Merit & new rank requirements

[Lauda]

Merit sales, transfers to aliases, back-and-forth trading, etc. are not much of an issue. All illegitimate merit will decay, and will account for a tiny and very expensive fraction of the total merit economy. It's basically a rounding error; fight it where convenient, but waste no sleep over it.

I think that actmyname has been too hasty with some of his negatives, but I haven't had time to look carefully enough into it to justify making forceful changes. I did exclude actmyname from my trust list, so another DT1 could remove him from the default trust network by doing the same.

So what are you proposing that be done against shady behavior regarding the merit system? Nothing? Or are you simply saying that *we could/should* tag them, but that some of the tag's by actmyname were unwarranted?

[1713972628]

1713972628

[1713972628]

1713972628

[1713972628]

1713972628

[adetos]

Now who are those awarding merits? Forum members or the admins

[bitgov]

It looks like Merit is going to be new "coin" on Bitcointalk market:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2874805.0

In democratic and capitalist countries, "difficulties" become currency.

[adetos]

Its important that merit distribution and award should given to forum staffs and admins so that, so even the members will not have right to distribute and will bring some sanity to the forum. This will make people in the be more serious with what ever they are doing and get rewarded moving up having access to better capabilities and features of the forum.

[pugman]

It's too early to get a clear picture, but my thoughts so far:

First, most people complaining about merit are constantly posting garbage, and should not rank-up. The forum is not a welfare system; you don't run through a few hoops and then get paid for doing something that nobody actually wants. I like that good forum members can make money, especially when said forum members are in poorer countries and this is a major opportunity for them. I very much do not want to destroy the sig-ad/airdrop/bounty "industry". But I am not going to tolerate people posting garbage upon garbage. If the merit system completely fails and I can't think of anything else to replace it, then my next step will probably be to completely remove all ways for forum users to make money from posting (eg. removing signatures entirely).

Why would the merit system fail? Are you kidding? The merit system has been one of the best things ever done on this forum which is why users are complaining so much about it. Why do you want good posters to suffer from the likes of idiots? I know this can be a hectic task to do but users can be banned if they are hesitant to cope up with the forum's policies and if they only want to earn from signature campaigns. But really, you have done great work and just verbally appreciating it isn't enough.

Maybe there are ways for people who were making money by posting garbage on the forum to make money on other sites with easy bounties, etc. (For example, I don't know if they're actually any good, but https://bountyhive.io is currently advertising on the forum.) But people should use the forum to talk about these money-making ideas, not as a way of making money itself. Once you spend a lot of time here, you may be able to make some money here (which is great!), but you should consider this a far-off hope, not your primary objective.

In sections like trading discussions , economics, bitcoin discussion, alternative cryptocurrencies discussion - people do post on how to make money but they are often ruined by shitposters and the whole thread becomes meaningless to read. The forum needs one more extra thing which would really help for the better :- New staff members and if possible global mods. They can patrol through discussions and nuke stupid users. Loyce V would be a great staff member, my suggestion /vote.

BTW, if anyone has any ideas for simple things that these ex-nonsense-posters could usefully do to make money, I think that this'd be a good project right now. There are apparently quite a few people who were making money on the forum and could use guidance. Even though their past activities were not good for this forum, I doubt that they are useless in general.

There are ways to earn money but signature campaigns by far has been the easiest way to earn quick cash that too in quite significant amounts. So any other ways, people might go for it but signature campaigns would be the first go to option, as most of the managers don't monitor their participants well. If you could make a whole list of rules and guidelines including for that of signature campaigns, it'd be helpful.

I think that actmyname has been too hasty with some of his negatives, but I haven't had time to look carefully enough into it to justify making forceful changes. I did exclude actmyname from my trust list, so another DT1 could remove him from the default trust network by doing the same.

Actmyname is giving a lot of negative feedback but most of them if not all deserve such ratings. Removing him from default trust won't be the best option, I think the managerial principle of "Stability of Personnel" should be applied here, that is give actmyname some more time to prove himself worthy of the DefaultTrust members list.
Edit :- This might be the first time I have actually seen theymos sort of getting angry on shitposters. Love it already.

[Godwans]

No...You, like every other under-dog member, are fucked...
Penis...

Great example of a garbage shitpost that I would've tagged only a couple of weeks ago.  And now I don't have to do it because the merit system is in place, which almost ensures that idiots who can't speak a lick of English won't advance here on bitcointalk.  It's deliciously satisfying, and I must say it is still bringing a smile to my face. 

Are you fucked?  Yes.  And I would also suggest that if that's how you view things, you're here for all the wrong reasons.  If you came to bitcointalk because you enjoyed posting--and reading posts--the difficulty of getting merit points wouldn't bother you in the least.  The only people it bothers are the gibbering ape-beings who are here to crank out shitposts as fast as they can, with absolutely zero thought involved in their creation (see above post by Godwans). 

There are going to be people who buy merit, and those who trade it between alt accounts, but overall I think it's going to slow down the process of account farming and dis-incentivize shitposting to a large degree.  I can already see the fruits of the system being picked.

I absolutely meant that to be taken as a joke(note the reference to Prodeum), perhaps my sense of humor and yours do not jibe..Sorry for that..

[theymos]

So what are you proposing that be done against shady behavior regarding the merit system? Nothing? Or are you simply saying that *we could/should* tag them, but that some of the tag's by actmyname were unwarranted?

I think that tagging may be appropriate in particularly obvious cases, or particularly egregious cases involving hundreds of merit points and several posts. But generally you should start out by assuming good faith, and only change that opinion as the evidence really piles up. Tagging someone immediately after an instance of apparently-inexplicable meriting is too trigger-happy IMO. Even if it is a case of illegitimate merit, even hundreds of illegitimate merit points are not much of a problem IMO, so you have to ask whether it's worthwhile to possibly make a mistake by tagging someone who is merely suspicious.

Now, I'm not 100% sure that actmyname's ratings are outside of what I would consider appropriate, which is why I didn't take action to immediately remove him. But from what I've seen, it does seem likely that he is too trigger-happy.

[SM23031997]

0.4 + 0.00075 × 18 = 0.4135.

Returning that to bc1qyhhkhdcml6cfzsjk3wm42jezu689f3mghh3lea

Please confirm.

Sorry for the interference but i think that you make a wrong calculation... As you wrote this the result is 7.2135BTC.

They really need to add negative merit to this forum...

oh c'mon, You can't demerit Sarcasm, How could you?

Yeah, but you can demerit stupidity  

Don't know how that system will work but I'm sure if you(Assuming you a source of demerit) start de-meriting them you get out of stock every month.

[asapjoshyy]

So what are you proposing that be done against shady behavior regarding the merit system? Nothing? Or are you simply saying that *we could/should* tag them, but that some of the tag's by actmyname were unwarranted?

I think that tagging may be appropriate in particularly obvious cases, or particularly egregious cases involving hundreds of merit points and several posts. But generally you should start out by assuming good faith, and only change that opinion as the evidence really piles up. Tagging someone immediately after an instance of apparently-inexplicable meriting is too trigger-happy IMO. Even if it is a case of illegitimate merit, even hundreds of illegitimate merit points are not much of a problem IMO, so you have to ask whether it's worthwhile to possibly make a mistake by tagging someone who is merely suspicious.

Now, I'm not 100% sure that actmyname's ratings are outside of what I would consider appropriate, which is why I didn't take action to immediately remove him. But from what I've seen, it does seem likely that he is too trigger-happy.

i was negative trusted because i was offering somebody to merit my good posts and id merit his good posts..... i didnt think this would be against the rules...... i thought the point of merit system was to merit good posts........ i wasnt saying hey merit me for some crap post and ill do the same??? and i was banned 7 days i learned my lesson from that was sorry i honestly wasnt trying to "Farm" or "Cheat" i was making some decent posts and nobody was seeing them so i thought that could help.... i think me being banned 7 days was enough i learned my lesson and i wouldnt even try to ask anybody for merit i will now just let it come organically even though it still sucks im 14 days away from senior member and it will take FOREVER to get 250 merit.... 7 day ban taught me a lesson, the untrust from act is just a slap in the face when ive actually been a legit member for half a year and never did anything wrong before and honestly wasnt trying to cheat the system..... 7 day ban was my warning and i wouldnt do anything again then he just untrusts me right when i come back when im trying to be a good member .. i hope this can be fixed because ruining my account over a mistake/ misinterpertation isnt fair , if i knew asking people to merit my good posts and id look at their good posts i wouldnt have bothered getting untrusted / banned for 1 merit point out of 250...

[MadZ]

0.4 + 0.00075 × 18 = 0.4135.

Returning that to bc1qyhhkhdcml6cfzsjk3wm42jezu689f3mghh3lea

Please confirm.

Sorry for the interference but i think that you make a wrong calculation... As you wrote this the result is 7.2135BTC.

They really need to add negative merit to this forum...

oh c'mon, You can't demerit Sarcasm, How could you?

Yeah, but you can demerit stupidity  

Don't know how that system will work but I'm sure if you(Assuming you a source of demerit) start de-meriting them you get out of stock every month.

Haha, I'd probably be out by the end of the week given the current state of the forums.

[JayJuanGee]

I´m sympathetic to this viewpoint. Many people don´t seem to bother with the merit system
at all, which artificially reduces the supply of merit. I read somewhere that roughly 600k merits
were initially distributed.

600k  merits were not announced in the official thread and it can  be a rumor. That figure seems to be quite high for me.

Here is a quote regarding 600k merits initially given out.  Right from the horses mouth ( ):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818350.msg28927946#msg28927946

[Lauda]

So what are you proposing that be done against shady behavior regarding the merit system? Nothing? Or are you simply saying that *we could/should* tag them, but that some of the tag's by actmyname were unwarranted?

I think that tagging may be appropriate in particularly obvious cases, or particularly egregious cases involving hundreds of merit points and several posts. But generally you should start out by assuming good faith, and only change that opinion as the evidence really piles up. Tagging someone immediately after an instance of apparently-inexplicable meriting is too trigger-happy IMO. Even if it is a case of illegitimate merit, even hundreds of illegitimate merit points are not much of a problem IMO, so you have to ask whether it's worthwhile to possibly make a mistake by tagging someone who is merely suspicious.

Alright. So it is clear that we should tag people similarly how we tag people for trust abuse (e.g. leaving positive trust to your own alt). I do think that hundreds of merit points are quite a big problem, in fact. Sure, the fool will likely end up with nothing eventually. However(!), hundreds of points being spent on your own army of shitposting accounts can have a significant impact (multiplied by the number of people doing it) for quite some time (until they run out/get caught).

Now, I'm not 100% sure that actmyname's ratings are outside of what I would consider appropriate, which is why I didn't take action to immediately remove him. But from what I've seen, it does seem likely that he is too trigger-happy.

It's probably due to him being a newcomer to the DT system. I'm sure he learn and act accordingly.

[Magister Magus]

As other members already stated, this is a private forum, so the owner has any right to do what he thinks is the best move to improve his property.
It doesn't make any sense to complain about any aspect we don't like; much better to be grateful for the opportunity we have to learn a lot and - eventually - to have a little extra income from campaigns.

So, not with the intention to complain, but just to offer some ideas, here are my two cents: the intention behind the merit system is very good, and I think that only spammers and shitposters don't agree. What I find inefficient - and probably more of the "complainers" agree with me - are mainly these two aspect:

1) the system is really too unbalanced in favor of old members. I understand that I have to earn my position, and I agree that only "good members" will rank up. But if I read the old posts of a lot of high rank members, I find a lot of shitpost, and I just wonder why "they" had this privilege by luck in the meanwhile I have to work hard for the same results. I agree, life is unfair, but this aspect is very disturbing.

2) the merits are too scarce. I had ONE. Now I have THREE. Really, a so little number make me anxious to give them. Even if I like a post. I think it's the same for other low rank members. The result is that may be I write a masterwork (I'd like...) but nobody has merit to give to me.
The only members with a lot of merits to give are Legendaries (another privilege..), but it seems that they prefer to reward each other, may be just to show friendship. I'm pretty sure you did some math projections, but in this way the system it's really too rigid. Of course, may be I'm wrong. We'll see.

But please accept the idea that - even if the meirt system is a good point to start - there is a lot of space for improvement.

It's too early to get a clear picture, but my thoughts so far:

First, most people complaining about merit are constantly posting garbage, and should not rank-up. The forum is not a welfare system; you don't run through a few hoops and then get paid for doing something that nobody actually wants. I like that good forum members can make money, especially when said forum members are in poorer countries and this is a major opportunity for them. I very much do not want to destroy the sig-ad/airdrop/bounty "industry". But I am not going to tolerate people posting garbage upon garbage. If the merit system completely fails and I can't think of anything else to replace it, then my next step will probably be to completely remove all ways for forum users to make money from posting (eg. removing signatures entirely).

Maybe there are ways for people who were making money by posting garbage on the forum to make money on other sites with easy bounties, etc. (For example, I don't know if they're actually any good, but https://bountyhive.io is currently advertising on the forum.) But people should use the forum to talk about these money-making ideas, not as a way of making money itself. Once you spend a lot of time here, you may be able to make some money here (which is great!), but you should consider this a far-off hope, not your primary objective.

BTW, if anyone has any ideas for simple things that these ex-nonsense-posters could usefully do to make money, I think that this'd be a good project right now. There are apparently quite a few people who were making money on the forum and could use guidance. Even though their past activities were not good for this forum, I doubt that they are useless in general.


Merit awards may be too spotty/uneven currently, though it's still too early to say. In addition to continuously adding more sources, if things could still use improvement in this regard in a couple of months, I may do something like decay old sMerit and unused source merit and randomly redistribute the decayed merit. How the random distribution would work would magnify past merit -- so perhaps you would get an increased chance of winning extra merit for every post you've made which has at least 1 merit, but certainly you would not get any extra merit if none of your posts was ever merited.

Merit sales, transfers to aliases, back-and-forth trading, etc. are not much of an issue. All illegitimate merit will decay, and will account for a tiny and very expensive fraction of the total merit economy. It's basically a rounding error; fight it where convenient, but waste no sleep over it.

I think that actmyname has been too hasty with some of his negatives, but I haven't had time to look carefully enough into it to justify making forceful changes. I did exclude actmyname from my trust list, so another DT1 could remove him from the default trust network by doing the same.

[Magister Magus]

Ah, I forgot a very important aspect: it seems that the simple fact of receiving a merit unleash suspicions, if your are not a high rank member.
I received five, and I just wonder if there isn't the risk that I need to justify myself about who and why gave me these merits.
I saw that moderators are very active in this sense, and they made a lot of bans and negative trust, about suspect merit trade, merit begging, and so on. May be they are right, may be not, but... please DON'T GIVE ME ANY MERIT!!!! IT'S TOO DANGEROUS!!!!

Merit sales, transfers to aliases, back-and-forth trading, etc. are not much of an issue. All illegitimate merit will decay, and will account for a tiny and very expensive fraction of the total merit economy. It's basically a rounding error; fight it where convenient, but waste no sleep over it.

I think that actmyname has been too hasty with some of his negatives, but I haven't had time to look carefully enough into it to justify making forceful changes. I did exclude actmyname from my trust list, so another DT1 could remove him from the default trust network by doing the same.

So what are you proposing that be done against shady behavior regarding the merit system? Nothing? Or are you simply saying that *we could/should* tag them, but that some of the tag's by actmyname were unwarranted?

[ibminer]

Merit sales, transfers to aliases, back-and-forth trading, etc. are not much of an issue. All illegitimate merit will decay, and will account for a tiny and very expensive fraction of the total merit economy. It's basically a rounding error; fight it where convenient, but waste no sleep over it.

How will merit be deemed illegitimate and decay?

Merit awards may be too spotty/uneven currently, though it's still too early to say. In addition to continuously adding more sources, if things could still use improvement in this regard in a couple of months, I may do something like decay old sMerit and unused source merit and randomly redistribute the decayed merit. How the random distribution would work would magnify past merit -- so perhaps you would get an increased chance of winning extra merit for every post you've made which has at least 1 merit, but certainly you would not get any extra merit if none of your posts was ever merited.

Magnifying past merits with decayed merit seems like a great idea. Would this be an equal distribution amongst all merit'd posts?   Would they magnify random posts by 1 or some sort of percentage based on the total merit received on the respective post?

Now, I'm not 100% sure that actmyname's ratings are outside of what I would consider appropriate, which is why I didn't take action to immediately remove him. But from what I've seen, it does seem likely that he is too trigger-happy.

To be clear, is it only the merit-based trust that you are concerned with regarding actmyname?
And are you solely looking at feedback that has been left after actmyname has been added to DT or are you looking at all prior feedback?

[cryptoneum]

Merit is a good and fair system and encourages new members to post quality post to increase their rankings. But is there a way to stop Higher rank members from posting garbage just to earn bounty rewards?

[Magister Magus]

Hey, just a question!
I just click the "merit" link on my post (it seemed strange that it existed...) , and I saw I can send merit to myself! (I didn't click, so may be it doesn't work).
This sounds to to me as a bug. Can you check?

[JayJuanGee]

Hey, just a question!
I just click the "merit" link on my post (it seemed strange that it existed...) , and I saw I can send merit to myself! (I didn't click, so may be it doesn't work).
This sounds to to me as a bug. Can you check?

Click on merit for yourself.  Try it.  It does not work.  You will get an error message; however, if it does work, and you do get a merit from yourself, then you have ur selfie a bug to report.

[Husires]

I like that good forum members can make money, especially when said forum members are in poorer countries and this is a major opportunity for them.

This shows a great wisdom from you.
This system has a number of flaws but in general it is good and very fair.
These defects can be solved in the future and do not affect the system as a whole "Link merit to first activity"

[nullius]

2) Secondly and perhaps more important merit requirements should be lowered (full member onwards)!

You have it backwards:  The merit requirements for upper ranks should be raised.  Especially for Legendary status.  That threshold should be at least doubled or trebled.  If somebody can’t earn some thousands of merits in 2–3 years of active posting, then that person has no right to be called “Legendary”.

Full Member=50 Merit, Senior Member=100 Merit, Hero=200 Merit, and Legendary=300 Merit.

That would make a joke of the merit system.  Starting from zero as a then Jr. Member, after only five days of actively posting since I returned to the forum, I myself would now be nearly merit-eligible for Hero status.  Why, I should be merit-eligible to make Hero tomorrow!

I observe that you have thus far earned no merit whatsoever.  You are currently at a flat 250, which was given to you based on your pre-existing status as a Sr. Member.  Thus, your suggestion makes you no different from any of the whining newbies who complain about how oh so tough this system is.  Please!  Go make some quality posts.  The forum needs that.