|
Title: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: Stedsm on January 04, 2019, 02:37:29 PM The words I used in the subject above, have got a few more questions to ask:
- Are merits actually being circulated between those who really need it? - Are they also helping out others through their sMerits? There's a different sort of thinking I've come across - most people don't use their merits by not sharing them with those who deserve them. Reason?! Merits help others to rank up, mostly everyone here is just to earn a side income, and for most of them, it's a living if they are in a signature campaign. Just to stop others from being promoted to higher ranks so as to reduce competition and keep it low (with the fear of losing their own position in that campaign as few may not be confident enough of their capabilities of remaining in the same), they try their best not to share their merits ahead. But for your information, they're given only with the purpose to share on the basis of "Give & Take" tradition and keeping them to ourselves will be stupid and never be useful to us nor others. So, keep sharing merits and love to those users who really deserve those higher ranks we're at. :) Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: mk4 on January 04, 2019, 03:01:16 PM - Are merits actually being circulated between those who really need it? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter if the person needs it. What's matter if the person deserves it.- Are they also helping out others through their sMerits? There are probably a good number of people here who are not sending out their merits, but I don't think there's anything we can do. If their standards are just really high? Yea, nothing we can do. Content deservedness(for a lack of a better word), is hugely subjective. I personally intentionally lower my judgement slightly with people with lower ranks.There's a different sort of thinking I've come across - most people don't use their merits by not sharing them with those who deserve them. As for people who don't give out merit just to decrease the competition in signature campaigns though? I think that's quite farfetched. If there were people like that, they're probably a huge minority. Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: Hivalley on January 04, 2019, 03:21:37 PM OP actually made a whole lot of sense,as I think there are users who hoard their Smerits for the very reason you've outlined,but they happen to be very few of them,and it should not affect a good poster from ranking up as their are a lot of merits sources and members who merit worthy posts.
For now everyone is left to do whatsoever they wish with their Smerits and I think it should be so,more reason the system introduced sources to avoid complaints from users finding it hard to rank up that user A or B is hoarding merits and not giving them out probably to reduce competition for their spot on signature campaigns Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: CryptopreneurBrainboss on January 04, 2019, 03:24:15 PM No system can be perfect but so far, since the merit introduction, the forum has taken another shape in respect to quality post. Usually this type of topic are started by lower rank users complaining of not receiving merit but I'm glad you're a legendary rank user that means you truly want answers to your question instead of an attent to draw attention to yourself.
Back to your questions, - Are merits actually being circulated between those who really need it? Yes, the merits are been circulated between not just those who truly need it but those who deserve the merits. For more info visit the recent merit stats board (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=recent/) or keep an eye on this thread "[LOG] The ranked up members - Congratulations!" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4850225.0/) - Are they also helping out others through their sMerits? You mean the merit receivers? Well it's not an obligation to merit others so it's their choice but we have the merit source to fill-in those space for them and in the near future rules will be implemented to decay unused smerit.Although there are those who give them out, like See Smerit as liabilities to myself and an Asset to others and give them away to deserving users immediately I get them. and this topic starter "Giving 17 Newbie Members a Chance to Rank Up To J. Member (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5085605.0/)" he started from 4 and now 17 newbies. I can't mention all but we have those who do so. . Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: Jet Cash on January 04, 2019, 03:29:34 PM Can we get away from the whole concept of merits being awarded to members who need them to supplement their income? Merit should be awarded to encourage good posting, and not to provide an income for some semi-literate spammer who is promoting a scammy project.
Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: DdmrDdmr on January 04, 2019, 03:34:34 PM <…>- Are merits actually being circulated between those who really need it? If we narrow the term “need” to being useful in terms of ranking-up, then let’s start by looking at received merit distribution by rank:Code: rank EarnedMerit % Arguably, some ranks do not require merit for ranking-up purposes: Administrator, Global Moderator, Donator, Founder, Staff, VIP and Legendary. That adds up to 22% of total currently awarded sMerit (64.111 sMerits). Nevertheless, those ranks may require some earned merit in order to participate in campaigns (some top paying campaigns seem to require it), feel a certain level of recognition, and as a side effect redistribute the earned sMerit to others. Quote - Are they also helping out others through their sMerits? I make the following numbers to be reasonably true:600.000 sMerits from the Initial Airdrop -291.791 Sent sMerits (Merit Sources and Regular users – as of today) +146.000 minimum organically generated (merit halvings first degree) -------------------------------------------- 454.209 Total unsent sMerits Therefore 291.791 sMerits have been sent, but there could be something in the line of 450K unsent sMerit, mostly originated in the initial sMerit Airdrop. Now a lot of that could be related to accounts that are no longer active, do not care for the Merit System, or whatever other reason. Quote There's a different sort of thinking I've come across - most people don't use their merits by not sharing them with those who deserve them. As stated above, the initial unspent sMerit airdrop is an incognita as to why there is still so much. I don’t think it is so much a question of it been hoarded per-se, but rather that there are many people for who the merit game is not attractive, and have no direct operative need for it themselves.If we focus strictly on earned merit that has not been sent, I make it around 38k (see [TOP-200] Members who have a lot of earned sMerits (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5080637.msg48682919#msg48682919)). Overall, I don’t see too much of an issue to earn a couple of merits for those that create decent enough content, but rather find that ranking-up speed is really slow for the vast majority in the mid-to-high ranks. Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: odolvlobo on January 04, 2019, 05:48:08 PM ... mostly everyone here is just to earn a side income, and for most of them, it's a living if they are in a signature campaign. That's why I don't give merits to members of signature campaigns. I do not want to encourage people to post garbage for money. I also ignore members of signature campaigns so I never see their posts. As a result, I give away very few merits because 90% of the members are here trying to make money. Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: cizatext on January 04, 2019, 05:53:32 PM Am glad this thread is open by a legendary member who don't need a merit cause he is already on the highest position in the forum before the introduction of the merit system, will it will not do you any good withholding your smerit because their are being generated just to be given to others who deserve it in other to encourage them for they hard works but this days it very difficult to earn merit.
Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: Ridaa on January 04, 2019, 05:58:11 PM this is literally a best topic i have read so far, not saying because I need merit but the thing is people actually do this, they don't share Smerit because of the competition and this is also a reason why newbies with so many activities cannot participate in any campaigns or something. I personally think that rules should be changed or some actions should be taken and we need more kind people like you to run this forum as a family or in a friendly environment i would say. This is how we can take this forum on a high rank.
Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: CryptopreneurBrainboss on January 04, 2019, 07:52:28 PM this is literally a best topic i have read so far, not saying because I need merit but the thing is people actually do this, they don't share Smerit because of the competition and this is also a reason why newbies with so many activities cannot participate in any campaigns or something. No mate, this is just an assumption. As a scientist, I'll call it a hypotensis because it has not been proven to be true . Beside the reason we have newbies with many activities without merits is because they're either posting rubbish or spending more time in the wrong board. Also we have giveaways threads (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5085605.0//) that they can partake in that's if they feel there post are worth meriting so there isn't any excuse for not receiving merit. We have regular post meriters, giveaways threads and merit source so if the so called newbies with many activities without merits truly want one they can get it. Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: Hivalley on January 04, 2019, 08:18:34 PM Am glad this thread is open by a legendary member who don't need a merit cause he is already on the highest position in the forum..... Ranking up isn't actually the only purpose for a merit,though it happens to be a vital part and a reason for it. But there are other reasons for a merit and one is to acknowledge that a post was wwell constructed by the OP and makes a whole lot of sense,and that recognition Is a good feeling irrespective of whether one is a legendary OT junior member,the only difference could be the feeling of the recipient,one probably has been earning merits in large amounts(L.member)so probably would not be over the heels excited as opposed to the other who might be(J member) Earning merits also increase Smerits which affords one the opportunity to merit/acknowledege good posts with merits. Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: dothebeats on January 04, 2019, 09:30:18 PM There's a difference between those who 'need' it and those who 'deserve' it because they earned it. It's not creating a monopolistic politics just like what you're pointing because at the end of the day, each individual who has their own sMerits to give aren't being controlled by anyone to withhold their sMerits because they are ordered to; it's just personal preference or if someone really appreciate a post (note: merits aren't 'like' buttons that you have on social media sites.) There had been a lot of topics about merits and whatnot but I simply don't care as long as the post quality of this forum increases again. Giving sMerits shouldn't be mandatory but rather be given as a token of appreciation if something is actually worth the read or has given you new knowledge you previously knew nothing about.
Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: Stedsm on January 04, 2019, 10:53:31 PM Can we get away from the whole concept of merits being awarded to members who need them to supplement their income? Merit should be awarded to encourage good posting, and not to provide an income for some semi-literate spammer who is promoting a scammy project. The way dotthebeats said, merits should be taken as a token of appreciation and few members also said that there's a thin line between need and deserving, but then, you can't really deny the fact I mentioned here that merits are really being hoarded (yes, I mean it and I can see it as well) under the FUD of losing their position in the campaign they're enrolled in. There's a requirement now as well as higher ranks are being paid much well compared to lower ranks, and it's not necessary that all low rank members are posting garbage only (or spamming) and/or you can't call any/all of the projects here to be scam. I've only created this just for those newbies who come up and ask about merits (in the list of which few already deserved some merits on their posts but didn't get any and are waiting to be promoted to even Jr. Member rank) and for those who're not really interested in this merit "game" can buy the copper membership to use almost all the features of the forum. Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: Upgate on January 05, 2019, 07:12:58 AM The OP has really brought our attention to an issue that has been there I will use this opportunity to thank merit sources and good will members for circulating there smerit to deserving members.
S While some members are strict about keeping there smerit For some reason best known to them but IMO this is not helping the forum smerit can be in full sendable merit and not keepable merit. And also it not alone high ranking members that can mandated to send merit every one who posses smerit can do so to deserving users. Let's us be selfless in our act for the betterment of the forum Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: LoyceV on January 05, 2019, 10:58:00 AM It doesn't matter if the person needs it. What's matter if the person deserves it. I used to not care whether someone "needs" it or not. Until I read this:I agree with this approach. I considered giving merit proportional to activity, but I decided not to because doing so would probably give far more undeserved merit than deserved merit in total. But undoubtedly some people got screwed by this, and if they have decent posts, by all means, give them the 250 or 500 merit that they need to rank-up. Of course they still need to deserve it, but if I stumble upon a user who has decent posts and needs a certain amount of Merit to go up in rank, I'll give him the Merit needed.Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: mk4 on January 05, 2019, 11:21:34 AM It doesn't matter if the person needs it. What's matter if the person deserves it. I used to not care whether someone "needs" it or not. Until I read this:I agree with this approach. I considered giving merit proportional to activity, but I decided not to because doing so would probably give far more undeserved merit than deserved merit in total. But undoubtedly some people got screwed by this, and if they have decent posts, by all means, give them the 250 or 500 merit that they need to rank-up. Of course they still need to deserve it, but if I stumble upon a user who has decent posts and needs a certain amount of Merit to go in rank, I'll give him the Merit needed.Oh definitely! I tend to have lower standards when giving merits to lower-ranked users. Most of the time, the posts doesn't even need to be sort of helpful; as long as the post contributes decently. I also give merit to people who ask questions, as long as it does make sense and it's not those typical questions like "when price increase?", "what is the best exchange?" and such. Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: DdmrDdmr on January 05, 2019, 12:09:03 PM <…> That’s the way I see it. As I’ve stated a couple of times recently, in my opinion, there doesn’t seem to be much of an issue with merits in terms of earning a few (for those that really set their mind and fat/mid/thin fingers to the task), but rather with earning enough to make ranking pace become an incentive and not a deterrent for those that, let’s use a recent commonly repeated expression here, are “net positive”. Those that excel is some way or other have no real issue with ranking speed, and those that create crap are never going to rank-up, but there are many people in between, that are being merited, but whose ranking-up speed is pretty slow (a person who makes decent contributions should earn an average of 1 merit per day in order to rank-up at the same rate as before – activity aside). With nearly a year into the Merit system, we’ve got: • 5 New Legendries (from Hero) • 24 New Heroes (from Sr. Member and Full Member) • 83 Sr. Members (from Full Member, Member and Old Era Newbie) • 153 Full Members (from Member, New Era Newbies and Old Era Newbies) • 3.028 Members (from New Era Newbies and Old Era Newbies) • 9.164 Jr. Members (from New Era Newbies and Old Era Newbies) But the ranking-up pipeline looks like this … : Code: CurrentRank segment nUsers Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: Alone055 on January 05, 2019, 02:22:09 PM - Are merits actually being circulated between those who really Yes, they are, eventually. I am and a lot of other members are examples of that. What I personally do is that I don't see the ranks or the need of the poster while handing out Merits. What I see is the post itself, and the history of the poster in some cases when the poster is relatively new to my eyes and has a lot of posts but no Merits yet. Probably If I was a Merit Source or something , who uses to have too many sMerits to hand out, I might had other thoughts, but for now, that is what I do, and I think what I'm doing has nothing wrong with it. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. - Are they also helping out others through their sMerits? Yes again. Maybe not everyone out there, but for the majority if I speak, they are. most people don't use their merits by not sharing them with those who deserve them. From what I've experienced so far, I think 'most' isn't the correct word here, but 'some' is the word I would personally use in that statement if I were to say it, since there aren't a lot of people (I'm not counting Merit abusers and farmers in this) who would keep their sMerits to themselves rather than giving them out for the posts that deserve Merits. If that was really the case, I doubt if any of the good posters who have ranked up by earning Merits could have possibly done it. Reason?! Just to stop others from being promoted to higher ranks so as to reduce competition and keep it low (with the fear of losing their own position in that campaign as few may not be confident enough of their capabilities of remaining in the same), they try their best not to share their merits ahead. That is a new one for me. I could never think like that, nor I've ever thought that someone could have a mindset like that. Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: Upgate on January 05, 2019, 02:29:42 PM The undeniable truth is that everyone no matter how many merit you have already always appreciate a merit given to them. Merit is very significant it a sign of good and credible work that's why it's very important to have a good post history even if you had missed a merit from a good post you could still get it at anytime.
If merit was for ranking up I think the legendary guys would just sit back and not contribute positively as they used to Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: HODL2090 on January 05, 2019, 02:49:09 PM The crust of the issue is no one is under any obligation ti hand out merits (except merits sources, to a small degree).
It is recommended that one hands out smerits, as they are of no use whatsoever to the hoarder, but not everyone sees the need to search for deserving posts, and some accounts with sendable merits are inactive. But the merit sources and willing members are doing a good job in keeping merits in circulation. Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: r1s2g3 on January 06, 2019, 07:18:36 PM Merits help others to rank up, mostly everyone here is just to earn a side income, and for most of them, it's a living if they are in a signature campaign. Just to stop others from being promoted to higher ranks so as to reduce competition and keep it low (with the fear of losing their own position in that campaign as few may not be confident enough of their capabilities of remaining in the same), they try their best not to share their merits ahead. If somebody is hoarding the sMerits due to fear of losing a position in sig campaign is stupid. For any btc campaign there is always more number of participant available then number of spots. If they are posting shit then they are not going to be included in campaign. Only solution is to make themselves a better poster. With so many merit source, they can not stop any deserving poster so better to improve themselves instead of hoarding their sMerit Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: Stedsm on January 07, 2019, 01:07:37 PM The crust of the issue is no one is under any obligation ti hand out merits (except merits sources, to a small degree). I never said anyone is, what I'm trying to convey here is the fact that I believe, it's my opinion I've painted in the OP and it's for the better of low rank members as well as the forum, because if such deserving members are not getting/going to get rewarded in terms of merit only, they'll still be seen as shit posters due to possessing low ranks with high activity number. And yeah, it's not gonna work out the way you said (as the whole responsibility isn't for merit sources alone, everyone here is given the privilege to use their power to help others - I think that's one more reason why merits we're introduced - to see if forum members have the courage to give their shoulder to work as a stair for low rank members to level up). Merits help others to rank up, mostly everyone here is just to earn a side income, and for most of them, it's a living if they are in a signature campaign. Just to stop others from being promoted to higher ranks so as to reduce competition and keep it low (with the fear of losing their own position in that campaign as few may not be confident enough of their capabilities of remaining in the same), they try their best not to share their merits ahead. If somebody is hoarding the sMerits due to fear of losing a position in sig campaign is stupid. For any btc campaign there is always more number of participant available then number of spots. If they are posting shit then they are not going to be included in campaign. Only solution is to make themselves a better poster. With so many merit source, they can not stop any deserving poster so better to improve themselves instead of hoarding their sMerit Once again, it was my opinion about what I feel may be one of the best fit reasons as to why one is hoarding their merits. I urge to those who get merits (whether newbies or higher) that they should also merit posts better than theirs (if they believe they've found something worth giving a merit but low level members should help mostly low level members* in order to keep the merit contribution going and let the circulation be carried out in a continuous manner). * - I personally think that low level members who get merited mostly should consider their category to be promoted with them hand-in-hand but that's my opinion and once again, no one is bound to think and do the same way. Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: TheBeardedBaby on January 08, 2019, 08:48:13 AM If you put focus on the forum as a discussion board, the merit is only a reward for the knowledge and the abilities the users have showed here, it is for reputation same as the ranks. So actually no one really needs merit nor ranking, the only reward you get is at certain point to wear avatar, and reduce some cool down times, really not so essential things. So basically what you earn is Reputation among the other users, that's all.
Once you look at the forum as a money-earning machine things change drastically. This is how most of the people are seeing the forum. They are desperately trying to rank up, trying the all possible ways both legal or illegal to abuse as much as they can the system for best income. So if you look at the forum based on the first statement, merit and ranking is quite insignificant, but looking trough the eyes of all those trying to "support my family as we are poor" but all their relatives are working here, the hunger for merit is enormous. I'd like to think about the forum as a place for discussion and improvement, place to meet friends and learn new things. Now I have the privilege to make some income from my hobby which I usually spend on books, paying for Nodes, Internet, hosting, etc. It's mostly for fun. Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: manfredmann on January 08, 2019, 10:01:28 AM Am glad this thread is open by a legendary member who don't need a merit cause he is already on the highest position in the forum before the introduction of the merit system, will it will not do you any good withholding your smerit because their are being generated just to be given to others who deserve it in other to encourage them for they hard works but this days it very difficult to earn merit. Yes OP has been pointing out on merits as it was being monopolistic politics. I do not if OP has only doing it for sarcasm but basing on the content of the message the OP just want to spread some love by spending merits to those users who need it. It may be good to hear this but then again as expected from other users that may oppose for this idea because they only think that users that are good poster should have only the right to receive merit and to rank up.But, think of the average users that mostly are not getting merit. I feel pity for them but since merit is for the good poster and admin does want it like that then so be it. We do not have other choice but to follow what they think is right even if other users may having some hard time. They got their point though to think that merit will be a strategic way to prevent users to shit posting. But as days gone shit posting are relatively had been minimized and it is only that there were still some threads and posts that are poorly constructed that was being made from the past few months. We are still in the transition process from shitposting to not too good poster but an average poster. Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: Kakmakr on January 08, 2019, 10:49:28 AM I am a hoarder by nature and I know how valuable sMerit can be for others, if they post quality content and manage to rank up higher. Do we want to dish out sMerit left right and center to people who does not deserve it or do we want to manage sMerit in such a way to increase quality posters on the forum?
I would much rather hoard my sMerit and give it to someone deserving and share the forum with higher ranking quality posters. ;) Giving sMerit just because you have to, will defeat the purpose of the sMerit system. ::) Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: RivAngE on January 09, 2019, 12:06:20 PM ... mostly everyone here is just to earn a side income, and for most of them, it's a living if they are in a signature campaign. That's why I don't give merits to members of signature campaigns. I do not want to encourage people to post garbage for money. I also ignore members of signature campaigns so I never see their posts. As a result, I give away very few merits because 90% of the members are here trying to make money. If your only judgement on people are their signature and that's enough for you to not merit them, or even ignore them, then that's funny. In your own signature you have 2 reference links (most likely paid) and a link to an anti-signature campaign! Sure, you don't get paid PER post, but you would still get more views on your signature the more often you post... does that make you a spammer by your own standard? Thankfully many are not sharing your standard and I was able to slowly reach Member rank within the 13 months in the forums (starting from 0 merits) even though I almost always have a paid signature on. You may not care for the 10$-20$ per week a signature campaign might offer because you might be rich, you might be an early believer of BTC, or you might even be a scammer who made a lot of money on others' loss. Having a signature or not doesn't change the kind of person you are, the quality of posts you make or whether you deserve meriting or not. With that said.... filling up your ignore list with newbie and jr. accounts is not that helpful, they'll keep creating new accounts and trading a merit or two. I just read the first 5 words of a post and I immediately know if it's a spam. Most of the spam is identical after all ("wow this is a great investment", "I agree with the post above", "I agree with the above post which agrees with the one above it") Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: CryptopreneurBrainboss on January 09, 2019, 04:09:32 PM * - I personally think that low level members who get merited mostly should consider their category to be promoted with them hand-in-hand So what you're trying to say is users with member rank should consider only meriting users on the same level with them and (maybe) lower ranks?. I disagree because doing so will defeat the purpose of the merit system as it was introduced to highlight quality posts made by forum users of all rank instead of concentrating on a particular rank. Out of generosity of helping lower rank users rank up, one can concentrate on meriting them but that shouldn't stop you from meriting quality post from higher rank users when you see them. I believe the main purpose of the merit system was to highlight a quality post when you see one so that shouldn't be neglected irrespective of the posters rank. Title: Re: Isn't this merit thing getting more monopolistic politics? Post by: KingScorpio on January 09, 2019, 04:30:29 PM The words I used in the subject above, have got a few more questions to ask: - Are merits actually being circulated between those who really need it? - Are they also helping out others through their sMerits? There's a different sort of thinking I've come across - most people don't use their merits by not sharing them with those who deserve them. Reason?! Merits help others to rank up, mostly everyone here is just to earn a side income, and for most of them, it's a living if they are in a signature campaign. Just to stop others from being promoted to higher ranks so as to reduce competition and keep it low (with the fear of losing their own position in that campaign as few may not be confident enough of their capabilities of remaining in the same), they try their best not to share their merits ahead. But for your information, they're given only with the purpose to share on the basis of "Give & Take" tradition and keeping them to ourselves will be stupid and never be useful to us nor others. So, keep sharing merits and love to those users who really deserve those higher ranks we're at. :) jes it is and we know that since it was established or even planned being established. trust system is even worse. bitcoincultists punish all opposition. |