So I noticed it says unused Merit can be decayed at some point in the future - What's the point of this?
Unused sMerit (sendable Merit). I think it's supposed to incentive rewarding others with merit and punish those that hoard their sMerit. The merit system works only if people actively use it, else everyone is stuck at their current rank.
I wish there would have been some sort of option of giving dislike (-ve merit) to the spam/LQ posts and if any post receives certain -ve merits/dislikes,it should be automatically deleted /hidden
Given the concerns about abuse even with only positive merit, I dont know if I would support that. There's a whole other level to possible abuse vectors when adding negative merit as well, that can decrease somebodies rank. |
|
|
|
tl;dr explanation as long as there is no infographic: You have Merits, those you cannot send.
You also have sMerits, those you can only send, they have no other purpose.
When someone gives Merit to you they lose sMerit of the amount transfered and you gain Merit as well as sMerit (which in case you can send again).
Example: Should I send 10 Merit to you for a post, my sMerit would decrease by 10.
Your Merit would increase by 10 and your sMerit would increase by 5.
Merits are exclusively earned, but the sMerit part you also get keeps the circulation flowing.
(Ignoring merit sources here, for the sake of making an easy example.)
If you want to be a merit source:
Collect TEN posts that have not received nearly enough merit for how good they are, and post quotes for them all in a new Meta thread.
Does that mean all merit sources are hand selected? Is there a list of currently active merit sources? Sorry, I was lazy, should have read in full first.The forum ranking system is a bit complicated now... It'd be nice if someone made an infographic explaining activity and merit.
I'll try this. |
|
|
|
I'm not going to whore myself out there with BS posts to gain merit. :/
Shouldnt be too hard with that profile picture  Are you a source? Yeah, but since it's a new system, it may take some time for people to remember that it's there.
I'm sure there will be a few adjustments and tweaks as the system comes along and gets used. |
|
|
|
Possibly related to my copper membership, or maybe DT?
We could figure this out, are you a source as well?
Yes. I have over 200 sMerit.
I wonder if *merit trading* will be bannable. I can totally see people trying to buy/sell their sMerit. All legendary members got 200 sMerit. All Heros got 88 sMerit, dont know the numbers for lower ranks. (edit: 6 sMerit for full members, 19 sMerit for Senior Members) It seems whenever you get Merit for your posts, you also get some sMerit with them (I assume it is the same amount, though not 100% sure). That way, the people that write good posts and get many merit for them also get a lot sMerit to reward other people with good posts. Pretty clever system, theymos.
Where did you find that?
It's on the page when you send merit. I didn't have to spend sMerit, as I had 100 free Merit to send due to being a source. |
|
|
|
It's been added today. So far, it seems all legendaries have 1000 merit, all heros have 500 merit, senior members 250, full members 100, members are at 10, newbies at 0.
Check that thread for more discussion/information about it. |
|
|
|
My next question is: Who are all the sources of merit? Possibly related to my copper membership, or maybe DT? We could figure this out, are you a source as well? |
|
|
|
OP, your post is: Merited by theymos (1)
It will be interesting to see how these points will be awarded, not that I'm too fond of the idea. There is a new +Merit button besides the quote button. Leading to a new page that reads: You have received a total of 500 merit. This is what determines your forum rank. You typically cannot lose this merit. You have 88 sendable merit (sMerit) which you can send to other people. There is no point in hoarding sMerit; keeping it yourself does not benefit you, and we reserve the right to decay unused sMerit in the future.
You are a merit source. The next 100 merit you spend will come from your source rather than your sMerit balance. Merit spent from your source will come back in 30 days. Unused source merit is wasted. It is not allowed for merit sources to sell their merit.
(Merited Lauda for testing.) |
|
|
|
What we know so far: All legendaries have 1000 merit, all heros have 500 merit, senior members 250, full members 100, members are at 10, and newbies are at 0. What we dont know yet: Much nore. Theymos seems to be in the progress of integrating the merit system. I'm sure he will make an explained announcement and update about it once he has fully activated the system.Here it is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818350.0 |
|
|
|
Edit: I also discovered that there is now a "Patrol" link which you can choose to enable under Forum Profile Information.
Partrol isnt new, I have been using it for ages. why satoshi has only 250 merit?
363 activity, thus senior member. Motion to give satoshi 21M merit.
So far, it seems all legendaries have 1000 merit, all heros have 500 merit, senior members 250, full members 100, members are at 10, newbies at 0. |
|
|
|
To be discussed. The system could show who marked the user as spammer. And there could be an option for others to unmark him if they disagree or if the post quality improved.
How can we prevent system misuse?(keep hiding some signature). The same way it is (in theory) prevented right now? Theymos managing DT and thus selecting DT1, DT1 managing and selecting DT2. Then there could be a formula to decide whether or not to remove the signature rights Remember we do not have a clear definition of spam. It's not about the system deciding something is spam or not. It's about the system deciding whether or not a person gets to wear a signature based on their "spam score" "post reputation" (whatever it might be called). Eg can you wear a signature if 2 (trusted) people marked you as spammer? No, probably. What if 2 people marked you as spammer and 2 marked your posts as good. Cases like this. I do not know if theymos will agree with you because he already make Serious discussion section A test section and at best a tiny band-aid. This can't be the full, permanent solution. |
|
|
|
Remove your comment, regain a tiny bit of dignity, and I'll remove this quote. You might still be able to salvage some sort of goodwill.
You're a cute leftist. Ohhh, we're editing back in more insults, are we? Awesome! ~snip~ Can you two lovebirds take this to a dedicated reputation thread? |
|
|
|
Another idea which could work, something like merging the SMAS list into the trust system: - On every profile, besides Trust, there's an option to mark user as spammer
- If the user who marked him is on DT1 or DT2; staff; or any other list to be decided, then the marked user losses the right to wear a signature. This way, it's not up to signature managers to allow them into a campaign or not. The forum would disable the signature for him
I like this. A lot. The limitation of SMAS right now is that it doesnt have a full impact. People who get blacklisted can search campaigns that dont enforce SMAS rules and continue their habits there. If the forum would get on board with an approach like this, the impact would be magnitudes higher. |
|
|
|
Add a second way to rate users, call it post score (or something similar), the system itself could even work the same way the trust system works (with only minor adjustments).
Might even add options to hide the post scores completely, if you do not care about that sort of governance/moderation.
Considering the number of accounts some people have, I expect this to be abused to silence people. I wouldn't mind a simple + or - to click at each post though (idea taken from Vod, who owes me a +1), maybe with extra weight for topic starters. The same could be said for the trust system. Establish some rules about what ratings influence a post score by what factor, in the most blunt way, create a DefaultRating account and do the whole DT stuff once again. (I'm sure people could come up with a better idea how to handle this, just a simplified example.) |
|
|
|
New negative trust color:
Red color : Scammers Yellow color : Spammers
That seems like a rather *simple* change, that might just be effective enough. I'd be interested in hearing what others think about it. Lets go one step further, don't call it trust, thats a marketplace thing. I dont necessarily distrust spammers, they are an annoyance. Add a second way to rate users, call it post score (or something similar), the system itself could even work the same way the trust system works (with only minor adjustments). Might even add options to hide the post scores completely, if you do not care about that sort of governance/moderation. |
|
|
|
--snipe--
The only problem with that approach is, not many campaign managers follow SMAS restrictions. One does not need to use SMAS lists to run a spam free/low spam campaign. You dont have to, but it's an easy way to pre-select applicants and even the laziest campaigns could contribute towards fighting the problem with that. I think SMAS has two main aspects I would suggest to carry on into any future projects attempting to solve the same/similar things. It's a joint venture (even though the group is rather small right now), and it's easy to utilize (open SMAS thread, check if user is on collective list, done). I think that's the reason some decided to apply negative trust, as those bounties (usually) don't allow negative trusted users.
Thats along the lines of what I wanted to say in my first post. Giving negative feedback for spammers forces even those campaigns that don't care about the spam problem to stop rewarding shitposters as the "no negative feedback" rule is probably the most basic rule for campaigns right now. That's not ideal, but it's a "solution" right now. If we want to change it, we should work towards building something better. |
|
|
|
Neutral feedback makes it hard to spot those users (eg think about a campaign with 100 users, a manager would have to parse 100 trust pages to spot such tags, as they dont show up like negative trust does).
The reason some use negative feedback to tag spammers/shitposters is because it stands out. It's easy to spot.
You're talking like the Forum should adapt trust system to signature campaign and help their manager. Why should this be? They work for a paid job. Theymos started a thread about improving post quality. He is looking for changes and adjustments to make in order to achieve that goal. The motion is there, not from me, but from theymos himself (even though the changes he is ready to make are a bit limited so far, eg "serious discussion"). I think we are at a point where the forum has to "adapt" something in order to achieve progress here. To change something, theymos should get involved and help making that change possible. On a pure community level, this battle is lost. SMAS has little impact if there are campaigns ignoring the problem and contributing to the spam. Fighting it with less than half the campaigns is a start, but only that. No, I dont want theymos to change the trust system to ease the work of campaign managers, but I do believe that if theymos would work together with the majority of campaign managers on a joint effort, we could make some noticable progress in the right direction.
At that point, why use the trust system at all.
Trust system haven't relation with posting quality, again spamming/shitposting exist simple, available to all "report to moderator" system. I'm the leading user in most correct reports (at least I was last I've had the chance to get an update from theymos), believe me, I know about that and I use it a lot. There's limit to the reports though (eg I cant contact campaign managers that way, only moderators, I can only report posts that violate the rules, not spam). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
