-merit-increase is a bright improvement indeed. really highlights the antispam system since merits really working only one way. and antispam system should be dynamic. also vacation mode could be introduced with automatic signature whitelist request to moderator?

That merit thing is becoming a communistic idea. For Newbies like me, merit will be mandatory for progressing, and I understand this. But harassing everyone to earn merit constantly is a bit too much, really. Now it aims to impose more and more restrictions. This forum should be a place of freedom, but it is getting restricted more and more, sadly.

I wouldn't call it restrictive. You don't need merit to use the forum (with the exception of the Ivory Tower sub-forum).

If you want to exploit the forum, and that is what the sig spammers are doing, then I think it is fair to make you prove that your posting habits are trustworthy. The merit system was created for this purpose. It is obvious from the abundance of merit threads that many new members, and some of the older ones, are not worthy of that trust.

many low quality post is being merited while there are contructive post and informative is not being noticed. what if you didnt get any merit in a month, youre not a spammer and giving your best to write quality post but in the end not receiving any merit to others? i think its a unjust idea to restrict them to wear or to participate signature campaigns just because they are not noticed by others.

Am new to this forum and read why merit system was introduced,basically its cuz of decrease spamming
And to force members to post quality posts in order to get higher rank.
But whole point was people still do shit post and account farming only reason was BOUNTY'S.
It can be stop if bounty manager's have a strict rule for signature campaign
Like minimum ___  word of post only get counted or something like if your post get a merit
Then you get ___ number of stake extra etc...

It is ineffective.
Almost all of them afaik have minimum words and it didn't reduce the spam. You can make min 500 words limit, they will write redundant content/ideas until they hit that limit.
Giving them a way to increase their reward by owning merit is simply inciting them to trade merit between them/their (alt)accounts.

Minimum word count is a bad move. Brevity, as long as it makes the point, should be rewarded instead.

I wonder if the bounty managers realise that a long formatted post takes their sig off the page, and thus it isn't dispayed. It is then skipped over when the reader moves down the thread.

I agree Joel_Jantsen; Earning merit is not guaranteed parameter of standard quality post and non earning of even one merit point by the poster does not mean that he is just a shitposter.  
People are very clever; no one can stop them in barter trade; i.e. sending merit to the person and in exchange getting merit from the receiver.  Also selling and buying is not so  difficult as we have been getting news from different members about the issue.  
Though it is also true that members are stuck at 10 100 250 500 etc etc also they got these merit points just because of their long back presence at this platform.

Why asking, what the forum has to do?
We should better aks, what the offerer of the sig-campaigns should do.

Sometimes I'm browsing the bounty threads. And most sig-campaigns have the requirement to write at least 20 (sometimes 30) quality posts per week. That means  around 3 (to 4) quality posts per day. I avoid such campaigns, because to write 3 to 4 really good posts I need up to two hours. 14 hours a week for mostly some pennies. But many users don't care. They are taking part and: spam.

Instead of punishing users now, those responsibles for the sig-campaigns should be punished. Maybe their ANNs deleted or other hurtful things. They are responsible for the abuse of this platform, so they are in dept to deliver and not this platform.

?

Maybe they should be forced to reduce the reqirements. 5 post max per week. And if a member is blatant spamming, they should kick this member immediately. If not, the ANNs will be deleted.

I too had this thought and have encountered it in other threads. The fact that some Sign campaigns have uneven expectations and want to enforce them, has been the undoing of this forum too. Too many posts, simply to reach the post count has a detrimental effect.

Quantity compromises Quality.

Block access to certain levels of the site until certain post counts have been reached?  You don't know what you are missing then ;)

it will take some time to understand that the freedom you mentioning is abused by majority. and the merit system is a try to fix the outcome of this freedom lol

It will also take a little time to understand that being given the privilege of being allocated some advertising space underneath your posts is an extremely generous action by the site owners. Did you think about how much Twitter and Facebook earn from placing adverts next to what you write?

Asking people to do something as trivial as posting something that gets given a merit every couple of months to earn that privilege is not harassing or imposing restrictions on anyone. WTF is this talk of freedom? You are free to use the forum without a signature.

it's not the farmers will get affected by this but the ones who got a single account. farmers got a lot of accounts, experience, and friends they can give/ask merits from another account. the one will be affected by this are the solo poster, single who had no friend on bitcointalk, the ones whos inactive and post very less will be affected also. to be honest I hate this idea. :(

i guess one post could get you a lot of merit that would be enough for months. but with current amount of merit sources it feels completely impossible to get any merit if you not 5star well-known user. hope this will change soon, a lot of good material is being ignored

This will play to the advantage of the spammers. All they have to do is pass merits around with each other, while the real accounts have no one to pass merits to them unless some other real account decides to.

I think I'm going to need to add a FAQ section to the OP.

That still does not make it a good suggestion in my opinion.

I believe the quicker way is to not allow newbies and Jr. members to create new threads, except in beginners and help, then clean up the rest of the forum from spambait topics and spam mega threads.

OP, your idea isn't horrible, but I do think we're way too early in the game to depend on lack of merits being responsible for someone getting censored or anything like that. You know I'd be all in favor for a goal like you mentioned, but I think this proposal has too many potential pitfalls to work--yet.  Maybe in a year or so if we still have jr members with 600 activity and 23 merit...those folks might deserve to be stealth banned or some such thing. 

Remember, it is in fact pretty hard to get merit points for the vast majority here.  It's really going to take some time for them to rank up--especially if their English sucks and they don't avail themselves of the local boards.

I'd support bringing back Newbie Jail and hiring a load more moderators as well. But that doesn't address the same problem that I was trying to. It's the thousands of higher ranked accounts making pointless repetitive posts that are above the threshold to get deleted by the mods but are only made for signature payment.

---

You might be right about it being too early and there not being enough Merit flowing through the system yet. Remember this isn't about censoring or punishing anyone. I just want to turn having a signature into something that has to be continually earned rather than a default right. That's effectively what Merit has done for new accounts but what about the many thousands of shitposters that are already here?

Hello TheQuin,

By doing it you want to hide signatures from Jr.Members also? It's harder for them to get at least 1 merit point, then why would be so cruel for them? Using your suggestion Jr.Members will never get any higher rank, since I have noticed, that people rarely grant merit for Junior, and rather give merit to Hero or higher rank (even just for a huge post, but with few useful words).

I would suggest to make "Anti-Merit" button.

For example if you see some high ranking member is posting some crap, then few (for example 5 members) can start a vote to remove 1 Merit from him.

If they win this vote - crap poster got merit reduction.
If they lose, they (for example) lose their 1 merit point.

This will protect merit owners from being zerged members, willing to cut their merit points.

Of course I understand that my suggested Anti-Merit button should be discuses so that there will be no system abusers in future.

I'd suggest that is ridiculous. People give Merit to the post not the signature underneath it.



This has been suggested countless times since the introduction of merit and I think it would simply be used as an "I disagree" button or for personal vendettas. I just can't see it working.

No no, just stop guys, you are trying to make it too complicated. This is a forum after all, we can't keep implementing new systems all the time to stop shitposters, every forum has them, sure there is an incentive to post crap in this one but still. The merit system as is, it's perfect, eventually people that cheat will run out of merits and usually get busted and the high rank spammers usually get busted as well, they either get banned or red tagged by someone like vod or other people that usually tags shit posters. It just needs time, in a year from now, I can assure you there will be significantly less spammers.

Btw I think it will be more, not less spammers. Previously, acc traders make few accounts and pump to highest rank. Now I see they are making tons of newbie and jr.members accounts and selling then. I even saw someone selling newbie accounts for 5$. Ridiculous.

My "voting" method will cut all merits from high rank accounts sellers, that now sell merit...


Ok, there is true in your words, but who will give merit for a post from newbie?
In my experiance, more often merit receive users with beautiful signature and avatars, than a person with only nickname and number of activity and merit number..

I will and have done so. Usually, they will have learned to trim quotes so people don't have to scroll through the whole of the post they just read again. Then after mastering the basics of using a forum they have posted something that I found interesting, didn't already know, answered a question better than I could or just simply made me laugh.

Really signatures and avatars don't make any difference other than sometimes I feel a bit guilty if someone is promoting a scammy ICO, but it doesn't stop me.

I haven't bothered to read this thread, because there are so many inconsiderate posters that keep on bulking their posts with repetitive quotes. If you want people to read your point, don't wrap it in a load of old vegetation.

I did spot the quoted comment, and I have given merit to a wide range of new, and not so new, members, and that includes some who I awarded for their first post in the forum. I won't give merit if I don't read your post though, and I probably won't see it if I have to wade through a mass of repeated text.

Honestly, I think it is a good practice.
But I think signature campaigns should not be restricted for non-merit heroes-legends members, their stacks should be reduced in a half, I think it will be fair and enough to stimulate make quality posts. And will give more income for merit members. Fortunately , there are managers who already implemented such practice.

That is only true if the awarder is a sig spammer, an alt, or a bounty manager.

Also, Jet Cash has awarded merit to brand new members for their first posts. I suspect he is not unique in this.

Well look who become selfish and how people of the forum becoming self centered now a days, if I can't earn one merit in a month then it means I cant join signature bounty even I reach Jr. Member rank? I think some cells on your brain has died due to dehydration and need to be watered, when your request become legal and adopted it means only higher accounts will only survive our forum?, and only you will earn and take all the credit together with your family, friends and neighbor? Then what's next? Limit all income of bounty hunter due to count of merit? Award base on merit? ha, go and study law subject for you to be enlighten again.

I don't know about all bounties, but for signature campaigns that actually require posts written on bitcointalk, I fully support basing someone's acceptance on merits.  It makes sense to me that if you can't earn merits for your posts by writing coherent sentences, then you shouldn't be paid to do it.   The users who haven't earned any merit so far are the ones who write garbage, plain and simple.  It doesn't matter what country you're from, what your skin color is, or how poor you are--if you can write reasonably well, you'll earn merits.  The people who are in campaigns like Chipmixer and a small handful of others that have been around a long time aren't shitposters.  That's tooting my own horn a bit, but it's true.

Since campaigns are so competitive, I don't see why requiring a minimum amount of merit points is unreasonable.  You might feel "discriminated against" but that's just how the job market works.  All you have on bitcointalk is your words as your qualification for campaigns (and reputation), and the merit system is designed to reward those who can arrange words in the best manner possible. 

To the extent that it serves that function, I think campaigns--and especially these altcoin bounty-campaigns that tend to have managers of questionable judgement--should only be able to accept members who've proven they can earn merits.  It would be very nice if the admins would require campaigns to increase their standards.

Yet, all you do is negative,your day begins from desecration of newbie and who knows badly eng  ! Only  "shitpost", "shitpost", "shitpost" every day...Instead of their efforts to help   of the people and supporting ,I see from you only  "shitpost" , looked your 10 pages and what did I see? "shitpost" and negative comments... Eat chocolate perhaps it will help you or spend more time with your girl ...Get your head out of the clouds...! Nobody from newbie can get Legendary now you have nothing to worry about it , but you still put pressure on the new people and mock!You hypocritically think that this is your home, but it is not! You just  register before we!  I hope you  understand me and you will be a little kind!

About the topic "Amend the forum to hide signatures of any account that hasn't earned at least 1 Merit in the last 2 months."  Counteroffer Amend the forum to hide signatures of Legendary and Hero Member account that hasn't earned at least 100 merit in the last 2 months! This is comparable to your statuses! Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
ps.I apologize for Bad eng, I tried as best !

The Pharmacist has gained over 100 merits, and that is in addition to all the work he does in trying to improve the quality of the forum.

What an irony, you want an equality between old members with new members (bold 1) and talking like the old member's time that have been spent on here is nothing even though some of them only spamming, yet you counter offer this good proposal with a system which is easier for low ranked member and harder for higher ranked member. Thats the problem with people like you, only thinks about a system or condition that is easier and benefitted your self and your kind.

Thank you, I'm in bed with a cold but this made me laugh  :D

I totally agree that Bounty Campaigns should incorporate Merit (as I suggested in 'RANK & MERIT-BASED Signature Campaigns (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3142048.msg32793031#msg32793031)'), but a problem is that it can't be too restrictive as Bounty Campaigns aim to get as many participants as possible (that post a lot) as this means more visibility. If Merit would be a requirement, most Campaigns wouldn't have enough participants.


Enforcing this through mods and admins would require a lot of overhead and I think we need a more 'natural' way that it doesn't need to be enforced but that everyone benefits from the way things are handled.

Even when it is not a bad idea, I don't agree with you on the point of merits. Recently I have seen too many farmers giving merits to their accounts, even when the publication with merit was a total crap. In order to make your suggestion even more accurate, I would change the part about merit and encourage signatures managers to check out the merit background of their users, as well as their last 20 publications. This is really easy to detect here on the forum merit-farmers if you take a look of their profiles and check out their merit, for they are usually shameless and give merits from an account to another almost every day.
Nevertheless, I find your suggestion truly useful to the forum, and my little modification is focused on the only part I consider to be improvable.

Checking the post history of a single account is much easier than cross-referencing multiple accounts in order to spot Merit-related issues, but I agree, I would be the better solution. Many of those who do this are also already tagged for Merit cheating.

Your quoting failed, and you didn't even bother to correct it.
And also
Your posts will be also removed if that happens. You know what I mean right?

These aren't spam campaigns.  And once again we have a user who's snarling, red-faced, about how he's been terribly mistreated by the merit system--and he can't even format his post properly, and can't write in English properly.  You're never going to get anywhere with this.

You people need to stop blaming the system for your troubles and start looking at where your problem is, and it's you.  No one but you.  You spew out all of this jumbled nonsense, so much so that Bitcoin Discussion and Economics are nothing but spam sections, where there's no actual discussion of bitcoin going on.  Those sections are FULL of garbage like this:


And let me tell you, the above is nothing but a shitpost, which I've reported.  It was written by someone who heard you could make big bucks on bitcointalk by just having a thimbleful of English knowledge.  No experience necessary, and you don't even have to know anything about bitcoin!  

It's backfiring on you guys, though.  Hopefully the merit system will keep you at Jr. Member status for life.  May you never rank up.

Let me help you with that

'You know what? I get your point about removing shitposts from the forum.'

That's better, it is in English now.


That is indeed the idea.


I would not promote scammy ICOs and I'm trying to get them to leave the forum and spam their shit somewhere else. Then this forum can go back to being a place for Bitcoin enthusiasts to discuss issues without all the shitposts in broken English like yours. I'm no kid and you are the one in need of an education. Your English is so poor it is barely understandable and you think you are eligible for a writing job.

The purpose of the bounty is to promote the product at any means regardless it is a shit post or not.  And it cannot really prevent the shitposters who are already in the higher ranks. If they have 5 account they can just give 1 merits to their alts and they're in again on the campaign.
It will just give more advantages to higher ranks shitposters.

FWIW just reading this thread;  I have only received merit just once since the new implementation;  and gone from Hero to Legendary (apparently)...  Just noticed a few minutes ago when I saw the huge addition to the user stats.

I don't consider myself a shitposter (especially given the sig campaign i am a part of that people seem to despise);  I am pretty much straight to the point, and offer help and assistance when I can, if I can.   I have uploaded many miner scripts for free open public use.

If the original thoughts on requiring merit really happens;  I fear it would impact my abilities here in a negative way possibly....  I don't post all over this board... pretty much just post in a few subforums.

Look at my merit.   Hasn't moved much in the last how long?  Yet I am active, and contributing in many ways....

You are a good example of where the Merit hasn't been working well yet. Mining and particularly altcoin mining don't seem to be followed by enough sources. When I first came to the forum, mining was my only reason to be here, so it is something that I hope is addressed.

Are messages like that even written by hand? It looks like it was generated by a Markov chain.


Congratulations on reaching Legendary :), I'd give you more merit if I could.

You are a good example of which contradicts itself.. You created a topic to complicate life...and He speaks " the Merit hasn't been working well yet" What's wrong with you guys? And so many people supported you ..People with good status, like to complicate life! Because in most cases, they support each other and on Newbie I'm pretty sure they don't care!

I'm not contradicting myself. I've listened to what people have said and that I have agreed with some of their points. That's why I gave JaredKaragen a Merit, he brought something to my attention that I hadn't realised was a problem. A quick look at his posts tells me there is something amiss in the mining sections if he isn't getting Merit. That needs to be addressed.

Yep; tis' why I voiced it.

Another way to look at it:

We have the iTrader system.... yet, look at how many people buy and sell from 0 feedback people; and still leave no feedback.    It's an inherent nature of people to be lazy;  in fact, I remember back in the old vbulletin from ~07' when people got +REP...  it was much easier then to just tick a box;  not fill out a form as it is with merit.

That's true about human nature but this system relies on a smaller number of people who care about the forum and put the effort in to make this work. Have a look at the Merit stats pages and the top Merit senders. What is needed is for people who are active on the mining boards to step up and make an application to become a Merit source and point out the problem to theymos. Once that happens then it filters down, as the people who get Merit start to believe in the system as well. You'd be an ideal candidate imho.

Sure... and how did you solve the problem? putting merit??? Other people will not be more grateful for this and this once again proves that the old user support only the old,even if the system does not work ! Legends  do not get merits, but here you want to make life difficult for newbie, it's his weird  logic.

No, by making the suggestion that more Merit sources should be recruited in the mining sections.



I gave a merit because I found out something useful from his post. That has nothing to do with rank. I've given Merit to Newbies and all other ranks as well. I've never given them to people who obviously didn't even read my previous replies, like you. You think it is weird logic because you didn't take time to understand.

 

Complicating rules for newbie,complicate then for each rank separately! I spent a lot of time here and understand what you want to prove, but you do not understand me! People can have "red" days or not have a merite for thanks or they are too lazy...

If you understood me you wouldn't have made your previous post as I had already answered your question.



You are right. I don't understand that, as it has no meaning.

The first jr.member in many signatures do not participate!
Secondly, Awards for each rank are different!  So I say that "complicate then for each rank separately" !
Thirdly  If There are too many narratives in reports,it does not mean Super constructive answer, but only that a person likes to compose water!
And fourth if you write a highly constructive text,this does not 100% guarantee  that someone appreciates you and because of that many write "shitpost" because many people see no difference!!! More appreciating each other and will be less "shitpost" !

I know myself that my english very bad and I'm working on it... for me it's not easy, I am ashamed for that but I can't silent! sry)...

Everyone has their own criteria for awarding Merit. I prefer posts that mean I learn something or think about something differently after reading them. Sometimes I Merit them just because they made me laugh. I never think about who it is. It isn't surprising that the people that post in the areas I'm interested in tend to be the same group all the time. That doesn't make them my friends other than we have shared interests and talk about them on here. That is, after all, is what a forum is for.

That is off-topic though as it has nothing to with this thread.

I'd also recommend you read TMAN'S guide to getting merit. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3182178)

I really haven't a clue what most of what you write is supposed to mean.

I think that this is all too soon.

Meritt system was introduced 6 weeks ago and many people just don't get any merits as for today.
 
Bitcointalk stuff thinks to implement "signatures control" based on this Merit system.

I see that forum stuff and high-rank members are happy with Merit system and they are posting about successful spam reducing around the forum. This is obvious that they are happy with Merits because they already achieved highest ranks and the merit system will restrain others from ranking up so it will stop unwanted competition.

From another site, there are many posts on the forum from members who are not happy with the new merit system. These members are mostly affected by the new system: few days before rank up (like me), don't have good skills in English language, not posting frequently, no writing skills, not knowledgeable enough. They are not spammers or shitposters. They are normal forum users, normal people and this is about 75% of members.

We need to fight with spam and rules abuse but we have to do it wisely and not to harm innocent people.

That's not true. More than two full months ago you received red trust for merit trading from a Global Moderator. Merit was introduced almost 10 weeks ago.
 
Stuff or staff? If I'd manage a signature campaign, I would require participants to have earned merit. It would save me time checking bad posts.

Have you considered the possibility that people just really dislike spam? I love getting rid of spammers, and none of the spammers will ever be accepted into the signature campaign I'm in. That means they are no competition. Competition comes from users with useful posts, and merit encourages users to post better quality.

Less than 1% of of all forum users has received merit. Not all accounts are active, but it affects much more than 75%. And that's a good thing.
From what I've seen quickly, your English isn't the problem. Small things like stuff-staff and site-side don't make you a shitposter. But if someone has no writing skills and isn't knowledgeable, he shouldn't post thousands of posts just to rank up. And that's what the merit system takes care of.

So we got trouble here.
I.e. I'm prefer alt-part coz there many new or interesting ideas.
Also there isnt not a lot that can be said in main part of forum. No, serious, copy-paste answers or write "RTFM" on  every second topic?

Well, its does not matter. The main point is... why use so tyrannicalstrange method get rid off bad guys?

Isnt we in 21st century, with HiTech, scripts, many types of analytics systems and so on?
Mean just do forum plugin to assist moderators to do better and easier their work.
i.e. HiLigth "Copy-Paste" posts or possible mults based on several parameters. For mults can be advanced option as statistical or/and stylistic analysis.(and yet for this still not needed  an AI  :))

PS:
Merit system need only one restriction upgrade - limit to 1 or 2 sMerit given.
Then you can see for sure who boost low rank account (mean chain posr merited by 2 each)

I would like to share more about this post:

I've only known this forum when I accidentally went to an event while looking for investments about new technologies. The event host raised a question, how did they know about cryptocurrecies, one guy answered this forum. The host bluntly said; do not click anything below every posts you see on that forum or you will be a victim of scam ICOs, scammers came that forum.

If this merit system is all about signature bounties, would you trust an ICO based on someones post, or his rank?

We all know that this merit system is to prevent people from ranking ups based on their activity on this forum, but will it prevent the scam ICO?

Before every high ranking members single out the shit posters, they should have cleaned up the mess on altcoin announcement thread section where you will see low ranking members posting- Great project!, The best platform ever!, I like your idea/ project!, This will surely moon!, posters like this should be removed for they only bumping and piling up a good post.

Not completely. Mother Nature has a philosophy of creating millions of seeds, and spraying them everywhere she can in the hope that one or two germinate. Spammers have the same philosophy. A while ago, I think one sale per million email spam messages was considered good. That is the sort of mentality we are up against.

One of the things that is often missed about advertising is that value of name recognition. I remember reading a study on why people pay 10x the price for branded painkillers for a headache rather than buying the generic one that is chemically identical. You can tell people not to trust or click on the signature adverts but if you asked most people on this forum to name one mixing service I can a have a good guess which one it would be and that's the one they will most likely end up using. That doesn't really mean anybody trusts it based on whose signature it is in, it's just the familiarity with the name. Advertisers then want to choose the people whose signature get the most exposure.


theymos banned ICOs from bidding on the forum banner space auctions for this reason but I don't think he wants to get in the business of censoring what we can advertise in our signature spaces.


If more people used the 'Report to moderator' link in the bottom corner of the posts then more of them would get banned. Not that I'm any help there as I have that on my ignore board list.

I generally don't post in the meta section due to the fact that since the merit system come in, it seems to be full of spam post like "Merit is to hard to get", "Why the merit system is bad?" and I wouldn't be surprised to see one say "The merit system took my baby"

Now I do signature campaigns from time to time (Usually short ones as life is busy and I enjoy being outdoors) and use this forum to improve my knowledge of cryptocurrency. I will read up on and try to improve my knowledge on mining, current events and the latest information on my investments. Most of the signature campaigns I do require me to post in the Altcoin section. That's fine with me as I have a interest in altcoins. I do not spam the section to get my post up, I take my time and try and find a post that I have knowledge in or have a strong option on.

Now I haven't gotten any merit and I'm fine with that. I'm happy to stay at this level. But I don't think that just because I haven't got a single merit my account should be banned.

I know not all my post are awesome but I'm happy for you to go through my post, pretty sure it wouldn't be worth banning. (some post will have bounty reports that are required to be posted)

I also agree with this, but I think this will be make new upcoming members will just use their account only for social media campaign or article campaign, because so hard earn merit for newbie account, I just see merits circulated at high rank and newbie rank (second account of user with high rank only) Because I seen they have good post and I'm not believe if they are beginner.
I have seen many beginner tried to do the best, but they not get any merit, so they will not participate at this forum anymore.
I think will be better if there is be more merit source to fix this problem, or make a board for merit.

Well I'm a person who has not earned a merit for nearly a year and 6 months, but I agree with you ... why not limit posts instead of signing signatures if applicable as you say, The Junk articles will be more

A lack of merit does not hamper their ability to participate in the forum whatsoever - it only hampers their ability to be paid for their signature space. If they are leaving for the sole reason that they are not receiving merit, then their only reason for being here was to farm bounties. The merit system is preventing that, and therefore doing what it was designed to do.

The Merit system was actually introduced on the 24th of January of the present year, so really that is the baseline to measure how much merit has been gained by a forum user (either from initial airdrop or gained since kick-off).

Therefore, really you should be counting the two months and a half and not a year and a half (although arguably the period of time previous to the merit kick-off contributed to the initial merit airdrop through rank achievement).

Fun fact: theymos was the first to award a user with merit (1 sMerit awarded to AdolfinWolf in this post) : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818066.msg28853325#msg28853325

Not sure that hiding signature is good idea. Moreover not all bounty managers check signature campaign weekly.
For example: campaign is 10 weeks, check after 10 weeks.
During 1 week - signature is removed. And during week 10 received 1 merit and signature is back..
So, participant will be payed for almost nothing.. No really fair.
From other side it will motivate Legendary members to earn merits as well.

But, I would be against this method.

The campaigns use bots that monitor if the participants wear the signature at all times. If they don't do then the spammers cheat and enrol in many campaigns at the same time.

Really? Never heard of it..
But definitely not every manager using that. Just experienced bounty managers.
There are a lot of companies that try to manage bounties by themselves, so still my example could become reality.

But like I told before, I see some positive things in that as well  ;)

Even the ones that manage campaigns themselves and don't use automation are going to check up on the participants to make sure they are not cheating. To be honest, your example is a bit far-fetched.

Would it really matter if you couldn't have a signature? The whole point is to make the signature a privialage to be earned, not a right.
 

Why would he remove his signature if he deserves it? It looks like you misunderstood him. We don't want to stop you from earning a little amount money from signature campaings, but we want to make forum less bloated. If you post rarely then what's the problem with making high quality posts and thus earning merits for helpful posts?

If you were doing that then you would be posting regularly. How does making the signature a privilage to be earned, not a right have anything to do with "you think you are better then others?".

It is a rare privilege that this forum allows members to monetise their signatures. That comes in return for providing content to the forum. Gaining merit is a sign that other members appreciate that content, so it seems logical that it would be a good way to gauge if someone has earned that privilege.

Yes, this Merit and so it is not clear how to get it,I have no idea what to write this what that man gave me his merit,and most importantly why?....and if you accept even more stringent conditions,it is definitely full will be kaput. According to my rules and so hard to get a little Merita you need a day to spend to put together a really useful guide, it is useless to help someone in a thread, or write interesting news for this Merita nobody will.

Well, is not writing anything an option for you?  Is confining your posts to the local boards an option?  Your writing is so garbled that you absolutely need to choose one of those two options.

Correction:  It should be a rare privilege for members who contribute.  Currently there are a horde of altcoin bounty participants making several sections of bitcointalk nothing but a collection of mega spam threads with their nonsense posts and all the alt accounts they have participating in the bounties.  What really should happen is the banning of bounties altogether (but retaining campaigns that use the SMAS blacklist, pay in bitcoin, and incorporate merit into applicant selection).

It is a privilege, but unfortunately, one that is heavily abused. That's just semantics, we're arguing the same thing. I still think an ongoing merit requirement to earn the right to wear a signature is a good idea although it doesn't look like this proposal is going anywhere. Maybe we should just ban all ICOs from being promoted on the forum and trash the altcoin bounties board instead.

Yes,I can understand the problem.But there is no other alternative to earn merit except quality post. (I USED TO GET THIS ANSWER ALWAYS WHEN,I asked same question.)

Quality post does not mean that you have to post something unique information,

What, I learned about the quality post:

1.Help other,solve the problem of others,
2.Answer to the question with having some research, not just one liner answer,
3.Do not use this forum only for bounty campaign,
4.Do not copy and paste,
5.Good English with no grammatical error,(if you have problem ,then use "Grammarly: Free Writing Assistant")


There are many threads which are created by REAL HERO member,where you can inform about ur post and your post can be checked by the thread creator.if your post quality is good,then you will get the merit.
here is one of that kind of link created by_ actmyname {Copper Member} Legendary (you can get 14 merits)
 -https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3046992.0

I've noticed many suggestions to improve the forum end up being more restrictions for many users, and usually it's something that doesn't harm the person who suggested it.
I hate spammers, but I don't think creating more restrictions is the right way to solve it. I like the simplicity in the current merit system.

I'd love to see that happen! Ban all facebook and twitter spam from the forum.
I'd love to see spam-free ICOs and bounty threads, but that's not possible if you're competing with hundreds of spam threads. A start could be selling advertising space in 5 sticky threads on those boards, for self-moderated spam-free campaigns. But that's something for another thread.

The Twitter and Facebook spam doesn't really bother me as it is easy just to put the altcoin bounties board on ignore and the problem is solved. Where the spam comes from is the signature campaigns where the participants are paid in the ICO tokens. It doesn't cost the promoters anything to make the tokens so they don't care about paying them to hundreds of alt accounts for pure spam. That's what is polluting the rest of the forum. In the auction for banner advertising space on the forum the restriction "No ICOs, banks, funds, or anything else that a person can be said to "invest" in; I may very rarely make exceptions if you convince me that you are ultra legit, but don't count on it.". I'm not sure exactly why that restriction has been added the reputation of the forum could well be harmed by being seen to promote scams. I think that reputational damage extends to scams being promoted in signatures.

I'm in agreement with this. One of the reasons I'm keen to see the reputation of the forum restored, is to enable it to become influential in discussions about the new government currencies that will emerge soon. The computer failure at TSB looks to be the third phase in the path to replacing the current debt laden fiat currencies controlled by the Rothschilds.

While the banks have a lot to answer for and that's ultimately the reason we're here, Bitcoin came out of the rubble of the 2008 financial crisis. The Rothschilds don't control anything. That's an antisemitic trope dating back over 200 years that unfortunately many non-racists repeat without understanding its significance or history.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-rothschild-libel-why-has-it-taken-200-years-for-an-anti-semitic-slur-that-emerged-from-the-10216101.html

https://www.thejc.com/news/news-features/the-rothschilds-the-banks-and-antisemitism-the-truth-and-the-myths-1.450112

https://www.timesofisrael.com/nearly-200-years-of-anti-semitic-conspiracies-continue-to-cloud-rothschilds/

I'm not anti any religion. I'm anti the behaviour of some members - Look what Soros did to the Jews.
 for example. I understood that the Rothschilds owns the Bank of England, The federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan, and many others - that would give them a fair bit of influence and control. However, I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll probably start one in serious discussion about it.

It is a matter of record that NM Rothschild isn't even a member bank of the Federal Reserve, let alone owns it. The Bank of England myth stems from a fake quote "The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.". Nathan Rothschild never said it and the quote only dates back to 1939. This isn't against you but I'm just trying to point out that blindly repeating these lies as facts only goes to perpetuate them. These lies were created for antisemitic reasons and that is the reason I always feel compelled to challenge them when I see them.

I didn't know that, and thanks for posting it.

However, the Bank of England seems to be an independant public body, and is under the ultimate control of Jeremy Wright, the Attorney General, He is a remainer MP, and is therefore another of our Unicorn politicians working for the deep state. The names have changed, but I think my fundamental point is still valid. The important recent manifestation of my belief is the TSB computer failure. But lets continue this in a serious discussion thread.

Thank you very much for your valuable advice. I will definitely use the link and I will try to earn merit. Forum I love to read and gain knowledge.

Probably good, but there are many ways to circumvent the law, which will use Smerit to swap every 2 months as you suggest, it will become unworthy exchange system.

Try reading the thread before posting, I have answered that many times. That would force them to spend the sMerit they received in the initial distribution regularly and eventually, they will run out. That was part of the plan.

 I would be against this method.   :-[

I agree with you, this merit system has managed to hamper the increase in rank of jr. Member becomes a member
In this way both beginners and newbie should think twice about making a good post and if they want to get the merits from the campaign manager.

I have discussed similar solutions with some participants of the German forum. I think the intention behind a "regular merit requirement" is good, but I came to the conclusion that it would have significant negative collateral effects, punishing valuable, but not very active members. Imagine if Satoshi or Hal Finney hadn't VIP status in this forum - they would eventually lose their signature space.

However, I like Mocaccino (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=405464)'s proposal to give moderators the option to disable signatures for spammers not meeting a certain merit requirement, and I would support this measure if it is taken into consideration by the forum staff.

An alternative idea: As a (negative) compensation for the merits all higher-ranked members received automatically when the system was implemented, a part of the automatically-distributed merits could be removed after some time (e.g. 3 or 6 months). I would propose about 2-5%, but even 1% would be enough to rank down most spammers. For example, Legendaries would then lose 10 of the automatically received merits. This would happen only once, not regularly, so it has less impact on valuable members with lower posting activity.

In line with the spirit of the OP's proposal, I could imagine a variant: Users that would fall below the merit requirement for their rank if they lose this portion of the automatically generated merits could preserve the rank (so no veteran user not posting much would be down-ranked) but their signature capabilities could be restricted to those of the rank below. Most veteran members not wearing paid signatures do not need colours and backgrounds for their signature, so only very few should be affected.

---

I agree with these statements, but they're a bit short-sighted.

Companies want to be seen in the forum - that is completely true, and the rank of the user where the signature banner appears doesn't really matter.

But merits are not made for these companies - they are made for the good of the forum. It is Bitcointalk itself which is risking its status of the leading discussion board in the cryptocurrency community if shit-posting isn't prevented. It could become a pure "paid-for-community" without relevance out of the "clickworker" circle.

And if the trend continues, in some moment Bitcointalk won't be attractive anymore for cryptocurrency-related companies as a medium to advertise in. Maybe this could be even positive - as it would mean that signature campaigns and spamming would disappear without any "staff action". But I doubt if in this case the death spiral could be reverted.

@d5000 Thanks for your contribution.

I also like the idea of slowly and very gradually removing the distributed merit but I've got the impression from theymos's posts that he won't consider anything that would result in anyone losing their rank. That was really what lead me to come up with hiding signatures as an alternative.

I think either approach would be good but a few of the replies here have highlighted long term members who just don't have time to be very active. I'm currently coming to think there could be some way of making the ongoing merit requirement proportional to activity. That way satoshi and Hal are in no danger or anyone else that contributed early but either doesn't come very often or at all.

I do like your hybrid suggestion but I haven't really spent any more time on this because I don't think these sorts of proposals are being considered seriously.


Exactly!

I have noticed the moderators seem to be a bit firmer lately. Merit has made it really difficult for new spammers and account farmers so maybe banning the spammers that are already here is the way forward.

Thank you for your answer TheQuin.


That looks definitively interesting - I understand that in such a model long-term members would need less "earned merit" than newer members. In another thread I suggested that if such a type of reform is implemented, only accounts created in 2013 and later should be "punished" if they don't meet the requirement. I think it was that year when signature campaigns and spamming begun - albeit on a much lower level than now. (Edit: Myself I registered in early 2013, and it was this time when Bitcoin definitively crossed the "nerd/average joe" barrier.)

So maybe the "curve" of the activity/required merit formula could begin at an activity level corresponding to a registration in late 2012 or early 2013, and earlier members should be considered "veterans" and need no merit requirements at all. (The only downside could be that these old accounts then would become very valuable for sellers, but "bought accounts" now regularly get red trust if abused.)


Yes, you may be right that there are lots of proposals to improve the Merit system but few reactions from theymos and the forum staff. It may be simply too early to really detect weaknesses of the system, and that's why it would be understandable if they still don't want to implement "premature" reforms before the system is thoroughly tested.

And it wouldn't be the worst scenario if simply banning the worst offenders - the "high-ranked spammers" that got their Legendary or Hero rank thanks to account farming - without additional measures is enough. I'm however a bit disappointed that the spam level hasn't really lowered in the past months, and that's why I'm still looking for interesting proposals.

Ive noticed the new meta is to just make a comment of some randomness but on topic;  like "I would like to buy a batch and sell these, but where would the market for sales be?"  or "I wonder if anyone has given thought to applying [this topic] to [that topic]?" where the [topics] seem pretty unrelated from each other.


People get creative to achieve their goal...  But granted;  I have yet to give merit to anyone posting like that;  I have been giving it out to people who are truly conversing or helping the subject move along.

It's easy to get around. A person with a large rank has many acquaintances. So they will share with each other.

But will they reach now with shit posts? i mean how lont they will stay here if they have no chance to grow, for me i have no inspiration, since merit, coz i know how is hard to get one merit, but in general, i like the idea, coz it avoids many ppl or even bot that farming here.

I think it is wrong to relate merit to anything other than post quality, and contribution to the forum ( not financial ).

Whiner!  And I would argue the low-ranked shitposters are even more guilty of this, because I've seen them caught abusing the merit system left and right.  You're just angry because you haven't earned any merit and probably won't.  Ever.  And that means the system is working as intended.

I don't know about acquaintances, but there are certain posters I like way more than others and it so happens that most of them are higher-ranked.  Get over it.

Here's one for the ignore list ^^^.

I would agree with you on limiting the chances of joining a giving bounty campaign to only members whom have been able to get merit since the inception of the merit system. Now let's look at this way
What happens when mr A makes quality posts and contributions and don't get merited for it?
What happens to shit posters whom have been able to pack merits from their friends? You see when you look at this two scenarios, I don't really think merit should be a determining factor. But if it will be possible for those mangers, to check the participants post history before accepting them it would be good. Because from post history it's easy to ascertain who's doing a good and quality posts.

Interesting idea!

But we'll need additional features to make this work, you'll need some indicator for campaign managers (or anyone) to know that a forum member's signature is being hidden due to merit so the Campaign Manager will know not to pay the person. There would also likely need to be tracking to the exact post or date and time that the forum member's signature became deactivated (and reactivated) so Campaign Managers know what to pay when a deactivation comes mid-campaign cycle.

This would probably cause a lot of campaign turnover, which could be worse for the forum. You end up getting every "newbie" or Member rank getting a 2 month tryout on a campaign whether they have good post quality or not!

I don't think that is good idea. Unless in that case, if you want to leave one or two thousand active users on the forum.
According the fact of hard earning merit newbies already got a big problem with increasing theirs ranks. But disabling signatures etc - is too much, seems for me.

But also it is impossible to exclude the moment that even under such conditions of tightening the rules of obtaining merit, multiaccounts will not stop on their fraudulent activities. Yes, they will be much less, and it's a fact! But We will really see quality content, not a shitpost.

When merit system was introduced, we saw many people appreciating it and telling how it would benefit the forum. No doubt, there are some members here that make good posts here after merit system in hope of getting merits.

But I had seen recently that signature campaigns do not give it much importance now. Earlier, members who had merits were given preference in signature campaign or even paid higher in some cases. But such requirements had been completely removed in signatures campaigns being announced recently.

I like the fact some campaings or better, some bounty managers are doing a great work with the selection of sures for every ranks.
I hate the fact some old users probably are join  signature campaings with 10-20-50 high rank account.
I would like the fact that any manager will pay (with a part of the removed tokens from scammer, not all of them to avoid cheater) who find scammers high rank scammers on campaigns, this will can make the difference.