Bitcoin Forum
May 22, 2019, 12:08:56 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 [132] 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 ... 298 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Merit & new rank requirements  (Read 126347 times)
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1752


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 12:35:24 AM
 #2621

The merit system is aimed to improve posts quality and this is a positive trend. However, walking around the forum I see that many high-rank members haven’t yet achieved any merit. Thinking about this situation I have some ideas to share:
1) It seems like many forum members do not correspond to their ranks. If Hero member can’t produce any valuable post (e.g. posts that do not receive merit) what can this situation mean?
2) Is it true that Full Member achieved according to new rules will be much more helpful for community than vast majority of old Heroes? I believe yes!
3) It is interesting why is there such a big gap between Member and Full Member (you need 10 times more merit)? Recently it was needed only to double activity score…
4) It is interesting if somebody tried to estimate the average forum correlation between posts made and merits received? Is it 1 to 1000? More? And what if we take into consideration that many merits are granted within topics discussing them? (let alone “internal” or “friends” transfer).
5) Is it only my impression that this system (in the introduced form) is aimed not only to fight for posts quality?


Even though this post is good, it looks like you have a lot of one liner posts, so it may be difficult to earn merit in certain sections and when there is not very much substance to your posts.

I gave one merit for this post, and since your writing is decent, you may be able to find ways to get 9 more merits based on your post quality.

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
BITDEER BTC/BCH ETH LTC ZEC DASH START MINING BTC NOW
WITH NEW GENERATION S17 ANTMINER!
Highly Reduced Electricity Fee $0.067/T/DAY! GET STARTED
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
albermaze
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
February 11, 2018, 12:54:15 AM
 #2622

Many forum participants have noted that starting position on merit points isn't fair. Some people received merits without doing anything and other people will have to work hard to get at least some. I agree with this position, however I have constructive offer:
Let’s show real number of received merits. If Hero received zero merit that means that 0 merits should be displayed for his account. Why forum gives them 500 if they have earned nothing? In such a case everyone will see the real situation.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1752


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 01:11:55 AM
 #2623

Many forum participants have noted that starting position on merit points isn't fair. Some people received merits without doing anything and other people will have to work hard to get at least some. I agree with this position, however I have constructive offer:
Let’s show real number of received merits. If Hero received zero merit that means that 0 merits should be displayed for his account. Why forum gives them 500 if they have earned nothing? In such a case everyone will see the real situation.

Hero members received 500 because of grandfather clause concept.  You received 10 merits, as a member, based on grandfather clause concept.

You are living in a fantasy world if you believe that a new system would start from zero, so any proposal that you were to make should attempt to figure out a way to start from something rather than your current bold (to be noticed) proposal of starting from zero.  By the way, you are assuming a non-existent situation when you say that some members were given merit based on nothing - and you can read the rationale in the OP - that stated that it was an attempt to approximate the minimum merit of each rank.., so merit was given based on an already existing system that was change, rather than based on nothing, as you fantastically proclaim.

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
albermaze
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
February 11, 2018, 01:24:53 AM
 #2624

Many forum participants have noted that starting position on merit points isn't fair. Some people received merits without doing anything and other people will have to work hard to get at least some. I agree with this position, however I have constructive offer:
Let’s show real number of received merits. If Hero received zero merit that means that 0 merits should be displayed for his account. Why forum gives them 500 if they have earned nothing? In such a case everyone will see the real situation.

Hero members received 500 because of grandfather clause concept.  You received 10 merits, as a member, based on grandfather clause concept.

You are living in a fantasy world if you believe that a new system would start from zero, so any proposal that you were to make should attempt to figure out a way to start from something rather than your current bold (to be noticed) proposal of starting from zero.  By the way, you are assuming a non-existent situation when you say that some members were given merit based on nothing - and you can read the rationale in the OP - that stated that it was an attempt to approximate the minimum merit of each rank.., so merit was given based on an already existing system that was change, rather than based on nothing, as you fantastically proclaim.
That is not actually true.I am living in a real world and here is a guest with the aim to find information and share thoughts. The old ranks were achieved due to activity. Merit is a new phenomenon why should we not start from 0? I am not proposing the re-ranking, I just offer fair approach. Imagine the situation in a year when there will be two Full Members with 100 merits (but one recieved it initially and the another achieved them). Can you give a sound reason not to show only achieved merits? It seems that it will reflect the real situation and we will have Members with 25 merits and Legendaries with 0 merits? Why not?
Praesidium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 411
Merit: 103

yoyoyo


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 02:00:02 AM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
 #2625

Many forum participants have noted that starting position on merit points isn't fair. Some people received merits without doing anything and other people will have to work hard to get at least some. I agree with this position, however I have constructive offer:
Let’s show real number of received merits. If Hero received zero merit that means that 0 merits should be displayed for his account. Why forum gives them 500 if they have earned nothing? In such a case everyone will see the real situation.

It is because the difference in activity and contribution. Do you expect that Member will get the same initial merit with Heroes and others while they are only 3 months here in the forum, meanwhile the heroes and other ranks had been here for years and contributed to the forum very well. It is logical that high rank will receive high initial merit than the lower ones.

★★★ BitCloak Bitcoin Mixer |BTC & BCH| FAST MIX | API | PGP PROOF | ESCROW ★★★
Tor and Clearnet mirrors | Payouts Every 60 seconds | Cheap 2% Service Fee | The Most Advanced Mixer | Discuss More
itranslate
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 2


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 02:02:06 AM
 #2626

I gave one merit for this post, and since your writing is decent, you may be able to find ways to get 9 more merits based on your post quality.
Thank you for replying on my thoughts. Really appreciate this.

Even though this post is good, it looks like you have a lot of one liner posts, so it may be difficult to earn merit in certain sections and when there is not very much substance to your posts.
Yes I have a lot of liner posts as I am just starting to study cryptocurrencies. I don't yet feel to be able to produce high quality posts on specific cryptocurrency issues.
But it seems that I have enough another life-based background to see that something wrong with merit system. I dare to ask a question:

If we look into the post #3 to this thread
I already don't like the way clicking on +merit takes you away from the thread.  Can you please have it open in a new window?
What is the super value of this post that respective members of this forum gave it more than 30 merit points? At the same time people making original Announcement of cool projects recieve 0 merit
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1752


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 02:04:46 AM
 #2627

Many forum participants have noted that starting position on merit points isn't fair. Some people received merits without doing anything and other people will have to work hard to get at least some. I agree with this position, however I have constructive offer:
Let’s show real number of received merits. If Hero received zero merit that means that 0 merits should be displayed for his account. Why forum gives them 500 if they have earned nothing? In such a case everyone will see the real situation.

Hero members received 500 because of grandfather clause concept.  You received 10 merits, as a member, based on grandfather clause concept.

You are living in a fantasy world if you believe that a new system would start from zero, so any proposal that you were to make should attempt to figure out a way to start from something rather than your current bold (to be noticed) proposal of starting from zero.  By the way, you are assuming a non-existent situation when you say that some members were given merit based on nothing - and you can read the rationale in the OP - that stated that it was an attempt to approximate the minimum merit of each rank.., so merit was given based on an already existing system that was change, rather than based on nothing, as you fantastically proclaim.
That is not actually true.I am living in a real world and here is a guest with the aim to find information and share thoughts. The old ranks were achieved due to activity. Merit is a new phenomenon why should we not start from 0? I am not proposing the re-ranking, I just offer fair approach. Imagine the situation in a year when there will be two Full Members with 100 merits (but one recieved it initially and the another achieved them). Can you give a sound reason not to show only achieved merits? It seems that it will reflect the real situation and we will have Members with 25 merits and Legendaries with 0 merits? Why not?

A sound reason to NOT start from zero is because a decision has already been made about how to implement, and the decision has already been implemented for more than two weeks.  Therefore, realistic propositions should be to attempt to work with what we already got and what is already implemented, rather than going backwards to a time before the decision had been made and implemented.   In this regard, we are not at a deliberative stage to determine what system is going to be implemented, but instead at a situation that contemplates where to go with a system that has already been implemented. 

Accordingly, it seems quite fantastical for you to be attempting to put any burden on me or anyone else who defends the status quo system that has already been implemented to come up with good reasons for the change that has already been decided and implemented. 

It seems to me that if you are making a proposal to make changes to this already existing system in the way that you are suggesting, then you have the burden to show why your proposed changes would be better.  I see that you are not opposed to keeping the ranks, but you just want to start from scratch with the merits - even though Theymos had already said that he chose to initially distribute minimum merit for each rank as a means to coordinate the past with the future.  I agree with you that the number of initially distributed merits were based mostly on a combination of activity level and rank.. and really if you look at OP and some subsequent explanations by Theymos, the current implementation and initial distribution of merit was primarily based on prior Rank, except for the hero members who ended up receiving additional merit in accordance with their having achieved at least a 775 activity level. 

Yet, having said all that, so far, you have not given too much facts and/or logic for your proposal to start from scratch except to attempt to shift the burden to someone else, such as me, to defend a decision that has already been made and already coordinated initial merit distributions based on rank, which seems like a BIG waste of time to hypothesize starting from scratch when even the current implementation does not contemplate the starting point that you are choosing.

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
Praesidium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 411
Merit: 103

yoyoyo


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 02:07:33 AM
 #2628


If we look into the #3 to this thread
I already don't like the way clicking on +merit takes you away from the thread.  Can you please have it open in a new window?
What is the super value of this post that respective members of this forum gave it more than 30 merit points? At the same time people making original Announcement of cool projects recieve 0 merit

Ofcourse is Vod a reputed member here in bitcointalk, and his statement about merit must open new window is so useful, it is really annoying in the first week of this system that clicking merit takes us away from the thread. Good thing that his suggestion is implemented huge help to decrease annoyance in the system.

★★★ BitCloak Bitcoin Mixer |BTC & BCH| FAST MIX | API | PGP PROOF | ESCROW ★★★
Tor and Clearnet mirrors | Payouts Every 60 seconds | Cheap 2% Service Fee | The Most Advanced Mixer | Discuss More
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1752


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 02:13:31 AM
 #2629

I gave one merit for this post, and since your writing is decent, you may be able to find ways to get 9 more merits based on your post quality.
Thank you for replying on my thoughts. Really appreciate this.

Even though this post is good, it looks like you have a lot of one liner posts, so it may be difficult to earn merit in certain sections and when there is not very much substance to your posts.
Yes I have a lot of liner posts as I am just starting to study cryptocurrencies. I don't yet feel to be able to produce high quality posts on specific cryptocurrency issues.

You do not have to have a lot of crypto currency experience in order to find threads that interest you and to attempt to constructively engage with
various thread participants.  Through that engaging process you can learn and also provide your life experiences and opinions to the conversation, which may result in your earning merits....   You likely have a better chance with those kinds of interactive posts, rather than seeking bounty type activities.

But it seems that I have enough another life-based background to see that something wrong with merit system. I dare to ask a question:

If we look into the post #3 to this thread
I already don't like the way clicking on +merit takes you away from the thread.  Can you please have it open in a new window?
What is the super value of this post that respective members of this forum gave it more than 30 merit points? At the same time people making original Announcement of cool projects recieve 0 merit

Seems a waste of time to attempt to figure out why people give out merits.  I used a lot of my initial distribution of merits to give to posters that I already know and based on past contributions that I believe that they have made to me and/or the forum.  It is likely that the intitial sending of merits is not going to be as reflective as future sending of merit, and the system will likely adapt to members getting used to merit and perhaps looking at current posts rather than historical.  However, there is also a subjective component to merit, too, which leaves discretion in the hands of the person who has smerits to give (rather than attempting to make some kind of objective validation regarding which posts or posters are more worthy of merit, which seems a waste of time endeavor).

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 3209


Pedal-powered snitch


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 02:31:43 AM
 #2630

That is not actually true.I am living in a real world and here is a guest with the aim to find information and share thoughts. The old ranks were achieved due to activity. Merit is a new phenomenon why should we not start from 0? I am not proposing the re-ranking, I just offer fair approach. Imagine the situation in a year when there will be two Full Members with 100 merits (but one recieved it initially and the another achieved them). Can you give a sound reason not to show only achieved merits? It seems that it will reflect the real situation and we will have Members with 25 merits and Legendaries with 0 merits? Why not?

Let's look at your example of two Full Members if your proposal was implemented. One would have zero merits, the other one would have 100. Is that really fair? The one who didn't earn any merits may have made as many or even more good posts as the one who earned 100, it just so happened that those posts were made before the merit system was in place.

The current approach is similar to many other examples of "grandfathering" old accounts into the conditions that existed before introducing new features. Let's say you sign up for a free beta service of some sort, and you're give the option to keep it for free when the service goes live and starts charging a fee to new users. Is that unfair to new users?

YuTü.Co.in
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 345


Re-monetizing YouTubers via Crypto-commodities


View Profile WWW
February 11, 2018, 02:50:42 AM
 #2631


If we look into the #3 to this thread
I already don't like the way clicking on +merit takes you away from the thread.  Can you please have it open in a new window?
What is the super value of this post that respective members of this forum gave it more than 30 merit points? At the same time people making original Announcement of cool projects recieve 0 merit

Ofcourse is Vod a reputed member here in bitcointalk, and his statement about merit must open new window is so useful, it is really annoying in the first week of this system that clicking merit takes us away from the thread. Good thing that his suggestion is implemented huge help to decrease annoyance in the system.

Did everybody forget as to why ALL the links on this forum were changed from opening in new tabs/windows, now ALL opening in the same tab with the exception now of the Merit thingy link?

jimmywh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 22


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 02:51:35 AM
 #2632

That is not actually true.I am living in a real world and here is a guest with the aim to find information and share thoughts. The old ranks were achieved due to activity. Merit is a new phenomenon why should we not start from 0? I am not proposing the re-ranking, I just offer fair approach. Imagine the situation in a year when there will be two Full Members with 100 merits (but one recieved it initially and the another achieved them). Can you give a sound reason not to show only achieved merits? It seems that it will reflect the real situation and we will have Members with 25 merits and Legendaries with 0 merits? Why not?

Let's look at your example of two Full Members if your proposal was implemented. One would have zero merits, the other one would have 100. Is that really fair? The one who didn't earn any merits may have made as many or even more good posts as the one who earned 100, it just so happened that those posts were made before the merit system was in place.

The current approach is similar to many other examples of "grandfathering" old accounts into the conditions that existed before introducing new features. Let's say you sign up for a free beta service of some sort, and you're give the option to keep it for free when the service goes live and starts charging a fee to new users. Is that unfair to new users?


Are you actually saying that all people who became Full Members and above before merit was implemented wrote quality posts? In order to rank up before merit was introduced, you didn't have to write quality posts, they just couldn't be shit posts worthy of deletion.
I agree that with merit introduced everybody should have started from 0 to make the merit system more transparent. By starting at 0 I don't mean that Hero members would have to earn 1000 merits to become legendary. However, they would need the 500 equal to the difference between Hero and Legendary. What I would prefer is the following:

Jr. Member -> Member 0-10
Member -> Full Member 0-90
Full Member -> Sr. Member 0-150
Sr. Member -> Hero Member 0-250
Hero Member -> Legendary 0-500
Legendary 0-0

By using the system like this, no-one would be born with a "grandparent" advantage, and at the same time no-one would have the right to feel "cheated".

Win/win

suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 3209


Pedal-powered snitch


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 03:05:04 AM
 #2633

Are you actually saying that all people who became Full Members and above before merit was implemented wrote quality posts? In order to rank up before merit was introduced, you didn't have to write quality posts, they just couldn't be shit posts worthy of deletion.

I didn't say that. But you also can't claim that NO ONE is worth having those merits and should be set to 0. Without going through every post ever made and re-evaluating everything (completely unfeasible) I don't think it's possible to come up with a totally fair formula. Just to make this clear - I would be fine with 0 merits. I don't see any significance in the starting number at all. I'm saying that if theymos had started everyone with 0 the moaning would be just as loud.

I agree that with merit introduced everybody should have started from 0 to make the merit system more transparent. By starting at 0 I don't mean that Hero members would have to earn 1000 merits to become legendary. However, they would need the 500 equal to the difference between Hero and Legendary. What I would prefer is the following:

Jr. Member -> Member 0-10
Member -> Full Member 0-90
Full Member -> Sr. Member 0-150
Sr. Member -> Hero Member 0-250
Hero Member -> Legendary 0-500
Legendary 0-0

By using the system like this, no-one would be born with a "grandparent" advantage, and at the same time no-one would have the right to feel "cheated".

Win/win

This scheme wouldn't work when those old members need to get to the next rank after their first rank-up. Sr. Member who started at zero earns 250 and becomes a Hero Member. Then what?


coin5haker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 16

~bitcoin enthusiast~


View Profile WWW
February 11, 2018, 03:16:32 AM
 #2634

"Wow, this the best system which will eliminate all shit posters and do the greatest good to the forum. If you cannot rank up, means you're shit poster. Like me getting merit every day!:" Then I check this guy, and all his merits are from posts like that, kissing asses and pleasing some legendary members. Now it surely increased people-pleasing miserable posts from newbies and juniors, spam and "What altcoin will make me rich" posts count are still the same.

JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1752


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 03:25:34 AM
 #2635


By using the system like this, no-one would be born with a "grandparent" advantage, and at the same time no-one would have the right to feel "cheated".
 

Your phraseology of "grandparent advantage" causes a pretty strong inference that you do not understand the basic fairness that is meant to come from the employment of such a principle.  Grandfather clauses are not meant to cause injustices, disadvantage, unfairness or exploitation of new users in favor of old but instead are meant to allow a fair transition in systems that does not prejudice prior membership or prior members' reliance on earlier terms.. it is a kind of basic transitional remedy that is used in a lot of places to cause fairness rather than unfairness.

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
jimmywh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 22


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 03:44:57 AM
 #2636

Are you actually saying that all people who became Full Members and above before merit was implemented wrote quality posts? In order to rank up before merit was introduced, you didn't have to write quality posts, they just couldn't be shit posts worthy of deletion.

I didn't say that. But you also can't claim that NO ONE is worth having those merits and should be set to 0. Without going through every post ever made and re-evaluating everything (completely unfeasible) I don't think it's possible to come up with a totally fair formula. Just to make this clear - I would be fine with 0 merits. I don't see any significance in the starting number at all. I'm saying that if theymos had started everyone with 0 the moaning would be just as loud.

I agree that with merit introduced everybody should have started from 0 to make the merit system more transparent. By starting at 0 I don't mean that Hero members would have to earn 1000 merits to become legendary. However, they would need the 500 equal to the difference between Hero and Legendary. What I would prefer is the following:

Jr. Member -> Member 0-10
Member -> Full Member 0-90
Full Member -> Sr. Member 0-150
Sr. Member -> Hero Member 0-250
Hero Member -> Legendary 0-500
Legendary 0-0

By using the system like this, no-one would be born with a "grandparent" advantage, and at the same time no-one would have the right to feel "cheated".

Win/win

This scheme wouldn't work when those old members need to get to the next rank after their first rank-up. Sr. Member who started at zero earns 250 and becomes a Hero Member. Then what?



This is a status quo scenario. Building up to the next rank a person who went from Sr. Member to Legendary would need 750 merits from the introduction of the merit system. It would mean exactly the same in term of rank progression as the current system, but it would separate the good legendaries and heroes from the no good.


By using the system like this, no-one would be born with a "grandparent" advantage, and at the same time no-one would have the right to feel "cheated".
 

Your phraseology of "grandparent advantage" causes a pretty strong inference that you do not understand the basic fairness that is meant to come from the employment of such a principle.  Grandfather clauses are not meant to cause injustices, disadvantage, unfairness or exploitation of new users in favor of old but instead are meant to allow a fair transition in systems that does not prejudice prior membership or prior members' reliance on earlier terms.. it is a kind of basic transitional remedy that is used in a lot of places to cause fairness rather than unfairness.

You fail to see that not all grandparents are worthy of grandparent advantage. That being said, I think you fail to see that my suggestion won’t take any advantages from such. Quite the opposite actually. It will make the worthy people with great seniority stand out even more.

JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1752


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 04:03:48 AM
 #2637



By using the system like this, no-one would be born with a "grandparent" advantage, and at the same time no-one would have the right to feel "cheated".
 

Your phraseology of "grandparent advantage" causes a pretty strong inference that you do not understand the basic fairness that is meant to come from the employment of such a principle.  Grandfather clauses are not meant to cause injustices, disadvantage, unfairness or exploitation of new users in favor of old but instead are meant to allow a fair transition in systems that does not prejudice prior membership or prior members' reliance on earlier terms.. it is a kind of basic transitional remedy that is used in a lot of places to cause fairness rather than unfairness.

You fail to see that not all grandparents are worthy of grandparent advantage. That being said, I think you fail to see that my suggestion won’t take any advantages from such. Quite the opposite actually. It will make the worthy people with great seniority stand out even more.

Again your phraseology of the grandfather situation is a bit much, and even if you have good intentions with your proposal, I fail to see your attempt to question bygones be bygones under the previous system.   

Certainly, I have no intention to protect the bad conduct and abuses of previous posters, but the new system is not an attempt to rectify past bad conduct (to the extent that it existed) but instead to reward future good conduct.  So, I think that any system, such as your proposal that seems to meddle too much with the past, goes too far and creates additional injustices that are not necessary to stir up.

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 3209


Pedal-powered snitch


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 04:13:37 AM
 #2638

This is a status quo scenario. Building up to the next rank a person who went from Sr. Member to Legendary would need 750 merits from the introduction of the merit system. It would mean exactly the same in term of rank progression as the current system, but it would separate the good legendaries and heroes from the no good.

So this would be a far more complicated system and it would make a blanket assumption (users who earned activity before the merit system are "no good"?) that isn't any better than the current implementation.

Soke
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 101
Merit: 16


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 04:16:31 AM
 #2639

jimmywh.  If everyone started with 0 merits.  How do you expect to receive any merits?  You have to have merits in order to have sMerits.  If you take a look at the merits you have received so far, they are mostly from high ranking members.  Guess what? if they had started with 0 merits, you would probably still be at 0.  Don't fight the system, accept it.  
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1752


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
February 11, 2018, 04:20:48 AM
 #2640

This is a status quo scenario. Building up to the next rank a person who went from Sr. Member to Legendary would need 750 merits from the introduction of the merit system. It would mean exactly the same in term of rank progression as the current system, but it would separate the good legendaries and heroes from the no good.

So this would be a far more complicated system and it would make a blanket assumption (users who earned activity before the merit system are "no good"?) that isn't any better than the current implementation.

It would be worse, and that is part of the problem with jimmywh's proposal and similarly aligned ones.   

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
Pages: « 1 ... 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 [132] 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 ... 298 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!