Merit & new rank requirements

[coinsniperX]

Merit is a new system where older users can withhold merit from younger users so they can't rank up and earn all the bounties!

I don't think so, just look at this thread, a lot of higher rank members are already giving merits to lower rank members. This new method is not about hoarding bounties, this is about preserving the quality of the forum. There are a lot of forums in the internet that are already using the merit system in terms of likes and upvotes and so far it's been helping improve the quality of their forums.

Not sure you can say that at this stage though.. just because a trickle of new users in this thread (maybe 10% or so) are getting merit doesn't mean it's working. A lot are getting merit just because they are complaining that they don't have any merit and that it's unfair lol.

Out there in the wild: it may turn out that new users seldom get any merit at all.

Check this young account out..

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2828014.0

right attitude, quality post.. lots of merit from lots of people.. it is working fella

Again, that is just one sample, one data point. It could even just be an anomaly.

For every one user that makes a hot post/thread and gets tons of merit. You could have 99 users who get next to nothing or anything substantial.

Well, I am not sure that this is a very appropriate case study. Or are you willing to tell me that the only way to get merits is to make threads and posts where you unconditionally praise the new rules with a deferential attitude? BTW, I happen to agree with every line written in that OP as I have also stated in one post of mine in that same thread. But in that same post I've also outlined what in my opinion will not work with this new system.

I have a personality and a way of writing that does not appeal to very many people; however, if I had a lower rank or I was just coming to the forum, I may consider either modifying my way of posting to rank up or just keeping with my regular style and to find out whether I receive very many merits. 

Even if you do not rank up, you are not really hurt either way in terms of being able to communicate ideas and to brainstorm ideas, and no one is stopping you from posting your ideas.  I have found that my style and my ideas resonate with some folks (that seems to be a kind of minority), and they do not resonate with others, yet over the years, I have pretty much stuck to my guns, and it seems to work out o.k. with me in terms of various forums and also in terms of my real world interactions.   

I have marked bold the crucial part of your post. That's actually the problem. To rank up (right or wrong most people want to rank up, be it because they want to run signature campaigns, be it for simple reasons of prestige) people WILL change the way they are posting, but the move may not be in the desired direction. I will make an example to make this case clear.

Sure, there are going to be some folks who change their behavior more than others in order to adapt to the new system and what they are attempting to achieve.

I don't know if you are familiar with the DeepOnion project and how it unfolded. As soon as their "airdrop" (in fact a signature campaign) had become economically valuable, many people wanted to join it. But in the community there were also a lot of critical voices, who were raising doubts and critics. They all got banned from the airdrop and their critical posts were deleted from the thread. Which has been the consequence? The consequence has been that this "system of reward and punishment" has selected a community made only by people fanatically in favor of the status quo. I am not judging the quality of that project here, I'm just exposing a pattern of human behavior.

You even seem to concede that this DeepOnion project might not be a good example because it is such an extreme, and I find it difficult to give much weight to such a comparison when you are providing attributes that do not really exist with this forum, the management of this forum or Theymos.

Yeah, fuck, Theymos has been accused of having various controlling and censoring tendencies and he has even been accused of running off with donations, but a vast majority of those accusations are pure bullshit.  Sure, there is going to be some factual evidence to support these kinds of accusations, but if you spend enough time around here, you will tend to find that there is a considerable amount of decentralization and even tolerance of a variety of views, and various kinds of proposals to change the systems are attempts to improve the space or to adapt to changes in the community too.

Of course you cannot compare the new rules of BCT with that totalitarian management of DeepOnion's thread, but both has something in common: they end up rewarding those who praise the system and the status quo and punish those who raise a critical voice.

Yeah.. you admit an extreme comparison, yet you still want to assert that there is similarities.  O.k.

And you can already see the first signs of such a tendence here in these threads about the new merit system. Juniors who are posting here to praise the system get plenty of merits, critical voices don't.

Sure there is some truth to your assertion, but folks who frame matters in terms of positive terms are likely to get more praise than negative nancies.  That is the way of the world.  Do you want to hang around folks who are constantly complaining?  I tend to filter those kinds of toxic folks out of my life to the extent feasible.

Certainly there are ways to have constructive feedback without coming off as a whiner and certainly there are ways to be critical without going on some stupid-ass tirade.  Accordingly, I think that if folks are able to be constructively critical, then they can still earn merits. 

By the way, I feel similar about bitcoin bashers.. there are a lot of fucking whiners, and if you are going to whine about it, then you need to bring a whole hell of a lot more evidence (and logic) to the table to overcome my already informed views about the fundamental strengths of bitcoin.   

Which do you think will be the consequences long term?
DeepOnion's thread has rapidly become unreadable, consisting in a mere chorus of enthusiastic hyping statements.
What will happen to Bitcointalk?

Again, you are making an inadequate comparison.  I think that theymos is making these implementations in good faith, and surely I hope that he has folks helping him out because sometimes, it can be quite overwhelming to figure out all the good, bad and the ugly going on with any kind of new system, and how it might disparately impact some folks.  I personally think that the initial merit distribution should have been based on a kind of prorata based on activity level rather than giving the minimum merit for each rank, and I have repeated this a few times (as have a few other posters), but sometimes it may not be easy to go back and retroactively fix - even though we see that out of "fairness" Theymos had retroactively gone back and gave 1000 merits rather than 500 merits to those members with 775 or higher activity levels at the time of the distribution.

Shitposting will be reduced - and this is GOOD.

It should be.

But variety of opinions will as well shrink, because of natural selection. You'll have less shitposting but much more buttlickingposting. And worse of all, more and more a single line of thought.

Maybe, there might be more butt kissing posts, perhaps?  Overall, I think that people will still post what they want, and probably, the more likely outcome, they may put a bit more effort into some of their posts considering that they might earn some merits if they back up their position a bit better, rather than just typing one liners (conclusions only).

F*ck yeah! i already watching an army of butt kissing members all over the forum! Is that what this system brings for us?
Gave you my 1 merit, you are one of a few adequate people here!

[theunbeatable]

Please accept my apologies if this has been discussed, I'm not reading through 82 pages.


Currently, the forum's general protocol frowns heavily on the act of asking for positive trust in return for a transaction. Hell, I've been given negative trust (unfairly) for simply stating that I would conduct a transaction for free if the other person would consider giving me trust equal to the experience.

Should the sam rule apply, more seriously, to merit?

I just came across a post where someone explained a simple idea and then said "if you like my idea, send me merit." There is no negative merit, so an ask like this seems more serious than asking for trust.

What's the consensus here, if someone is asking for merit should they be penalized or ostracized or "corrected" as to the correct forum protocol to not do so?

Theymos stated that : Do not beg for merit excessively.
The trust system and the merit system are a two different thing, merits have been designed to improve the quality of posts of those who are here in this forum, and yes there is a consensus here. Because the merit system is different from the trust system you can have negative trusts if you are begging, selling and buying merits.
In simple terms terms you can have -100 plus trust rating even and have 1000 plus merits at the same time.

[coinsniperX]

it is a good news to read, because now the users of bitcoin is always increase so the bitcoin preparing and offering good system such as merit.

+1 Ass licking post  When will you realize that this system is not about bitcoin, it's about people who want monopolize their influence. It's fully against Satoshi vision. But, better I will be silent, as all others )))

[iluvbitcoins]

How was it determined how many sMerits we get?
For the last couple of days I thought I'd have 500 sMerits, but seems that's not the case
http://prntscr.com/i6jetn

[Yanisumin]

I think that biggest problem of this merit system is that a lot of people is not using it. They simply ignore it.

Could visibility be increased changing the "+merit" color?

The merit system have been designed few days ago. Some of the members are not even going back online since this system was implemented. Sooner, people will get used to it. And if there are things like ignoring the merit system and ignoring the posts (even the constructive one), they won't be benefited for not doing that and that means that they are the type of people who doesn't want to embrace the new change. This new system teaches us to have a constructive post, and be open minded and teaches us to give those posts the merit they deserve.

[exus]

How was it determined how many sMerits we get?
For the last couple of days I thought I'd have 500 sMerits, but seems that's not the case
http://prntscr.com/i6jetn

See the first post of this topic:
"For current members, your initial merit score is equal to the minimum required to your rank. Of that, a certain amount (less than the usual half) is spendable. The spendable amount was calculated based on your current rank and the number of activity points you earned in the last year. A Legendary member who hasn't posted in the last year would still be Legendary, but would not have any spendable merit."

[pawel7777]

..... All is well but we must also give the opportunity to the new to go up in grade...

That's why you have no merit requirement up to junior level and only 10 for a member. Highest ranks are supposed to be hard to achieve. The previous system based on activity was way too easy.

I hope the new highest rank is introduced, so all the current Legendaries have something to strive for.

I think that biggest problem of this merit system is that a lot of people is not using it. They simply ignore it.

Could visibility be increased changing the "+merit" color?

Not sure whether people ignore it, or just waiting to see how this system will pan out. You don't want to shoot yourself out in the first week.

But changing colour is a great idea, green should do the trick.

+ Having sMerit balance shown on the Merit summary page would be useful (not visible for everyone though)

[Semosuchi Tesongrato]

I don't know how much the merit system will improve the quality of the posts.
For what I can understand, the only result is to make impossible for low ranks to grow (please don't tell me "Write good posts and you'll receive merits." It's a lie, and you know it: for example, even if I like a post, I can give any merit)
Of course legendaries are very happy, because this novelty "freeze" the situation in their advantage.
But, by definition, nothing static is good, in this dynamic world.

I predict that in just some weeks the system - at least in this way - simply will fail.

We'll see.

[khaled0111]

So, if I send merit points to another user it will be deduced from my account? Most of bitcoiners are holder by nature I don't think they will spend their points even if they cross a good post ( maybe they will do if you pay them well   )

It will be hard for moderators to check all members posts if they ask for their merit points (10 constructive posts), it would be better to use a Demerit system to punish shitposters.

[ilpipita]

How was it determined how many sMerits we get?
For the last couple of days I thought I'd have 500 sMerits, but seems that's not the case
http://prntscr.com/i6jetn

By now, Theymos decided that the merit suytem has automatically given users certain number of merits which correspond to their current ranks, regardless of their current activities. For example: 10 merits for Members; 100 Merits for Full members, 250 Merits for Senior members, 500 merits for Heros; and 1000 Merits for Ledgendaries. That's the original allocation of merit system; however, some days after that point, Theymos corrected it a little bit by reallocating more merit points for users whom are Heros but has already had above 700 activities (I don't remember exactly the number of activities range for the case, you can check in previous threads).
Hope it helps, and please send me Merits as gifts if possible. I almost upgraded to Member before launching of merit system.

I have recheck previous threads, the exact one is

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.

[ilpipita]

So, if I send merit points to another user it will be deduced from my account? Most of bitcoiners are holder by nature I don't think they will spend their points even if they cross a good post ( maybe they will do if you pay them well   )

It will be hard for moderators to check all members posts if they ask for their merit points (10 constructive posts), it would be better to use a Demerit system to punish shitposters.

No, actually not. You won't lose your merits for sure. What you really send to others is your sMerit, which is sendable merit. Hence, what you will lose is sMerit, and you have nothing to gain for keeping sMerits for yourself. Only merits will help you to satisfy new ranking system which highly correlated with both the your merit points and your total number of activities.

Additionally, users who receiving merits also increase their sMerits by 50 percent. I mean when they get 10 merits from others, they actions focally have 5 more sMerits in their accounts, which in turn allow them to send those sMerits to others as gifts and help. That is the way merit system work and the approach in which users help each other as real, strong community over time.

 Merits of my threads useful, constructive, ok?

[Semosuchi Tesongrato]

It's not only about to be a "holder". You simply don't have merit to spend.
I don't have any, members have ONE. When it's gone, it's gone. Oh, after it's gone, it became 0,5!!!!! So very fast...no more merits on the forum (the 8'000 from "mining are insufficient for sure)
The only way to grow is to have some legendary friends that will "sponsor" you.
The forum now is property of an elite of high ranks, the others can only beg for mercy.
It has nothing to do with the quality of post, only with power.

So, if I send merit points to another user it will be deduced from my account? Most of bitcoiners are holder by nature I don't think they will spend their points even if they cross a good post ( maybe they will do if you pay them well   )

It will be hard for moderators to check all members posts if they ask for their merit points (10 constructive posts), it would be better to use a Demerit system to punish shitposters.

[ilpipita]

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.

In fact, not only Ledgendaries have the rights to send smerits ( I would like to emphasize that sMerits, not Merits), but also Heroes, Senior Members, Full members, and Members too. The problem is Heroes and Ledgendaries have more sMerits since the start of merit system to give. However, everyone in the forum can help each other to rank up, to improve the quality of posts in the forum, to make the forum as a better one for discussion.

[CryptoChanel]

Of course you cannot compare the new rules of BCT with that totalitarian management of DeepOnion's thread, but both has something in common: they end up rewarding those who praise the system and the status quo and punish those who raise a critical voice.
And you can already see the first signs of such a tendence here in these threads about the new merit system. Juniors who are posting here to praise the system get plenty of merits, critical voices don't.

That is not entirely true, TMAN for example has given a lot of merit to users who openly disagreed with the change or criticized certain aspects. Others have been doing similar things, some more, some less.
I also have given a few merits to people being sceptic, as long as they had a well explained position or provided some alternative they believe to be more suited.
It's not about opinion not about agreeing with someone or disagreeing with them, it's about how you voice that opinion.
People who outright cry and shout "No, no, no" without giving reasons or alternatives don't get merit. Posts like that are neither constructive, nor "high quality".
If you make a well written post, explaining your position and opinion, bring something to the conversation, or just sum everything up really well, you will get merit, regardless of your opinion and stance.

I have spotted a tendency and extrapolated an outcome - of course there will always be exceptions, like high ranking members occasionally meriting also critical voices. But reality is not defined by exceptions.
What you are stating, which in itself would make a sense, is alas just theory, to which I can now reply opposing empirical evidence. Did you notice that all my well articulated posts in this discussion didn't bring me a single merit? Fragments of my arguments have been quoted and re-quoted several times in the poets of other people, but not a single merit has been given to any of my posts, in a thread highly populated with people full of sMerits. I am not complaining, this must be very clear, not I am in any way begging for merits - if I were a such kind of person I would have formulated an entirely different kind of posts here. But I'm mentioning this only to prove my point. Empirical evidence is right now showing that a critical contribute to the discussion - but a non "politically correct" one according to the general view - is leading to no merits or so.
I am really not happy to be right in this discussion. I really would prefer you to be right. I am in favor of a merit system to fight shitposting and improve the quality the forum, but I am getting more and more convinced that as things are shaping up it will not work as expected. It may turn out to reduce shitposting (we cannot be sure until we will observe that) but for sure it will set off a new pattern of behavior which personally I'm finding even more obscene than shitposting - and that is buttlicking. Conformism and buttlicking are at risk of becoming the new plague of this forum. I can already see so many cases, just after a few days. Wait that all the people with no dignity which is infesting the forum (as well as the world) find out how it works. Which is the ONLY feasible way to get merits here. Not in theory - but in the practice. Statistics rules. Mark my words - and we'll comment it again in six months.

[lyledark10]

So, if I send merit points to another user it will be deduced from my account? Most of bitcoiners are holder by nature I don't think they will spend their points even if they cross a good post ( maybe they will do if you pay them well   )

It will be hard for moderators to check all members posts if they ask for their merit points (10 constructive posts), it would be better to use a Demerit system to punish shitposters.

Yes I agree with you. It better to have also demerit system so that it can minimises too the shitposters instead raise the very useful post and constructive,

I think that biggest problem of this merit system is that a lot of people is not using it. They simply ignore it.

Could visibility be increased changing the "+merit" color?

The merit system have been designed few days ago. Some of the members are not even going back online since this system was implemented. Sooner, people will get used to it. And if there are things like ignoring the merit system and ignoring the posts (even the constructive one), they won't be benefited for not doing that and that means that they are the type of people who doesn't want to embrace the new change. This new system teaches us to have a constructive post, and be open minded and teaches us to give those posts the merit they deserve.

..... All is well but we must also give the opportunity to the new to go up in grade...

That's why you have no merit requirement up to junior level and only 10 for a member. Highest ranks are supposed to be hard to achieve. The previous system based on activity was way too easy.

I hope the new highest rank is introduced, so all the current Legendaries have something to strive for.

I think that biggest problem of this merit system is that a lot of people is not using it. They simply ignore it.

Could visibility be increased changing the "+merit" color?

Not sure whether people ignore it, or just waiting to see how this system will pan out. You don't want to shoot yourself out in the first week.

But changing colour is a great idea, green should do the trick.

+ Having sMerit balance shown on the Merit summary page would be useful (not visible for everyone though)

[francojon]

Sources cannot read every post and the rest of the members will not necessarily reward quality... They may trade merit or give it only to other uses they know etc... For the system to work, all users should have the improvement of quality in mind and I don´t think that´s safe to assume.

This system may easily become a favour-for a-favour thing. It is impossible to "police and patrol" every merit given.

[pablito1989]

I don't know how much the merit system will improve the quality of the posts.
For what I can understand, the only result is to make impossible for low ranks to grow (please don't tell me "Write good posts and you'll receive merits." It's a lie, and you know it: for example, even if I like a post, I can give any merit)
Of course legendaries are very happy, because this novelty "freeze" the situation in their advantage.
But, by definition, nothing static is good, in this dynamic world.

I predict that in just some weeks the system - at least in this way - simply will fail.

We'll see.

I think exactly like you.
I would have preferred that signatures were forbidden for everyone, if this was the problem that caused spam.

[imshon]

The purpose of BITCOINTOLK is a meaningful conversation, it is wonderful! But to sustain, the ranking is effective.
I think that it is a problem that merit becomes a hindrance to the rank up.
I hope to consider supplying a sufficient number of merits.
On the local, merit sending has not become active due to the small number.

[MrSpasybo]

I wish our forum had Merit long ago to limit / destroy spamers, if so, our community has not become overly aggressive and abusive forum as in the past.
With the arrival of Merit, a tool to control spammers, I expect that Admin & Mods will soon decide to reopen the locked-in local forums.

Humor is that most of the forum members are not familiar with Merit so everyone keeps their Merit  

Is there a delicate issue: Will there ever be a secret Merit exchange on the forum?
You may hear this: "All, which can't be bought by money, can be bought by so much of money."

[nioschka]

Please accept my apologies if this has been discussed, I'm not reading through 82 pages.


Currently, the forum's general protocol frowns heavily on the act of asking for positive trust in return for a transaction. Hell, I've been given negative trust (unfairly) for simply stating that I would conduct a transaction for free if the other person would consider giving me trust equal to the experience.

Should the sam rule apply, more seriously, to merit?

I just came across a post where someone explained a simple idea and then said "if you like my idea, send me merit." There is no negative merit, so an ask like this seems more serious than asking for trust.

What's the consensus here, if someone is asking for merit should they be penalized or ostracized or "corrected" as to the correct forum protocol to not do so?

Theymos stated that : Do not beg for merit excessively.
The trust system and the merit system are a two different thing, merits have been designed to improve the quality of posts of those who are here in this forum, and yes there is a consensus here. Because the merit system is different from the trust system you can have negative trusts if you are begging, selling and buying merits.
In simple terms terms you can have -100 plus trust rating even and have 1000 plus merits at the same time.

Does anyone actually believe that the merit system will "improve the quality of posts"? You guys think that a bunch of people (not to mention certain national groups, but it will happen in that way, for sure) won't start to give each other merits for posts like "good sir, when airdrop"? I don't believe that the system was designed for the improving of the overall quality in the first place: it was designed for the slowdown of the forum activity. Quality will more or less remain the same, it's obvious. But what worries me is the existence of these "Gods of Merits" who can show their merit mercy upon their lobby champs, and rage upon the sinners. Was that really necessary? Couldn't that be done in some other way, without showing the muscles? Would someone from the management explain us why that title was introduced, maybe I've missed a philosophical idea that exists in the background of that act (which I won't call the act of absolutist power, although the resemblance is stunning)? Do you think that the act is in line with the very essence of the decentralized Bitcoin nature and everything else that blockchain technology represents, comparing to the banks, states, companies and other bs creations? Will any of these Gods give me 150 merits, so I can move to the next rank? I don't believe so. Will they deny merits to Satoshi because they don't know that it was Him who has written a "low quality" post? Will they give him merits if they learn that it was He who has written the "good sir, when airdrop" thing? Do we really need to associate personalities with the addresses/nicks and to introduce such a state-like central power to Bitcoin and communities that surround it? If management was concerned about the quality of posts, I think a lot simpler and more repressive system of, for example, some negative merits or something similar could be introduced. So, please, don't talk about "quality of posts" anymore 'cause it hurts intelligence. Hail to the Gods ('cause they give merits)! And cheers to everyone else ('cause they make the Bitcoin and the existence of Gods possible)!