~
Whereas JetCash, who has much more
earned merit than me (or anyone else in the thread) was kind of neutral.
And 3 straight Members with relatively high merit (Magic Smoke, nebuch & bitperson) were kind of positive. Interesting
I'm not short on merit and I hate spam, but I'm not in favour of paying per post.
As discussed
here, I wouldn't have joined this forum 3 years ago, if that would have meant paying for it. I agree paying per post would stop many spammers, but it would probably stop at least a few knowledgeable people from joining the forum too.
However, it pay-per-post would be introduced now, I'd pay, as long as it can be covered by the earnings from my signature. As much as I like this forum, I'm not willing to shill out my own money to post here.
- Nuke the old rank status for all members, re-adjust according to merit only
I agree this should eventually happen though. I get that theymos can't just turn everybody into a Newbie instantly, but long-term, the "free" merit should be taken away again. Something like half the amount needed to level up naturally (=1 merit per day) will do.
I value someone's posts much more if he earned 100 merit by himself, than if he's Legendary but barely received anything.
Meanwhile, it becomes increasingly more difficult to see if someone earned his merit, or got it for free. Decaying free merit would solve that in the long term, and puts high ranking people with bad post quality back where they would have been if they didn't rank up before the merit system was introduced.
Well, it depends how high the fee per post was set. Would you pay 0.0001 satoshis for 1 post as a Legendary member? See how this works? The price mechanism is powerful, if the price was just high enough to erase all spammers aside from the richest trolls, it would be a price worth paying IMO.
I've read a few claims that some people are paying $20 per merit. If they're willing to pay that much for a small fraction of their next rank, they'll pay a lot to keep posting too. 0.0001 satoshis per post isn't going to stop spammers, and a million times more won't stop it either.
The forum has
8513 posts per day. It would be interesting to know how much is earned from those posts to know how much people are willing to pay for it. About half the posts on the forum are in bounty threads now, I have no idea what that's worth per post. High ranking signature campaigns pay up to several dollars per post.
Maybe another way to reward quality members would be universal tipping, everyone is given a tipping address (Lightning again) whether they like it or not (or every account is forced to supply a Lightning address). I don't publish a tipping address, but if I was forced to, I'd take any tips if I was given any.
Tips could easily help to offset the cost of posting, even if Legendary members were paying 0.0001 satoshis per post.
I've collected pros and cons of
tipping micropayments last year, but there isn't much interest. I prefer the merit system now.
Interesting that the people with advertising in the sigs or avatars are 100% against the idea (thus far anyway).
That's not why I'm against it. I'm pretty sure nobody would post here if a post would cost anything close to what my signature pays.
I'm glad to say the one in my sig also
advertises on the forum, so it's not only taking advertising that doesn't earn the forum anything.
I still dont get a lot about your idea. If, i use if, if i have a valuable information about technology of bitcoin or anything valuable about bitcoin price analytics, why would i share to other people while i must pay? Doesnt it works the other way, people pay you when you have something valuable?
Or even worse: a Newbie has a problem with his wallet, and is happy to pay some dust to get help. But the people helping him, have to pay for that?
So, any money you lose while ranking up gets paid back to you in future by any trolls that just refuse to leave
Sounds like a ponzi
DarkStar, Lauda and Yahoo are doing a pretty good job in accepting only the best candidates according to their opinion and judgement, and thus far the campaign participants managed by these managers, per ratio mostly deliver one of the highest quality posts on this forum. I wouldn't be against an 'unofficial' rule that signature campaigns and other related roots should only be managed by a select group of managers with a proven track record.
Quality comes at a price: the ones now accepting bad quality posts don't have the budget to be more picky. I've only shortly
managed a signature campaign, and it's a lot of work. Without merit, I had to check many spammers' posts, and some of the good participants were quickly snatched up by a better paying campaign.
Giving a small group of managers a monopoly to run signature campaigns would probably end most of the spam, but I don't think theymos would want to limit freedom by creating a monopoly.
An alternative way of banning signature campaigns/remove signature is to have a merit requirement for participating in one. This should be imposed by all campaign managers out there especially in altcoins.
This actually makes it easier on the manager, as he has much less accounts to check. But only high paying campaigns can be this picky.
FYI: Just 14,000 out of 2 million accounts have earned at least 1 merit.
I'm not done reading yet, but my day is up 
Show Posts
