Not exactly effective. Most of our world chases money, and neglects more important factors. I like the saying that we work to live, and not live to work. However, the reality is most people live to get money, and then they don't even enjoy it when they get it, because by the time they've amounted any sort of substantial earnings, they are on their death bed.

The system is designed to keep the poor, well poor, and contributing to the wealthy companies that pretty much rule the world. So, no the current money system makes no sense, yet people contribute to its survival every day.

Unless by effective you mean keeping those that control things rich, then yeah its pretty effective at that. However, what is clear is there are far more people unhappy with the current implementation of our concept of money, than there is supporters of it.

The definition would likely be along the lines of an authoritative body, which being open source doesn't exactly fit that description. For example, presidents or world leaders are only seen as official because the government recognises they are, not specifically because they've been voted in, but because the government has accepted those votes.

I wouldn't exactly describe it as an agreed statement, no. For example, I'm the end user of fast food, and you might too. However, because we think KFC has the best food, doesn't make it the official fast food of chicken. Horrible example, but we are end users to Bitcoin, and what we consider consensus can't be considered official. There is no authoritative body over Bitcoin, so technically nothing can be considered official.

I don't think so, I think official is something that a lot of people just use incorrectly. What you are describing is what people have consensus agreed is the more appropriate path to take, but I don't think that makes it any more official than other suggestions.

Personally, I think official can only be used when there's a clear entity that controls it. For example, this forum theymos controls, therefore the rules that are posted by theymos can be described as unofficially. The Bitcoin code base isn't controlled by anyone, so nothing can truly be official. Though, there's obvious routes that might be better for the users, it doesn't necessarily mean its official.

This is common in open source development. The code proposals are peer reviewed, to make sure they actually contribute to the code. While you could argue that is centralisation, surely there has to be a point where we draw the line to prevent just any code being injected in the main development line. I think people, and in particular users on this forum, and Bitcoin supports treat centralisation as a bad thing, when its not necessarily bad for everything. There's definitely scenarios where centralisation makes sense, then other times like a currency it doesn't.

Loss of quantity that is replaced by quality isn't a bad thing in my opinion. Users come, and go, but we all stick around for the discussions. I would prefer to have less quality discussions, than having the place drowned out because of the abundance of poor quality discussions. At the moment, I think the forum is somewhat in between that metric, since there's definitely discussions here which aren't particularly of good quality.

While you might not see immediate effects, I do believe it's quite clear that the easier it is for users to rank up, and progress the more likely they'll stick around. Ignoring the account farmers which have an incentive to rank up, ranking up is progression, and as we know progression is a motivating factor, so if merit distribution increases, so will the likelihood of users sticking around.

I think the viewer attention regarding masks can work both ways; there's clearly Youtubers that have built their brand, and audience around being anonymous, and that in itself creates a element of intrigue. However, I do get what you guys are saying; interviews are usually a little more personable, but at the end of the day, I listen to podcasts, and I don't usually see the guests at all, yet I still listen, and am intrigued about it. Podcasts are extremely popular now too.

For example, while Joe Rogan does have a visual element to his podcasts, I don't actually watch them, I've normally got them on when driving or traveling about, and I imagine its the same for most people. I don't think a visual aspect is absolutely necessary. It probably does help, but I'd probably watch or listen to someone that's got a history in Bitcoin, and his knowledgeable despite them having a mask on.

Also if you have a badass mask, I'm going to be intrigued.

This is actually really common from my observations. They bust their gut to actually get into the signature campaign, however once they are actually in it they get complacent, and just focus on getting to the required amount of posts. It's a pity, since they've demonstrated they can actually put a good amount of effort in. I think campaign managers should probably be a little more strict on this after all they hired them on the premise of their past posting quality.

Talking about complacency above; I've probably become a little complacent in moderating, relying too much on reports coming in, rather than actually reporting outside of my sections. Like I mentioned I've started to kick into gear again in the Altcoin Discussion section, but I might have to make a little more time for a concentrated effort on Bitcoin Discussion, and other sections.

Its a good shout, I didn't really put much thought into it before this thread was brought up. I was always aware of that little niggle of deleted posts not showing, however never saw it as a big enough issue. Obviously, the drawbacks I see from including it on forum is it might influence moderators to take more drastic measures that need to be taken, because they may feel pressured by the fact that this user has x amount of deleted posts. Its probably worth moderators escalating these cases to global moderators though, since a temporary ban might be better depending on the context.

Anyway, back to your point; user scripts could definitely be a individual fix, but it would probably be beneficial if this was available on the forum directly, as not everyone wants to sort it out with setting up a user script    

Ah, I was only kidding anyway I thought it was pretty cool.

Nah, hence why I didn't say a specific number of reports since it's not public, and there might be a reason for that. However, for sure reports have gone down dramatically over the last few months at least.

Loads of reasons, some of which have been given in this thread by various users. I didn't want to specify exactly what, because it varies from each user.

What is clear to me is; there was a real community drive a few months ago to concentrate on removing the spam as a community, and that was fantastic. However, recently as outlined above in this thread there's been a shift in mentality. I think reporting badges are more important now, than when they were proposed so I would like to see these implemented sooner rather than later, however I don't think they are a permanent fix, and rather patching an issue up for a little while until the regular reports have achieved the highest level offered.

@LFC_Bitcoin will back me up here I'm sure of it.

Liverpool are going to win the league again, this year is our year. Nah, but seriously I think Liverpool are being underestimated because they haven't made any signings yet apart from Konate, who's an excellent addition by the way. Although, the existing team is brilliant, and while Robertson might be out for a few weeks, his replacement is actually pretty decent.

Having the fans back is a benefit for most clubs, but we've got a few players which absolutely thrive on the atmosphere, Firminho being the most obvious one to me. I think we'll be back with a bang, after a terrible season last season, despite rescuing it a little towards the end.

I'd have to agree with your colleagues. It would likely be more unethical to treat them different based on the fact that they compete in the Paralympic Games. It would likely be unethical to bet against them if they were competing in the Olympics main (for a lack of a better word) events, and I do by no means want to make that sound like I'm being degrading on the Paralympic Games, like its not a main event, I just can't think of another word to use.

As far as I'm concerned, they are some of the most mentally strong, and committed athletes in the world. I'm not one for the Olympics in general, but you've got to respect anyone that's in a disadvantaged (again for a lack of a better word) situation, being able to break through that, and perform to a excellent level, is definitely respectable.

The issue with re offending users is likely because a limitation to SMF. Moderators can't see if a user has been reported or had x amount of posts deleted recently, unless they manually check via the modlog. On a very busy day of handling reports, a moderator might see several hundred, and at its peak of reporting probably thousands of reports a day, and therefore potentially thousands of users. Now, because of the way reporting, and the report queue works, multiple moderators might be dealing with those reports at the same time, and therefore that's where the consistency might be lost.

For example, mprep might delete a post from user1, and I might delete another two from user1, but because there's no clear indication, at least without manually searching the recent modlog data, then there's no easy way of seeing if a user has had a number of posts  deleted recently. You could potentially look at the modlog or previously handled reports, but this is a rather messy way to do it.

It would probably be beneficial to include recent number of deleted posts by a user using the existing modlog already in place, and put that information on the profile page or potentially within the report queue itself.
 
You have too much time on your hands .

Gamification works, as demonstrated by various industries. For example, universities now offer badges as motivation for completing certain tasks, and courses. Other learning resources like Coursera, and Edx also do the same.

I wouldn't be particularly motivated by things like this, however I know others will. Some people enjoy social status more than others.

The reality is a few months ago reports were either around this value, or exceeding it. However, recently its been much lower than that figure.

I'm going to be dedicating a little more time to the areas that I can moderate within the altcoin sections, but I've also recently delved back into reporting inside the Altcoin Discussion section, since that place is rather over run, and by accounts that I can't handle due to their rank. Although, I know that there's a lot of work that goes on within the Altcoin section, and while it might not seem like it there's multiple staff contributing to moderating there.

Also, I do get the frustration from reporting, it is at the best of times a thankless job. However, it is absolutely vital to the community, and I know that I'm always grateful for people throwing reports my way. I've got to echo hilariousandco here, but I think the reporter badges will at least help revitalise reports again, however it would probably only be a temporary solution until everyone has reached the highest obtainable badge. Judging by theymos' update though, it hasn't been cancelled, but rather its more work than anticipated.  

---

As I see it the current issues we have are:
 
- Slightly cumbersome UI when it comes to the reporting queue, and additional information between moderators e.g displaying recently deleted posts in a intuitive way.

- The community seems to have become tired with reporting, whatever the reasons that may be.

- There probably isn't enough moderators, however because of the lack of reporting, how is theymos suppose to determine a good candidate. Obviously, there's other factors, but I think it's safe to assume that reporting will be one of the primary factors considered.

Personally, I'd love to see the community operating towards a common goal again, like a few months ago, and making a real concentrated effort to get spam dealt with quickly, and efficiently. However, it would be unfair to ask that from everyone, and the best option we have is offering an incentive, without it being problematic. The reporter badges was a fantastic idea, and its probably the best solution to our problem, albeit likely a temporary one, unless some very high, and frequent reporter badges were added.

With the amount of reports increasing, it would likely mean the possibility of moderators being added would be higher. I can't speak on the behalf of theymos, and whether or not its in his vision for new moderators, but at least with the data being there i.e number of reports, there's at least a little more to work with when it comes the time he wants to add more.

For offering a AMA question, and answer style format; I guess it depends on how problematic that would be, i.e if they are low quality questions, and encourage low quality responses. However, if they aren't particularly problematic I can't see too many issues with that from my point of view.

However, offering incentives, particularly not in the games or rounds, and not in Bitcoin is usually a no go, so I'll leave the quote below of mprep;

The best solution to this if rewards are absolutely necessary would be doing the AMA in games, and rounds, and offering the rewards in Bitcoin.

In short; AMA sounds fine, probably. Rewarding users for posting depends if the rewards are Bitcoin based or not, and if so its probably more appropriate to do the AMA in games, and rounds rather in the project thread.
 

Yeah, its a good idea. It's probably the best way of doing it, but I'm absolutely awful for remembering every game that goes on. I only really follow a couple of teams in the leagues, mainly Liverpool, and the welsh teams in the lower leagues. Its not ideal that I'm predicting in advance, but we will see how it goes.

Realistically, you could probably consider my entry as a donation , because its extremely unlikely that I remember to update them frequently, obviously I'm going into this with the aim to win that pot, and not an actual donation, but as with any betting man, I'm probably kidding myself.

I'm thinking Brentford will surprise a lot of people in this match. I can't even remember my prediction right now, but I think I did lean for a Arsenal win, but I can see Brentford stealing some points here.

Blaydes would be a interesting fight, but if it was to be made I feel like it would have been made before the Derrick Lewis fight if this was on the schedule. I do believe Gane will get the opportunity against Ngannou. I don't he's ready, and I'm not sure if he will ever be ready, but as you put it a lot of the fighters in the division are currently recovering from some nasty knockouts. Particularly Blaydes, and Stipe. Before of those knockouts were significant ones.

Yeah, Anderson has looked decent to be honest whenever I've seen him take a step into boxing. Not surprising since he was one of the best strikers in the UFC. I just can't bet against a legend of that magnitude, even if he hasn't looked as good in recent MMA bouts. Boxing, as you say he's looked somewhat good with a unexpected win recently.

Not like I would blame them to be honest. It's quite well documented that boxing generally pays more to its fighters than the UFC. Although, I'm not entirely sure what the shares or total number of this fight is, I'm sure its probably still better than most of their UFC careers.

Chuck Liddell might have not been at his absolute best that night, but having a win over Chuck looks good on anyone's record. 2019 is a fair amount of time to have a lay off from fighting, especially considering their age.

That's the plan after this initial week. I've made my predictions for the weekend, and I'll then go on a spree one night, based on the performances of each team, and make some long term predictions, and check in on them, and update if necessary every so often when I remember.

Can't really judge Tito due to the lack of recent fights, but Anderson certainly hasn't looked his best in his last few outings in the UFC.

I'm expecting the odds to heavily favour Anderson. The fact is; most betters will also bet on Anderson Silva due to the fact that he's more famous outside of UFC than Tito.

Anderson Silva all day long. He's had a semi decent career in boxing too. The only thing I'm concerned with is Triller is hosting this. I don't tend to watch too much boxing these days, at least since UFC entered my life, however I'm a little concerned about Triller because the last event I tuned in for them was the Jake Paul vs Ben Askren fight, and is was absolutely awful from a fighting fan perspective. It was like a music concert rather than a fight night. I can't recall watching many of their other events though, so that might have just been an exception due to the fighters they had on that night.

Triller seem to be the king of white collar boxing, and cross sport fights in a boxing ring at the moment.

Honestly, I'm hoping the odds of Gane VS Ngannou stay somewhat close or the odds reflect people buying into the hype of Gane. I'll be going for Ngannou despite Gane proving me wrong multiple times now, however I just can't overlook the fact that Ngannou is an absolute monster in the division, and he made massive improvements with his recent win over Stipe, which proves he can actually adjust to his competition too.

Alright, I'm actually a little hyped for the fight now. Make it happen, Dana.

I'll be honest Hilariousandco usually sends me a message when this is about to start each year, and I've refrained the last few due to being absolutely awful at remembering to put in the predictions. However, Hilariousandco has twisted my arm , and convinced me to join again this year. I'm actually quite excited about getting one result bang on this year, and then dipping into irrelevancy the rest of the weeks. It's a pleasure lads.

I'm also terrible at remembering to do the Super6 competition Sky runs, and that's free to enter each week!

I can understand why people would invest in gold. Lets be honest here; Bitcoin is a young currency, and has a extremely volatile market, which is certainly not for the faint of heart. Gold has been used for decades upon decades as a store of value, and that reinforces the belief that its a safe investment, while Bitcoin starts the alarm bells ringing because its relatively young compared to any currency out there. Obviously, Bitcoin has some obvious benefits to investing into it, and that's not solely based on the fact that it has the potential to exponentially increase in price.  

You largely have the same problems with any asset, including physical assets. Physical assets can be stolen, misplaced, and are subject to the potential of becoming less valuable. Gold is probably one of the best assets out there, but it isn't invulnerable from dropping in value. I think we'll see Gold drop more, and more once cryptocurrencies, in particular Bitcoin becomes more adopted by the general public. The world is moving to a digital world after all, in almost all aspects.

No doubt, I don't think too many newbies receiving merit in the first place would complain about the amount that they received. However, I thought it was an interesting enough observation to comment on. My mind kind of wanders towards the fact users are wary of rewarding too much merit to new users, that might have a small sample size of posts, rather than any other reason.

What is clear about the new allocation of merit is there's a lot more merit circulating about, which is probably better from everyone's perspective. It remains to be seen though, that if the merit sources will be able to regularly spend 4 figure merits each period. I suspect there will be a drop off, due to the excitement for a lack of a better word this time around.