I was thinking the same and in addition to that I already posted my idea to even integrate the merit into the activity rank Maybe it would have been best not to create a new value for the merit but simply use the activity the same as it is used for time and activity right now. So instead of this The activity number is determined in this way:
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
activity = min(time * 14, posts)
We would have used: activity = min(time * 14, posts, merit) and everyone would have gotten the same initial merit as his activity at the time of the change. This way nobody would have been affected in his current rank by a positiv or negative direction and we would still only use activity instead of an additional counter on all accounts. |
|
|
|
I think that there are a couple of points here that I could elaborate on, but I don't claim to know everything either, even if I have spent more hours on the forum.
Regarding activity, I think that if you are averaging more than 14 posts per two weeks, then you will get all of the 14 activity points for each activity period even if you only post a couple of posts in the most recent activity period. However, when you start to go below a 14 posts per two weeks average, then you receive fewer activity points. Something like that. So I have mostly kept my average up above 14 per two weeks, and I think that there was only a few two week periods that I did not post anything, so I did not receive any activity points for those few two week periods.
As you already suspected, you are wrong on this one  You can find the calculation for activity here The activity number is determined in this way:
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
activity = min(time * 14, posts)
Lets say you have a new account which does only one post in his first two-week period, this account would have an activity of 1 but his time variable would already be one which results into a potential activity of 14 for his account. So if this account would make 27 or more post in his next two-week period he would have an activity of 28. Therefore its enough to make at least one post in one period to maintain an increase of your activity but to actually make it increase you would have to make many more posts. And sadly thats the case for my account  I dont even know my potential activity. There has been a website which was able to calculate that by using your post history I think, but it is no longer online. |
|
|
|
150 additional merits to go from full member to senior member seems excessive and unfair frankly to those of us that were almost there. It will take years to reach that.
How cute...I am a potential Legendary member (only missing the post count) and I got only 500 Merit instead of 1000. So be happy that you only got screwed by less then 150 Well B4RF, you have been a forum member almost as long as me, so you are correct that your post count has caused you to not move up in ranks, and if you had been at least minimally active in ever two week activity period, you would have earned enough activity points to have become legendary a year ago (something like that). So, yeah, none of us knew this change was coming, but those of us who remained active benefited by this unexpected change based on activity level (which includes posting regularly). I was actually active for many more periods then my activity is shown I think but I simply didnt do a ratio of 1 post per day. And I dont really understand why a higher post ratio makes you more likely to be able to spread merit to others but yeah nobody knew this would come around so I guess everyone missing a rank by some posts needs to go along with it. Btw I am not moaning since I dont really need the Legendary status right now since I didnt even used a signature campaign for quite some time. I was just curious about the initial thought why this merit system has been implemented like this. Nobody will do such a big change without spending much time about the consequences and benefits therefore I think there has to be a reason for this decision. |
|
|
|
Maybe it would have been best not to create a new value for the merit but simply use the activity the same as it is used for time and activity right now. So instead of this The activity number is determined in this way:
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
activity = min(time * 14, posts)
We would have used: activity = min(time * 14, posts, merit) and everyone would have gotten the same initial merit as his activity at the time of the change. This way nobody would have been affected in his current rank by a positiv or negative direction and we would still only use activity instead of an additional counter on all accounts. |
|
|
|
150 additional merits to go from full member to senior member seems excessive and unfair frankly to those of us that were almost there. It will take years to reach that.
How cute...I am a potential Legendary member (only missing the post count) and I got only 500 Merit instead of 1000. So be happy that you only got screwed by less then 150 |
|
|
|
Hey guys I`m trying to run a script but it seems i have a mistake somewhere i can`t find it where can someone help me with that i will be very grateful i want to make it switch low/high every bet and to double on losses and i also added another function to change % between 40 and 60 roll .
basebet=0.00000001
nextbet=basebet
chance=49.5
function dobet()
If Iwin then
nextbet=previousbet*2
else
nextbet=basebet
end
bethigh=bethigh
print(currentprofit)
if lastbet.roll > 40 and lastbet.roll < 60 then
chance=40;
else
chance=49.5
end
if win then
-- switch high/low every win
-- bethigh = !bethigh
What error are you getting? Is Iwin maybe !win? Also you have a ; after you set the chance. But my best guess is your missing an end statement for the function wasn't the statement end ,either !win or ; I`ve try it it didn't work  That`s what happen if i put ! and what happen if i take it out --> LUA ERROR!! assignment statement expected, got '!' start() LUA ERROR!! assignment statement expected, got 'win' Besides the mistakes chilly2k already mentioned you wrote If instead of if and at the end of your script there is an additional "if win then" which should be removed. |
|
|
|
Should the sam rule apply, more seriously, to merit?
Yes, no, and maybe. There are threads where people actively search for recommendations on posts to merit, going there and suggesting posts (even if they are your own) is alright, it's even wanted. I dont see harm in it. Another case would it be when you are sending unsolicited PMs to people who you suspect to have big amounts of sMerit. Here it should be 100% not allowed. Aggressive begging cant be tolerated.When it comes to a post/thread, imo it depends on the content of it. Some threads currently ask for donations, and that's OK. They could ask for merit donations instead of BTC donations, I would find that OK. Some threads have avertisements, and that's Ok, similar situation. This does not apply to all threads/posts alike, I think it's something everyone has to determine for themselve individually. Find your own line. I dont know if I should post this but I already got a pm like that. What are the consequences for someone doing it? |
|
|
|
We do not know the participants of this forum, who they are in real life and what their mental abilities are. If a participant has the title of Legendary, can he decide whose posts are useful and constructive? Sorry for such a question.
Because they have 1000x more experience in bitcoin than you.... that a good enough reason? I dont know how to feel about that argument. My account is one and a half years older then this guys account. I know I could have made more posts but I never really cared about becoming a Legendary member. But getting a deficit which is that huge is really a bummer. |
|
|
|
Because of this change: I decided that the previous allocation was too unfair in this area, so everyone with activity >= 775 got 500 more merit if they didn't already have 1000 merit (and also Lutpin). No extra sMerit, though.
I missed it by only some posts as well. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose |
|
|
|
Now tell me, why is this "advice" 4x more valuable than me working for an hour+ ? Why did this even get Merited in the first place? (no offence)
You have to realize that time spent doesn't necessarily correlate with quality. While I am not necessarily saying that your infographic was poor, people may have found it somewhat less helpful than the advice on how to easily open the merit page. You also have to understand that your post was in the middle of a megathread that is increasing by several pages by the day, and the other post is on the front page of such thread and easy to find. And you missed one important point as well. The Merit system is not objective but subjective  |
|
|
|
I decided that the previous allocation was too unfair in this area, so everyone with activity >= 775 got 500 more merit if they didn't already have 1000 merit (and also Lutpin). No extra sMerit, though.
So I missed 500 Merrit by not doing 15 more posts... FeelsBadMan I still think a progressional distribution would have been the way to go. Would have been better for higher Legendary accounts as well. |
|
|
|
What happens to those who already have higher ranks and still don't post quality post? IMO, I think some people will be content on that level if they can still participate in signature bounties. It would be nice to see bounty managers use a system on par with the merit system in order to achieve more efficient results.
For example, if a person does not meet up to a required amount of merit within a stipulated time, especially after joining the signature bounty, they could be removed from the bounty.
Sounds good at first but I think signature managers shouldnt rely on the participant collecting Merit. You can have multiple high quality posts on a single day without getting a single Merit. It's still up to other users if they reward you for your post or not. |
|
|
|
That's ridiculous. Do you even believe your own bullshit?
Go ahead. If you really meant what you asked, then make the argument for why everyone should start at 0 merit without totally creating some new-ass fantastical system that makes no sense at all?
Dude I just asked a question keep calm. As long as there are trusted accounts which generate Merit it should be easy for high level accounts to collect Merit faster then Newbies since they already get higher attention I would think. Therefore eceryone starting at 0 Merit would be an option to create a system which benefits no one in particular and doesnt make it ridiculous hard for new accounts to lvl up. I dont want the Merrit system to be that way but I simply showed the option since there was no proportional Merit progress within ranks what so ever. Starting at 0 wouldnt benefit some individuals In other words, what you are saying makes no sense, unless you happen to have nothing invested. It sounds like some of those arguments that say, let's just blow everything up and start over. And, such a blowing everything up approach only makes sense if you don't have anything invested, and frequently a very short-sighted approach. And, by the way, there is nothing not "calm" about my previous post, except your perception that it might not be "calm enough" for me to assert that your idea to be ridiculous. If thats the attitude of a Legendary Member then I am actually thinking that a Merit of 0 for everyone to start with is the best to encourage a more civilized communication. |
|
|
|
now i have 11 merit and needs 100 for that... so i will have to wait how many time? 1 year?
why merit give was not proportional to the progress in the rank?
if i'm at 90% of the next level why i have'nt 90 merit (next level is 100) instead of only 10 ?
Because now it is a new system where you have to earn a rank up rather than just spam enough posts to get it automatically. The arbitrary timing might feel a bit unfair but the system has changed and moaning will achieve nothing, so adapt and move on. Why isnt everyone simply starting at 0 Merit then? That's ridiculous. Do you even believe your own bullshit? Go ahead. If you really meant what you asked, then make the argument for why everyone should start at 0 merit without totally creating some new-ass fantastical system that makes no sense at all? Dude I just asked a question keep calm. As long as there are trusted accounts which generate Merit it should be easy for high level accounts to collect Merit faster then Newbies since they already get higher attention I would think. Therefore eceryone starting at 0 Merit would be an option to create a system which benefits no one in particular and doesnt make it ridiculous hard for new accounts to lvl up. I dont want the Merrit system to be that way but I simply showed the option since there was no proportional Merit progress within ranks what so ever. Starting at 0 wouldnt benefit some individuals |
|
|
|
now i have 11 merit and needs 100 for that... so i will have to wait how many time? 1 year?
why merit give was not proportional to the progress in the rank?
if i'm at 90% of the next level why i have'nt 90 merit (next level is 100) instead of only 10 ?
Because now it is a new system where you have to earn a rank up rather than just spam enough posts to get it automatically. The arbitrary timing might feel a bit unfair but the system has changed and moaning will achieve nothing, so adapt and move on. Why isnt everyone simply starting at 0 Merit then? |
|
|
|
|
Just saw this Merit change and think its a good idea to prevent spam posts.
But I am a bit confused... did I get 500 Merit as a Hero Member although I have an activity above 700?
Someone who just got Hero Member would get the same I guess although I have at least 50% higher activity.
Why didnt they use some kind of percentage progression?
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone is going crazy about the token sale but I would simply like to know at which point everyone will be able to utilize gems and earn through microtasks?
Is everyone desperate looking for ICOs and trying to get a quick profit instead of being interested in the actual aim of the project?
|
|
|
|
|
Would you be so kind and stop posting the same thread over and over again?
Simply bump your first thread if you are that desperate for people doing your task.
|
|
|
|
Am I remembering correctly that crypto-games.com was a different site which was kind of a scam? Did you buy their domain to prevent confusion? I might be wrong but that was the first thing which went through my head. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
