Soliciting opinions on how to deal with suspected merit abusers

[funsponge]

I think that admins need to state publicly that merit trding or selling is against the forum rules. At the moment, it seems that the only offence is for a merit source to sell merits.

Argh, no, don't do that! Not all trading of merit is merit trading, so to speak. I've merited people who have merited me because we were participating in a thread where we were all trying to solve various mining issues - I solved one issue and got merited, then the same person that merited me solved another issue so I merited him*. Of course, I freely admit that I was more inclined to merit someone who had merited me - that's just human nature - but said individual did, indeed, post something merit-worthy.

* - I was merited on this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2046072.msg30157009#msg30157009 & I merited the person who merited me for this post in the same thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2046072.msg30407678#msg30407678

That isn't selling merit though and I don't think selling or trading merit is the problem here. If there's a plausible reason why you've merited someone and you don't continue to do so then I'm sure trading merit to someone for helping you with a problem is fine. Unless it's a really simple problem and then it could become fishy but that's why it's very difficult to enforce merit being rewarded. People are going to give others merit who help them with their problems. By the way that response that you merited looks okay too me.

But the act of selling/trading merit out of gain should be banned for all members and not just merit sources.

[MagicSmoker]

By the way that response that you merited looks okay too me.

I thought so too! Although I'd like to think I am fairly technically savvy, I had no idea that to increase the number of threads used in xmr-stak I had to literally duplicate the thread parameter string for each thread. Rather ununintuitive/obtuse, really.

But the act of selling/trading merit out of gain should be banned for all members and not just merit sources.

Oh, that I agree with totally, though I suspect it would be even harder to enforce than account selling (hence why the latter is "discouraged," rather than outright banned).

Perhaps two good rules to consider for filtering out potential merit abusers for red trust are on any merit transactions greater than, say, 10, or when one person gives merit to another more than, say, 5x. The latter rule will likely become less useful as time goes on, however.

[LeakBarak]

Oh, that I agree with totally, though I suspect it would be even harder to enforce than account selling (hence why the latter is "discouraged," rather than outright banned).

Perhaps two good rules to consider for filtering out potential merit abusers for red trust are on any merit transactions greater than, say, 10, or when one person gives merit to another more than, say, 5x. The latter rule will likely become less useful as time goes on, however.

I agree with this, If one person give back only one merit to sender that's doesn't mean they trading merit.
Maybe one of members here which have many merit accidentally sent back merit, can we call it trading merit? I think no!
And need real proof if they trading merit, maybe more than some times (maybe 5 times) send each other merits at short term time will be a good proof.

[Vod]

Sorry OP, I missed this post (a lot of time in the air recently) but I believed I answered your question in the other thread. 

[DomainMagnate]

I'd also like everyone else's opinion, because I do value them.  I don't want to start having to delete feedbacks right after I left them.

I had expressed hesitation about tagging merit abusers early on, because there's so much subjectivity about the system, but at the same time there are some users who are obviously sending merit to people who don't deserve it.  Obvious to my eyes, anyway.  And that's the problem.  I realize my feedback now carries more weight than someone who's not on DT, and I know I ought to hand out negatives to people who really deserve them.  Do you guys think I, or any other DT member, should be tagging merit abusers?  EthanB suggested in another thread that a neutral might be appropriate, and I don't think that's a horrible idea when there's doubt.  But I don't think neutrals do much good.

Awaiting your opinions.

I appreciate what you're doing here to try to keep the forum clean, and dealing with such a large number of members it's obviously not an easy task, but it also is unfair to pass judgement like you sometimes do without asking, warning, reviewing the case or checking details and then especially ignoring all messages.  Please take the extra effort to review details before handing out the reds to make sure there is a valid reason.

[Jet Cash]

I had expressed hesitation about tagging merit abusers early on, because there's so much subjectivity about the system, but at the same time there are some users who are obviously sending merit to people who don't deserve it.  Obvious to my eyes, anyway.  And that's the problem.  I realize my feedback now carries more weight than someone who's not on DT, and I know I ought to hand out negatives to people who really deserve them.  Do you guys think I, or any other DT member, should be tagging merit abusers?  EthanB suggested in another thread that a neutral might be appropriate, and I don't think that's a horrible idea when there's doubt.  But I don't think neutrals do much good.

Is there any penalty for the person if you tag them, and then remove the tag on appeal?
If there isn't, then you could tag them if you have good reason to believe that an abuse has occured, and remove it if the tagged member can provide a reasonable explanation.

[icopress]

I had expressed hesitation about tagging merit abusers early on, because there's so much subjectivity about the system, but at the same time there are some users who are obviously sending merit to people who don't deserve it.  Obvious to my eyes, anyway.  And that's the problem.  I realize my feedback now carries more weight than someone who's not on DT, and I know I ought to hand out negatives to people who really deserve them.  Do you guys think I, or any other DT member, should be tagging merit abusers?  EthanB suggested in another thread that a neutral might be appropriate, and I don't think that's a horrible idea when there's doubt.  But I don't think neutrals do much good.

The Pharmacist, Hi  

I believe that it makes sense to mark such accounts with red trust, in particular accounts that are clearly abused by merit.
In the telegram there are already groups of people who are engaged in sales. In these groups they also sell bills, with artificial merit



As for the neutral mark, as far as I know, neutral comments slowly increase trust,  (correct me if I'm wrong).