Yep, and I've seen that with other retailers as well--and it sucks, because I have a feeling that that surcharge being added in some cases is above and beyond what's needed to cover the USPS's recent increase in postage.  A small flat rate priority mail box was something like $8.70 last year, then it went up to $9.45, and just a few weeks ago they boosted it again to $10.40.  Crazy.  But I think they're only supposed to raise rates to track inflation, not because of increased fuel costs.  Aren't their vehicles pretty green right now?  And Amazon has its own drivers for a lot of things.

Not surprising Amazon's stock took such a big hit based on an earnings forecast--the entire market is and has been overvalued for years, and I think Amazon is particularly sensitive to bad news.  But that phrase "macroeconomic headwinds" is so overused that it's practically meaningless at this point.

No, I've never even considered considering asking for one, because I thought you had to be either a staff member or a donator to get one.  Do you know who's been granted one and under what circumstances?  It's not like I've done anything spectacular to earn one of those, and it seems to me that if Theymos is silently giving me the finger in response to a name change, there's no reason to think that he'd bestow what amounts to something much more special than that.

Well, he didn't last Christmas and he had 11 months to think about it.  I'm trying to internalize your optimism and hopefulness, but my brain keeps rejecting it, like an organ transplant failure. 

Wouldn't that be wild, though?  If I'm not mistaken, I've seen it happen a couple of times since I've been a member here.  Didn't OmegaStarScream originally have a different username?  There was another moderator too, I think. 

And yeah, I've pretty much resigned myself to remaining with my current moniker forever.  Eh.  I could have problems much worse than having my request denied by Theymos.

Thanks to you and PowerGlove for your support.  I doubt any support, however strong, is going to sway Theymos's decision though--but it can't hurt, right?

In my opinion, you're right about that post--it didn't deserve 50 merits.  On the other hand, that example is the rare exception, not the norm on bitcointalk.  Members low-ranked and Legendary rarely get nearly that many merits from a single sender even if the post is above average.  In addition, unless you're a merit source (or have tons of earned sMerits) you wouldn't be able to send 50 merits in one shot all that often, so it's not as though there's an epidemic of over-meriting mediocre posts.  It's not even a problem.

On top of that, and as others have stated, people are basically free to distribute merits however they see fit.  There's merit abuse to be sure, but Theymos isn't even concerned about it, so if I were you I'd forget about it.  

There are a lot of merit sources and others who are trying to help lower-ranked members out, but there are so many of them and many times their posts are just typical bounty hunter crapola OR they're posted in sections where nobody ever reads anything and few merits are given.

You have to keep in mind that this is a forum with millions of members and only so many merits to go around.  Sometimes things seem unfair, but from what I've seen everything balances out over time.

Edit:  OP, I only gave you 1 merit for your 2nd post because I'm all out of sMerits, and Theymos hideously and repeatedly refuses to up my monthly allocation, thereby retarding my ability to reward posts such as yours.  Please complain to him if you would, but don't tell him I asked you to.  *shh*

Whaddaboutwhaddaboutwhaddabout.....yeah, there are a number of things non-staff members do for the forum that either go unrewarded or unacknowledged, but this thread is specifically about merit sources.

And hell yeah I voted yes!  I'd love to be paid for being a merit source--but that would be a sweet bonus for something I gladly have been doing for free for a few years now.  For me it isn't necessary, and I suspect for most of the other sources that's true, but this question popped into my noodle as I was pondering OP's question: If merit sources were paid (even if it were a small pittance) for a certain performance threshold, would you expect them to bust their asses to distribute as many merits as it took to reach that threshold? 

My point is that it could act as an incentive to be an active merit source.  As it stands, sources can do whatever they like and Theymos doesn't say boo.  And granted, the position is voluntary so Theymos is not their boss....but if that position was made into a pseudo-staff one, standards could be set to keep everything running smoothly.  Who knows?

I probably just did more typing than thinking, and now I'm going to do some reading of the replies.  No one has ever brought this up before.

And while we're at it: Theymos, I need more FUCKING source sMerits.

Often when someone receives advice, it's because they're not doing something right and/or are under pressure, so my statement still stands.  Regardless of whether he'd have changed any feedbacks all on his own or not, my point is that he's not someone who just hardens their position on something if they're challenged (like me sometimes, or like Lauda, TECSHARE, and some other members that come to mind).

And as I said, I had excluded JollyGood from my trust list well before I simply wiped it altogether, so hopefully no one here is taking my words to be a ringing endorsement for him.  I think his heart is in the right place and he's trying to do a good thing for the forum, but he's using the wrong tool to do it with.

And they shouldn't be deleted--ever.  This forum is a huge part of bitcoin's history, and can you imagine if all of Satoshi's posts were deleted just because they're old?  Also, if any of you have never browsed threads from back in the early days, I'd strongly suggest you do so, because they make for some very interesting reading.  I've spent hours getting lost in the topics that were relevant in 2010-11.

Regarding merits that inactive members have: It's not a problem at all, since there are merit sources constantly distributing merits, and those sources get new sMerits on a monthly basis, i.e., there's no issue with a shortage simply because some members are never going to send their sMerits. 

Ding ding ding!  As I was wracking my pea brain, trying to come up with a username I decided on either "A Pharmacist" or "The Pharmacist", and it was a close race.  Using "The" sounded egotistical to me, as if there wouldn't be another pharmacist on the forum (there's at least one that I know of, because he PMed me a few years ago and we started up a discussion about PIVX.  Turned out he's pretty arrogant, and I just stopped chatting with him).

Yes.  You're probably just too used to seeing my username to picture it being any different, and I'd probably think the same thing if the roles were reversed.  I never think of pharmacist and chemist as being synonymous, because in the US they're not.  The Sceptical Chymist was a great piece of old science from Robert Boyle, published in 1661, and chymist in that sense doesn't refer to someone who works in a pharmacy.  I guess that's how they spelled chemist back then, and it's funny to think of a present-day college student saying "Goddamn it, I flunked organic chymistry!!" (a not uncommon utterance for many who take it).

Just bumping this thread to let those members who've requested reviews that they're coming.  My source sMerits have been trickling in slowly, and it's a waste of time doing even one review if I've got less than 50--and preferably I'd like to have around 200 because that way I could do 4 reviews and hand out 50 merits to each member if they've earned it.  Long story short, it's much more efficient when I've got plenty of merits to give.

Also, right now my waiting list is 10 members deep so please continue to be patient--and I've no doubt that in about 8 hours from now that list will be even longer.

I'm going to leave this thread open for a bit just in case any of you want to comment.  I'm about to pass out in my chair, so I'll lock it back up when I awaken.

All of the other points before this aside, leaving a neutral feedback for a shitposter is acceptable and in some cases desirable.  By putting into words on a member's trust page just how bad of a poster he/she is, you're (hopefully) warning campaign and bounty managers that they won't be a good prospect.

I've left those kinds of feedbacks plenty of times, and if you look on my trust page and see what I've left for people in the years 2016-2017 there will probably be zillions of neutrals related to post quality.

I think JollyGood is willing to listen to advice and change his habits. I'd like to see him remove all of those feedbacks that have nothing to do with anything forum-related.  Neutrals are another story, though.  If you ask others, they'd probably tell you that a neutral is the way to put a note on a member's profile.  Not a big deal.

I agreed to withhold the mysterious, unknown person's identity (while there was a whirlwind of speculation that he was Royse777 and nobody in second place as far as possible contenders) for a number of reasons--but I'd say the main one was my own judgement of Royse777 and his credibility.  I definitely wouldn't have agreed to do that for just anyone.  There was also the structure of the funding, and escrows were in place to keep everyone honest.  In addition, even if Royse777 came up with the project idea and kicked it off, there was still a fairly large team working on Casino Critique, so I didn't see this would be in any way a golden opportunity for Royse777 to scam anyone, even if he were so inclined to do it.

Looking ahead, if a situation like that ever comes up again, I'm going to give it a lot more consideration.

I can't stand it when statements like the above are made, because they always leave me wondering whether I'm being included in that broad set.  I didn't break any oaths, nor do I think I stabbed anyone in any part of their body.  Maybe I'm just one of those soldiers in a foxhole sniping here and there but generally just trying not to get in the war all the way.

Assume (correctly) that I'm stupid.  Did naim027 get his ban reinstated?

I remember the early days of using e-mail and having usernames on crap like AOL chat rooms (which I was a fan of back in the day nevertheless).  My thought is that if you're joining a site like this one where your screen name is basically your face, you really ought to put some thought into creating one that's memorable and perhaps clever. 

That's if you care about the forum or any other website or service where you need a username.  When I see really, really generic usernames that look like every other one here, I immediately get the impression that that member doesn't really want to be here to contribute and interact with others on a personal level.  Look at some of the more famous members, the ones with big personalities who've perhaps made friends here or have had feuds or whatever: a lot of them have pretty un-generic handles.  Vod, OgNasty, TECSHARE, Phinneas Gage, TMAN, Lauda all fit that category.

Anyway, blah blah blah.  I picked my name because....just take a guess.

And now I want to change it, but Theymos is turning his hairy ear to my pleas for lenience.  Maybe if my name was (The)(cool)Cryptovator he might let me.  I'm not bitter.  I'm really not.

Dude, we've all been lied to.  Some get angrier about it than others if and when they realize that fact.

I'm a poor historian of bitcoin and the development of mining, but comparing the inventor of the ASIC to Newton is stretching it harder than Mr. Fantastic.  As far as getting an education goes, I'd say most people who studied hard and studied a subject that didn't lead to some frivolous puff degree (like gender studies) probably found themselves in a competitive position as far as the job market when they graduated. 

One of the problems is that there are more people than ever going to university, and it's getting more expensive.  A degree just isn't as valuable as it once was--unless it's in something like nursing, pharmacy, engineering, and STEM fields.  As I mentioned, if you get a degree in history, political science, or any of the liberal arts offerings, what kind of career does that prepare you for?

And hey, don't get too discouraged.  It's a fucking nightmare of a time we're living in right now, and I think we're all pretty on edge about a lot of things.  Take a deep breath and be grateful for bitcoin at least.

Yes, a thousand times yes--and even though I'm not familiar with who the top execs are at Twitter, I'd be willing to wager nearly all of them should go.  This takeover should be a house cleaning, and it's pretty hard to run a company the way you want it when there are still employees (especially if they have power/influence) who are loyal to the old way of doing things.  Musk must know that, so perhaps there are more departures forthcoming.

And fuck 'em all anyway.  Twitter has become way more influential in politics than it ever should have, and the layer of censorship that leans hard left on top of their power has made them fucking dangerous to America and people who want to hold onto the tiny slivers of freedom we still enjoy.

We'll see what Musk does; it should be interesting if nothing else.

As with Lauda, there comes a point where a DT member's wrongly-given negative trust starts to outweigh all the correct ones, and when that happens there's a dilemma: Does the DT community vote with their trust inclusions/exclusions to remove that DT member (and in the process reduce the weight of all the good feedbacks) or do they just allow the DT member to continue to abuse or wrongly use the trust system?

I made the decision a while back to cast my vote against JollyGood, because it seemed like he wasn't getting the message and I don't believe in keeping a person on the DT list no matter how many good feedbacks they have if they're misusing the trust system.  Obviously I was in the minority, but I'd suggest to JollyGood that he review his trust page and delete all those feedbacks that were left because of a person's posting habits or anything not genuinely related to trustworthiness.  I had to do that when the merit system came about, and it was tedious--but I did it anyway because community standards changed.

Anyway, good for you OP.  JollyGood is at least open to rethinking things.  Many members are not.

When companies get bought out, it isn't uncommon for the buyer to pay a premium over the going share price.  In Musk's case, it doesn't surprise me that the economics seem to be playing a backseat role in this whole thing--because him buying Twitter was never about turning it into an enormously profitable enterprise.  He wouldn't need to do that, nor is he the Warren Buffett type, looking for undervalued assets.

Why would any mega-rich person want to buy a media company?  Same reason Ted Turner, WR Hearst, or any similar person in history has taken control of one: it's a power play.  If you control what people see and hear about the world, you can very effectively shape their opinions about pretty much anything.

I think that's probably the real reason behind Musk's Twitter buy.  He might be an advocate of free speech and all that, but he's got to have an ulterior motive to spend that much money on something that's likely not going to be very profitable.

Debtors' prisons haven't been legal in a long, long time (at least in the US) as far as I know.  I'm too tired to look it up or even read further to see if anyone addressed that, but if Hollywood movies are any way to gauge real life (lol), they went out of style during the Wild West days.

That makes complete sense....but if that's true, what makes DeFi lending any kind of financial breakthrough?  I mean, there's been a P2P lending section on this forum for years, so that little experiment has proven beyond a doubt that collateral is essential for any loan between strangers (unless the lender enjoys losing money).

I see no way whatsoever for any crypto wizards, no matter how brilliant they are, to get around the fact that borrowers of crypto will scam if given the slightest opportunity to.  And if they report scammers to banks, credit rating agencies, or law enforcement, why even bother?

Really?  Yeah, there's a "personal messages" option where you can add members to your PM ignore list, which is different from the better-known ignore list.

OP, I'd say you've got a case here, because nobody should be leaving negative feedback because of someone's post quality--or even if they're an idiot and did what you apparently did with the scores earlier this year.  This is why I've excluded JG from my trust list.  Well actually, I did that before I completely blanked it, but the reason was that he's had a very bad habit of leaving those types of negs. 

Hopefullly JG will reconsider it, but if not you're out of luck.

What are you looking for from bitcointalk?  You're asking about all the ways you've read about and yet somehow you're still uncertain.  That tells me that you weren't driven here out of curiosity or a passion for bitcoin, especially since it's just a bizarre question in general to be asking the community of a discussion forum when they're new.

You either come here and know what to post or else you end up like so many below-average members that you can tell by the way they write and the contents of their posts they're only here to earn some money.  That describes you to a T, right?

I swear I've read someone post something extremely similar to that before.  If anyone else is getting that feeling and can do a magical search, I'd be much obliged.