BitcoinTalkUserID : 325061
Since our pal pugman is applying to be a merit-source, it would be appropriate that we put their merit history in public display for scrutiny of anybody and everybody interested. I'm hoping to find that a heap of their merit has went to those struggling to receive any, or rank up that are deserving and maybe a little more under the radar.
I am going to be brutally honest here(even if it costs me the opportunity of me ever becoming a merit source),but most of my merit that I have sent has gone to people who post in my Q/A thread or it is in meta. I recently started looking at random's people posts and it has not gone well. I either see merit abuse cases, or plagiarized posts or just random shitposts with twitter and facebook bounty forms(their entire post history is like that). Sad part is, a lot of users have very good grasp of the English language but they don't use it as well as they have to and then they start complaining about not getting merits. Thanks again, bill and sorry Loyce  . |
|
|
|
You message the leaver of said rating and talk it over. If that doesn't work, you talk it over with the D1 that sponsors that D2 member. If nothing there, you move on and agree to disagree.
Seriously, all you did was keep controversy going but turned up a notch. I didn't agree with your counter, should I have left a counter-counter to be counter-counter-countered by another?
Not everyone will agree with every rating because we are all individuals with our own ideals.
I don't think that ever works. I have seen a lot of people getting tagged, and a few ratings have been illegitimate and they have never been removed, even after having discussions. I don't want to point out names but yes that is the case. Sometimes, countering seems like a good option. A few DT members have a lot of ego, doesn't matter if they are trustworthy. That ego does a lot of harm than good. This is one of the main reasons why the trust system doesn't function well. |
|
|
|
Now that Loyce has been accepted (I think?) as a merit source it would seem that the competition has loosened up a little bit. I'm not sure how badly merit sources are needed presently, in the boards that you frequent, but you probably have a better chance now that Loyce isn't dwarfing the rest of the applicants. Good luck pugman, I think you'd do a fine job as a merit source; I still feel weird about the idea of applying personally, but you got my support regardless.
Thanks Bill. And yes, Loyce V is indeed a merit source now. The merit sources are to be increased in an overall perspective, but theymos knows the best and will make the right decision. Thanks for your support, it is very smuch appreciated. |
|
|
|
If you get elected can you please frequent the trading forums when looking for merit content? I seem to get more merit making fun of people on merit threads for being so cringe-worthy over anything I write about that I view as actually useful.
The trading forums as in Trading Discussion? Keep in mind that Reputation and Scam Accusations are child boards of trading discussion, and I visit those boards. I don't merit posts there always, or at all because I spend my time reading stuff there. But I might visit the Trading Discussion and merit a few (deserving) users. Most of the time I run into plagiarized posts or shitposts. So I don't spend any time at all right there. Your English isn't bad, I might take a look at your discussions.
I don't believe that trading, bounty, announcements and related boards should be part of the merit system. I hoped that merits would lead to an increase in good information ands help threads and posts. It would be great if Bitcoin Talk could return to the original concept of a foru, This was a place to meet and discuss important issues and ideas. Tading and money exchanges were confined to the arches and corridors surrounding the forum.
Bounty and announcements? Hell no. Trading discussions might be having good points if they aren't buried. But I think you're talking about Currency Exchange and related boards? Yeah merit, there is not expected or shouldn't be usually given, or given at all.
A friendly bump to support a deserving member.
Thanks, bud.
A bump! |
|
|
|
Hello guys, to my opinion merit fair system , just the problem because people don't receive merit in the next: 1) Poor english. 2) Very lazy and don't read useful information and share with another users. Thank you for reading  And you do both of those. What are you implying here? You want merit, well your post history is horrible, filled with bounty forms. I looked into it earlier today and decided not to merit you. Good luck, with ever ranking up. Ass-licking won't take you anywhere  . |
|
|
|
That thread looks like a lot of work to maintain...
It is a lot of work, but I don't mind maintaining it.
We need a trusted user to create a central database of bounty managers.
Central database isn't good. There are more than a few drawbacks to it. |
|
|
|
Which is why I am having mixed feelings. I am not going to add these users in the near future, because they lack experience or have had bad experiences.
I'll be sending a PM to the campaign managers asking for a signed message, had a busy couple of weeks, so do pardon me for that.
I'll also be updating the OP, with few details to change. |
|
|
|
You still didn't get over him? I thought he never called you back, so you just left him.  Jokes apart, your little bet here, ain't gonna work. Plus that is ridiculous, I also don't know why you have started this thread. |
|
|
|
You tried to rape her as well?
Dude.. Talking about rape is not cool man... Seriously, take that shit down.
Suchmoon is a SHE??  Suchmoon does have the female gender symbol as an icon. I never noticed that..  Anyhow, Vod what do you have to say on this: Anduck lies. :/
Read the PMs again. Notice where I type "ah, until this point'? That is when I lost trust for him. Around a week later, with no further communication from him, I changed my rating. If you choose a scammer's interpretation of those words over mine, then you will believe him over me.
I did read the PMs. But what I noticed was that you asked him to change his ratings first, otherwise you'd change it, and then only after Anduck said that it would be better if both of you remove the ratings, and only then did you found the rating to be retaliatory. I am not saying anduck is a scammer but nor am I saying what he did is ethical. The rating was good on its own, the issue here is when you changed it, and it does honestly look like retaliation after reading those conversations. |
|
|
|
Not really 4 months is not even half of the year and I would think that looking in depth in someones merit history to determine whether they are meriting to the standard of the other merit sources is a pretty time consuming thing to do. theymos probably checks for several other factors too.
I hate when people don't get sarcasm. Let me tell it out loud, THERE WAS SARCASM IN THAT POST! Obviously, I know theymos checks other factors, he wouldn't be an admin if he won't do his own research. Come on, man..
It took me more than 3.5 months, almost daily bumping, and many "vouches" in the thread to get processed. I haven't seen any sources added since.
So it will take me a year atleast to become a merit source. Nice. I have a feeling that 80 is the limit for now. When the number dropped to 79 LoyceV got approved quite quickly. Oh.. Thanks for the encouragement. Really helps. Really..
Loyce V, you should thank digaran if that's the case. I am waiting for him to accuse you, that, you paid theymos to make you a merit source and also that you wanted to use your merits to give it to your chipmixer alts. |
|
|
|
I kinda like this. The higher the standards the better contents we will see in the future. throwing up 50 merits for a single line post seems very annoying and it happened a lot at the early stage of merit introduction.
Anyway whatever happens, it's actually pretty clear that we need more merit sources. I hope theymos has the same idea in mind or may be a better one.
Exactly, the frequent posters of meta like having this high standard thing whereas most of them who post in the spam boards don't. The rest already have enough merits or they don't care.
People, the few non-spammers that don't post in such sections at all but post in the spam boards, unfortunately don't get merits, because other people have given up on reading anything there.
This is the main reason why people aren't getting their posts merited--the only good sections of bitcointalk IMO are Meta and Reputation. Everything else is just a spam-fest, and even if you wanted to post in sections like Bitcon Discussion, there's no point. Anything you post is just going to get buried within seconds. I posted a question about Changelly dropping Dash in Altcoin Discussion, and I actually wanted someone to answer it. Guess what happened? Nobody answered, probably because nobody even saw the question. It was only after I started a new thread in Exchanges that someone answered it. There's not enough merit sources to be sure, but I think the awarding of merits tends to poop out near the end of each month. If I'm not mistaken, merit sources get new allocations of smerits at the beginning of each month. They probably use them up before the month is over. That's my guess, anyway. No they don't. I had come across somewhere that not all merit sources spend their entire source merits. So that goes away.
The standards of people giving merits are so damn high. People don't merit normal posts,they merit high quality posts.
Agreed. I try to "lower my standards", especially for Newbies. Of course quality posts should be merited a lot, but just regular good posts are already far above the spam for which the Merit was introduced. So did I. Well, look at my merit history and you'll see that lowering standards won't work if you don't find good enough posts. Also when I do, the post is plagiarized.
It took me more than 3.5 months, almost daily bumping, and many "vouches" in the thread to get processed. I haven't seen any sources added since.
So it will take me a year atleast to become a merit source. Nice. |
|
|
|
|
Mods, anything to say on this topic? Is this allowed?
Bump!
|
|
|
|
Suchmoon is a SHE??
theymos, you should really reply to this topic..
Anduck lies. :/
Read the PMs again. Notice where I type "ah, until this point'? That is when I lost trust for him. Around a week later, with no further communication from him, I changed my rating. If you choose a scammer's interpretation of those words over mine, then you will believe him over me.
I did read the PMs. But what I noticed was that you asked him to change his ratings first, otherwise you'd change it, and then only after Anduck said that it would be better if both of you remove the ratings, and only then did you found the rating to be retaliatory. I am not saying anduck is a scammer but nor am I saying what he did is ethical. The rating was good on its own, the issue here is when you changed it, and it does honestly look like retaliation after reading those conversations.
Regardless, according to my trust settings both their feedback appear as untrusted so the counter part din't really had any effect.
What you see is as untrusted ratings is not equal to what others see. This is what the concern anduck has. |
|
|
|
Because he can? I'm not speaking on his behalf but I don't think he exactly owes you an explanation for that question. I used to trust a person somewhat and I don't feel like trusting him anymore, I can always change my feedback from neutral to negative? It's completely fine to do that provided a valid reason is tagged along with it.(which seems to be the case here)
Had that been the case, I don't think actmyname and DarkStar_ would have countered it(,unless you think actmyname and DarkStar_ are Anduck's alts and actmyname and DarkStar_ are also chipmixer shills, well....Digaran......) But that wasn't the case, read this: Also reminding you of this, as some people seem to skip over it: Vod asked me to change my rating, threatening to otherwise red-rate me. I refused. He rated me red. He also started claiming I'm a scammer and a liar, when I'm provably neither. His ratings to me are absolutely dishonest -- not just "poor". Why are some people still thinking his ratings have something to do with some >2yr old auction, that Vod earlier commented by saying "I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy"?
|
|
|
|
|
This is just the tip of the iceberg, I personally want to merit posts but every time I try to, I end up doing something else than what was intended. So basically, I just merit posts I come across and merit sources are very less, and the worse part is not all of them use their entire source merits, so if they don't , that sMerits ends up being destroyed forever.
We need a lot of Merit sources, it may take a while but currently, Merit faucet has dried up. The standards of people giving merits are so damn high. People don't merit normal posts,they merit high quality posts. That needs to be taken care of, to be honest. Otherwise, this ranking wouldn't work for what it was intended.
Also, like 90% of the posters who get merit, post in reputation, meta and technical discussions. People, the few non-spammers that don't post in such sections at all but post in the spam boards, unfortunately don't get merits, because other people have given up on reading anything there.
|
|
|
|
I doubt it is stated anywhere, but it certain is implied...
The feedback was already countered. You are basically stating you trust Anduck and you do not trust me., when in your words we were both guilty of the same thing.
That's a semi-fair point, but obviously you have a bit of bias. I don't state that I do not trust you though, just that I think your trust rating specifically on Anduck is poor. Anyone else ( not digaran) want to give an opinion on this? Vod does seem to have left retaliatory feedback and the PM conversation is definitely not helping Vod's side. I had asked Vod a question a few days ago but it was buried, thanks digaran, so Vod do answer this: Why did you change your feeback to Anduck from neutral to negative, is it because Anduck said he doesn't trust you, so you wanted to change it?And DarkStar_, multiple counters are totally fine. If the rating you're countering is wrongly given, which does seem like the case here. And also this: If a person can be tagged by multiple people for the same reason, such as a single scam instance or by being a scam buster, I don't see why multiple counters for one feedback shouldn't be allowed.
|
|
|
|
There is no way to earn merit under the current system. Stop deluding yourselves. The merit system here works EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE HIGH RANKING members. Most of the senior members here are somewhat jaded and do not have time to look around for interesting posts, because hardly anything interests these people more - except maybe another bounty announcement where Senior members get 1000% more than Jr. Members, for example.
To make giving out merit an optional thing provides zero motivation for current members to give it out, and leaves the system in a state where no one ever advances. The proof is in the pudding. It's become a farce.
This leads to a small group of folks in control over a large group, incentivizing the hoarders to remain hoarders, particularly when the trend in airdrops and bounties is to reward higher members with such lopsided rewards compared to Jr. Members.
Like it or not, the merit system here is in no way egalitarian, and fosters a divide amongst the majority against a small minority.
There is the distinct air of superiority coming from most of the higher up members here and nothing you can say will change that. Most members above the Jr. rank act like their shit doesn't stink simply because you got some merit colluding with other members.
Just the fact the Bitcointalk.org membership is swollen with Jr. Members says it all. I personally do not care one way or another but think it is a riot that senior members around here are so spiteful of members below their ranks and go to great lengths to defend their lopsided position.
Granted, there are many spam accounts and other nefarious things going on, but the forum is ignoring a vast pool of knowledgable Jr. Members with it's merit system. This is an unsustainable path to take for long-term growth.
Don't take my word for it. Just keep doing what you are doing. Other forums will come along and supplant this one, because this one is becoming more like an exclusive club for a small percentage of its members rather than an idea to promote the next paradigm in currencies.
Change your ways, Bitcointalk.
Edit: And this post is a good post worthy of at least one merit point - the points are clearly stated, and it is similar to the opinion of thousands of Jr. Members. My point is I won't receive any merit for this post because it attacks the ones responsible for delivering merit points. Thus proving the merit system here is not about rewarding intelligent posts, but instead to keep Jr. Members in their places. LOL!
Posts in other sections to get merit. Altcoins sections suck. Because it's overrun by bots and half of them are atleast scam icos. A few real people go there. Also, I don't give more than a merit to people but you made good points. I wanted to give you 10 but decided to save it a little. You can visit here, learn stuff and maybe get more merits, but it ain't a guarantee that you'll : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2968050.msg30499459#msg30499459 |
|
|
|
#1: Honestly very few people care about this forum, and caring about the age of the board, they don't care. Some people don't even know that satoshi created this forum, hell some people don't even know satoshi is or who created bitcoin . #2: Great idea. I usually use my phone a lot, so yeah I would love to have that feature. #3: Not bad, it could be a great addition. #4: The profiles would start looking weird(?), because everyone would have different details filled in. #5: Could possibly be good, I don't mind if it is there or not there. #6: Probably not. The merit distribution has been going down in numbers, and the like system would ruin it. Its not everybody's cup of tea to post High quality posts.
Overall nice suggestions, a few of them could be added I suppose, unless they are complicated to add, or if they clutter the UI. |
|
|
|
We have a thread for trust discussion (reputation) so why not have one for merit also. There does seem to be a big merit cloud covering a lot of meta and its own section would help to cut down the meta section more and allow for it to be a place where we can discuss forum software and other ideas without seeing merit everywhere.
OH hell no. The number of threads whining about merits have just started disappearing and no one wants to see that again. Reputation is for high end places. Merit is eh. It has no value, but trust well, it is linked with scams.
OP, lock the thread,seriously. |
|
|
|
Mods, is he banned? He hasn't been online for more than 27 hours. Although, he still has his signature on.
If in case he is not banned, what is the appropriate action to be taken here?
Can't mod /supermod see the IP? I was a mod time ago in one forum and I could see Ip from users.
There ain't no thing as supermod. It is called Global Moderator. And no they can't see IP address,like Welsh said.
It's hard for us to prove he is using multiple accounts and bots to bump the thread.
Most of these look like the generic 1 line garbage you see posted in tons of threads.
What is blatant is the users lack of proper post formatting. Below is their generic bump.
These are shills. Why do you expect them to have a proper post formatting. These are throwaway accounts. Why is it hard to prove, it is crystal clear that he is using multiple accounts to bump his thread.
I decided not to report it, as I was unsure about the scenario, so I am waiting for the mods to give a reply on this. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
, 
