Good post and I am glad you made the effort to make it.
Hello, essay-writer.
However I
Sit down, grab a cup of tea, and start reading.
I will though in future if it is proven to make my post redundant and demonstrate it is of zero merit value. However I expect all merits removed from your post if it turns out to be a bunch of words that does not rebut my post nor even tackle the prime points I make.
I don't see the point of forcing a conflicting discussion to have only one side given merit. Merit is not a zero-sum game: the purpose is to reward sensible and on-topic posts. The posts that do not deserve merit are those that are irrelevant to the discussion or clearly very loosely thought-out. (i.e. reading topic title and responding). Moreover, your whole "battle" is more of you saying, "I haven't given this much thought, therefore I will read your post later," since the conditions are based on the soundness of their post in regards to yours. This is something that can be declared immediately after reading, or shortly thereafter.
This post is a prime example of what exactly I am talking about. So either people in meta are unable to understand what it is that I am saying or there is something very strange about meta in deed.
I believe the principle issue with your posts are their length and structure. You need to better articulate your points as to convey understanding not to yourself, but to others.
"A wrong statement can be fixed but an incomprehensible statement will always be wrong."
Or that I am having problems with understanding how to interpret observable events. So let's find out.
Let me accept as I am open minded then you COULD be correct about some things. Let me then find the optimal and true answer by having a sensible debate. If you are correct then I will retract my post and put a big RED statement that I am wrong at the top.
Or will I here now provide reasonable and corroborating evidence that this is a post that gains a bunch of merit for something that tries to refute something that is clearly provable and observable???
and therefore not only should it not get any merit it should actually get negative merit for trying to convince people of something that is clearly NOT true.
This is an example of how your lack of brevity inflates your posts, to the point where few will even decide to read it. It's an intimidating mass of words. You could phrase this paragraph as such:
I am open minded. Let's have a sensible debate. If you are right, I will replace my post with "I am wrong" in red. Now, I will show why your post is untrue:
I mean when someone clearly breaks down a system and tells you how it observable operates and the dangers of it operating like this and the possible ways to improve then another post tries to claim that it is a conspiracy and the system is fine the way (with some minor abuse perhaps) it is then does not even attempt to provide any reason why my proposed solutions would not bring improvement then that counter post to my own is indeed negative post and stands in the path to moving to a more optimal solution.
Before I tackle this
sentence, might I suggest breaking it apart instead of having a run-on sentence of literally 95 words?
I
just read your post and before I make any comments, I'll say this: any proposition that makes an extraordinary declaration should have sufficient evidence to disprove the null hypothesis. Anything short of that will be considered false and potentially reliant on biases prevalent in the data.
You have an argument that DT can give red trust at will. That is untrue partly due to:
1) public backlash
2) dilution of red trust value (i.e. if red = scammers = poor english then there is a false equivalence)
Same with the trust ...if you abuse this system on stupid argument or petty girly fight that has nothing directly to do with being scammed and someone can prove you were being petty or trying to force your will on someone or hush someone up and using that to bully them ....then bye bye DT list position.
That is how it works. There are DT1 exclusions.
You also have an argument that 0.13% of users have the highest merit. Well, yeah. That's kind of how it works, though. Merit is not based on a communist approach. You might say that 80% of their merit is reduced if the top 200 merit holders' transactions were gone but that should be true of almost every other person on the forum.
Do you know what the problem with your argument is? It kind of hinges on "everyone is here to make money" and the issue is that people want to prevent spam from overtaking the forum (it already has). Anyone who is here to learn about bitcoin will leave. Not because of rank lockup (for most) but because the forum is a cesspool. Anyone who is
really here to learn about or to discuss bitcoin will stay.
Your 'signature removal' solution has been echoed by a lot of members who you claim are abusing the systems, by the way.
let me find out because if it is that kind of post I would expect that adds serious weight to my argument and demonstrates that you need to bring the exact changes that I have specified.
You are describing their post. You are creating a tautology. "If your post is your post, then that adds serious weight to my argument..." is an equivalent statement.
Each person should remove your merits for that post if you can not prove what you have said is correct relating to my post.
I don't see any false statements in mikey's posts, a lot of which are subjective statements which are true by principle.
In adding merit to a post that is negative and not adding merit to a post that is correct and pushes towards improving systems he demonstrates are not only open to corruption but are being used by a gang to stifle free speech......that is a system that needs to be fixed or removed.
Merit isn't censorship and merit is subjective.
With that in mind all merit scores would be null and void and any meaning read into them should be struck away. To even consider more systems built upon a broken system like that is not going to go well.
The implementation of merit was to reduce the amount of spammers on the forum. This has succeeded.
So anyway let me break your post down so I we together can examine it..
1. Explain my conspiracy theory in detail so that I can see where I am going wrong and why it is a conspiracy theory not something clearly observable. Which part of my theory is conspiratorial exactly?
Your whole PAID2POST debacle with merit/trust gangs.
2. Do you think giving the people that control rank (merit) and trust (dt trust) therefore total control over PAID2POST and trading - without giving them clear criteria they have to stick to and no come back for not sticking to it is a good idea.
Guidelines exist to prevent abuse. PAID2POST is a non-argument.
You can not see how that could be a huge error that can lead to them controlling peoples free speach here. You can not make that connection?
Free speech is upheld because you can still write what you choose. The only reason you might decide to pander to others is to
try and earn morsels of merit.
3. Do you think that in light of the fact that the people controlling the ability of others to participate in PAID2POST and (trading) are obviously then able to control the competition to the "exclusive" and highly paid spots that they say NO WAY IN HELL WILL THEY STOP GETTING PAID2POST WITH is ... the fact they can control their own competition with no clear mandate is not a problem you say?
It's unclear why anybody would send merit to non-Legendary members if they were scared of their spots being compromised.
4. Do you think a situation where people are telling me they support my view but are scared to comment is a situation on a board that should be allowed to exist? and that means nothing because you could power up your scores here?
The fact of the matter is that some are senselessly scared of red trust abuse on conflicting opinions, which is a non-issue if they use anonymous accounts. If they want their opinions to have weight, then they should use their real accounts. DT is not meant for suppressing dissenting opinions and if anyone uses it for that then they are using the feedback system improperly: why I sent you a counter-rating.
The gang knows exactly who I am referring to. This though is not the point the fact that there are no criteria and there is no real comeback for abuse in these systems (not all need to abuse) that control peoples ability to PAID2POST their rates get they are paid and also trading to a degree of course allows them to control posting behaviour with financial carrot and stick can you demonstrate how that is not true.
The fact that this
might be happening doesn't mean it is happening.
YOU CAN NOT POSSIBLY ARGUE AGAINST THIS OR CALL IT A CONSPIRACY. Do you not understand this is clearly observable?
If your argument is that the systems are prone to corruption without third-party action then I would vehemently agree. However, in its current state, it's more-or-less stable.
Do you not see that having a system where a tiny group get to decide who can be PAID2POST and trade whilst also wanting to be PAID2POST at the highest rates is not an optimal system ?
#BanSignatures
Oh, and the whole merit source mutually exclusive to DT list thing won't really change anything. In both cases, members of low rank can be applicable for both positions (though unlikely) and the matter is curved if the person (not user) uses alts.
6. Can you find some negatives and post them here now to the improvements/solutions I have provided in my post. Detail them all for me now. I will like to explore these most of all.
(throughout post)
7. Can you tell me how this war started and how you conclude I started it and detail it here for me to understand. Do you mean raising factual important points is starting a war over nothing?
The war is really composed of all your battles (threads) spanning multiple territories (Meta and Reputation) aimed at different targets (various DT members)
8. I will then if anyone wants drill it down post by post and detail what I say each person has done I was trying to not make it become about individuals and keep it at an overall system level discussion where the biggest changes could be discussed and the biggest improvements made.
It
is about individuals, though. This is not a massive macro-scale system composed of hundreds of users. It's the individuals that matter: those who you state are abusing the system should be suppressed and those who are not will seek to dissolve the unfavorable individuals.
9. Are you in agreement that these statements are true.
a. - most pre merit legends are spammers?
b. - that I am an idiot and incorrect to believe that some of the 99.93% of current posters (not top200 merit hoarders) are able to make posts as good if not better than some of the 0.13% of the board (top 200 merit hoarders)
A is true since over 90% of any rank are spammers.
As for B... of course
some members can make posts better than
some members. That's a non-argument. This doesn't illustrate anything.
10 - Do you think we should be critical of people coming here to milk this board like a cash cow and monetise their posts whilst we are making the most money via PAID2POST?
There are those with paid signatures and there are those that don't read more than 1 post in a thread that they're replying to. Peek the Economics and Bitcoin Discussion sections, and go to the recent posts.
11. Can you tell me the what % of your merits came from bitcoin discussion or alt coin discussion and which communities here you belong to which enable you to give a comprehensive view of how merits are being deployed over a wide and varied group of members here to compare to your own experience. Do you believe if your specific example somehow refutes any of the claims that i have made and if so please present this case in detail.
Certain boards are typically avoided due to the fact that they are mostly-consumed by spam. I have an analogue for this:
Would you rather take blood from a straight man or a gay man? One has a high risk of aids, which is why they are barred from giving blood. Similarly, those boards have a high percentage of spam. I'm willing to say that less than 0.1% of the posts are real discussions.
12. My motive is simple I want fairness for all and equal opportunity for all hence why I love all projects that further an end to end decentralised and trustless arena where this is an unavoidable consequence.
The simple solution? Ban signatures.
I mean surely for my post to be of "lower value 0 merit" than your own your post (multiple merit) that seems to present rebuttal to my own must be able to prove that my points are incorrect and that yours are correct and that your post is pushing toward a more optimal solution than my own.
This is your thought process. You're projecting, here. Again, merit is subjective.
Let us in public now explore all of this and find the truth or which post of the 2 is more valuable.
What deserves merit is not a group philosophy, it is an opinion: that of the individual.
I'll stop the post here. Part 2 coming soon.
AddendumI believe it would be best to revise your future posts to avoid any digressions (i.e. stick to the argument!) or to section it off into different components if they're going to be as long as the one I was focusing on.
And on the case of my paid signature: no, I won't remove it. But I'm also not on this forum exclusively for money, either. Otherwise, I would be racking up 50 posts every week which I certainly wouldn't have the time for (lest I compromise quality).
I enjoy my occasional free lunches, wouldn't you?
Show Posts
