DE-MERIT?

[DogeMajestic]

Just got to understand this new system and I like it, new winds blowing on Bitcointalk. Thanks to theymos for trying out new innovative things. But I see one issue and perhaps you can tell me where or why my thinking is wrong.

With copycat scamcoins like DeepOnion that have a relatively large "community presence" on Bitcointalk, a lot of merit points arrive at those very people's accounts who're widely considered scammers or not trustworthy. Simply because those communities are designed to shill the creators and high ranking accounts of the respective scams. If there were some sort of demerit points, the very same user's merit would likely even be negative, rather than high on merit points. Often times, the merit would probably become as negative or similarly negative as the already existing trust ratings. Now, though, you may even see users -16 trust rated, yet with a lot of merit.

I think there is a need for demerit points because of this reason. I see theymos said he can implement this easily later on.

There is currently no such thing as a "demerit". I'm hoping that the positive merits alone will be fine. I could add demerits pretty easily later on if necessary, though

Now I don't want more fights on Bitcointalk and of course demerit points can cause issues in the same way, for instance rivaling communities demeriting each other. So this would be a similar issue as well, perhaps even worse. I really don't know what's the solution. Do you have any innovative ideas?

Thanks for reading

[krishnaverma]

Just got to understand this new system and I like it, new winds blowing on Bitcointalk. Thanks to theymos for trying out new innovative things. But I see one issue and perhaps you can tell me where or why my thinking is wrong.

With copycat scamcoins like DeepOnion that have a relatively large "community presence" on Bitcointalk, a lot of merit points arrive at those very people's accounts who're widely considered scammers or not trustworthy. Simply because those communities are designed to shill the creators and high ranking accounts of the respective scams. If there were some sort of demerit points, the very same user's merit would likely even be negative, rather than high on merit points. Often times, the merit would probably become as negative or similarly negative as the already existing trust ratings. Now, though, you may even see users -16 trust rated, yet with a lot of merit.

I think there is a need for demerit points because of this reason. I see theymos said he can implement this easily later on.

There is currently no such thing as a "demerit". I'm hoping that the positive merits alone will be fine. I could add demerits pretty easily later on if necessary, though

Now I don't want more fights on Bitcointalk and of course demerit points can cause issues in the same way, for instance rivaling communities demeriting each other. So this would be a similar issue as well, perhaps even worse. I really don't know what's the solution. Do you have any innovative ideas?

Thanks for reading

We already have a thread for this :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2821510.0

[DogeMajestic]

We already have a thread for this :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2821510.0

krishnaverma, thanks for letting me know. No need to quote my entire post.

However my post is far more elaborated than the one linked (imo). So what's your opinion on this matter?

[krishnaverma]

However my post is far more elaborated than the one linked (imo). So what's your opinion on this matter?

You far more elaborated place would have the same importance in the first thread.

[DogeMajestic]

You far more elaborated place would have the same importance in the first thread.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Please stay on topic. If you have anything to say concerning the actual content I'm all ears.

[krishnaverma]

You far more elaborated place would have the same importance in the first thread.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Please stay on topic. If you have anything to say concerning the actual content I'm all ears.

Sorry I meant " You far more elaborated post would have the same importance in the first thread."

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I don’t think being able to De-Merit would be a good idea, people who have certain rifts would just ruin it by adding loads of De-Merit points to each other. The system would be a joke & would likely be abused by alt accounts even more than the new Merit system might/probably is being abused.

[DaMut]

I don’t think being able to De-Merit would be a good idea, people who have certain rifts would just ruin it by adding loads of De-Merit points to each other. The system would be a joke & would likely be abused by alt accounts even more than the new Merit system might/probably is being abused.

Plus scammers can De-Merit all of their haters using it,
(scammer has a lot of account to bump and shill their thread)
we do not have many people who care about other people on altcoin board.
and when someone trying to expose them,
De-Merit will come after him,and guess what will happen to him ?
he won't bother with it anymore because it's totally pointless exposing them while in return he get a lot of De-Merits from them.
i am completely disagree it.
It's flawed system in my opinion

[Lutpin]

Personally, I'm against a publicly available demerit option. I think, as mentioned several times already, the abuse potential is just way too high.
People currently are worried about possible abuse with the positive merit system, add negative merits, there are many more angles for abuse and malicious actors.
This is however just my opinion and expectation.


What I could get behind on the other hand is giving a few people the ability to terminate single merited posts.
We could call this group "merit patrollers" (the quickest way would be giving sources the option, but there could be an independent selection forming another group with different users).
This should be a limited ability both in availability (users allowed to do so) and volume (every patroller gets X terminations per month).
Terminations carry more weight than regular merit, and should thus be further limited (the average source size is ~200 sMerit per month, so termination could go at 10% of that, 20 on average).

What do I mean with "terminate"?
Right now, when I come across a post that is obviously spammy and was merited, I cannot do anything about it. I might spot someone farming merit with their alt account, or just giving it to spam posts to troll.
I can report that, I can investigate that, but I cannot do anything against the action itself, directly.
I might give the people involved negative trust for abusing the merit system, but that is only an indirect option and shouldn't be utilized, imo.
The merit is given, the result stays the same. I'm powerless there.

This is a huge difference to the trust system (I dont like that comparison, but it seems near), where I can counter positive ratings with a negative one and the other way around.
So what if I could counter merit? I don't mean giving demerit directly, but rather reversing a given merit rating from other people.

The way I could see this work is that when we have a spam post merited by one or more people, merit patroller have the option to terminate this post.
The merit received (and the sMerit) would at this point be taken away from the user that wrote the post, but not given back to the sender (as a punishment).
A termination would be shown right after the list of merits collected (example "Merited by TMAN (5), SFR10 (2), asu (2), TryNinja (2); Terminated by theymos (-11").
A termination would also mean that the post can no longer be merited.
However, termination are specific to posts, you decide that one post shouldn't have merit, not that one user shouldn't have it

[Mitchell]

Lutpin, I honestly think that this would be decent system, since it's both fair and quite hard to abuse. I mean, sure, you could find the most merrited post from a user and terminate it to prevent a user from ranking up, but that would still apply to only one post. It would be a waste of "merit terminations" and easy to track (since there is so little to go around).

[HashFace]

I think De-Merit is Okay, but to prevent abuse, I think it should be limited to one De-Merit per user given to another user.  In other words, I can't go and De-Merit all your posts because you said something I didn't agree with ... or at least, multiple de-merits from the same user wouldn't count against the other person's merit score.  But if multiple people want to De-Merit a user, then it can add up over time.  

[CryptoChanel]

However, termination are specific to posts, you decide that one post shouldn't have merit, not that one user shouldn't have it

Lutpin, I honestly think that this would be decent system, since it's both fair and quite hard to abuse

I see your point and the problem you are addressing is real. However how to ensure that the "terminator" would act according to the spirit you've outlined and not to his own personal biases?
I have to point out that this very OP is calling for a way to delete the merit that the OP of DeepOnion is receiving by its community. This is not exactly the case you have been advocating. You may like or not like DeepOnion, but that is not a case of accounts farming and the OP of their thread is not exactly irrelevant since it has got so much follow up. I'm using this example just to reiterate my question: how would you ensure that the "terminator" would act according to the spirit you've outlined and limit its actions to the sort of cases you've mentioned?
Which remind us of the old Latin quote: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? = Who controls the controllers?

[ruletheworld]

Personally, I'm against a publicly available demerit option. I think, as mentioned several times already, the abuse potential is just way too high.
People currently are worried about possible abuse with the positive merit system, add negative merits, there are many more angles for abuse and malicious actors.
This is however just my opinion and expectation.


What I could get behind on the other hand is giving a few people the ability to terminate single merited posts.
We could call this group "merit patrollers" (the quickest way would be giving sources the option, but there could be an independent selection forming another group with different users).
This should be a limited ability both in availability (users allowed to do so) and volume (every patroller gets X terminations per month).
Terminations carry more weight than regular merit, and should thus be further limited (the average source size is ~200 sMerit per month, so termination could go at 10% of that, 20 on average).

What do I mean with "terminate"?
Right now, when I come across a post that is obviously spammy and was merited, I cannot do anything about it. I might spot someone farming merit with their alt account, or just giving it to spam posts to troll.
I can report that, I can investigate that, but I cannot do anything against the action itself, directly.
I might give the people involved negative trust for abusing the merit system, but that is only an indirect option and shouldn't be utilized, imo.
The merit is given, the result stays the same. I'm powerless there.

This is a huge difference to the trust system (I dont like that comparison, but it seems near), where I can counter positive ratings with a negative one and the other way around.
So what if I could counter merit? I don't mean giving demerit directly, but rather reversing a given merit rating from other people.

The way I could see this work is that when we have a spam post merited by one or more people, merit patroller have the option to terminate this post.
The merit received (and the sMerit) would at this point be taken away from the user that wrote the post, but not given back to the sender (as a punishment).
A termination would be shown right after the list of merits collected (example "Merited by TMAN (5), SFR10 (2), asu (2), TryNinja (2); Terminated by theymos (-11").
A termination would also mean that the post can no longer be merited.
However, termination are specific to posts, you decide that one post shouldn't have merit, not that one user shouldn't have it

I like this suggestion.

One question though - do you suggest this happen only with already Merited posts? i.e. if a 'Terminator' (sounds fun terminology!) sees a spammy/extremely low quality and irrelevant post, and it isn't Merited, can they still 'DeMerit' that post, so the total Merit of the account goes down? Or is this just for already Merited posts only?

If it's the latter, then may I present my suggestion from another thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2828453.0. This will help the 'Terminators' police the forum much more effectively.

[Lutpin]

I see your point and the problem you are addressing is real. However how to ensure that the "terminator" would act according to the spirit you've outlined and not to his own personal biases?

Being a terminator/merit patroller (I'll use terminators in my post) is a privilege, and can be taken away from you at any given time.
As there is likely a low amount of terminations (few people able to do it, with limits per person), there should be a collective page publicly showing all terminations (as part of the merit stats).
In first instance, terminators would regulate and check themselves. If a terminator goes out of line, the others report it to theymos and the position is taken away from them/their actions are being undone.

I have to point out that this very OP is calling for a way to delete the merit that the OP of DeepOnion is receiving by its community.
This is not exactly the case you have been advocating. You may like or not like DeepOnion, but that is not a case of accounts farming and the OP of their thread is not exactly irrelevant since it has got so much follow up.

My reply is indeed only indirectly related the OP.
I took this thread to suggest the system as it is one of the threads currently discussing options to reverse merit or introduce negative merits.
It simply was the first thread when I opened Meta that discusses this, so I decided to post in here (instead of opening yet another thread about the same topic).

Which remind us of the old Latin quote: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? = Who controls the controllers?

Theymos.

One question though - do you suggest this happen only with already Merited posts? i.e. if a 'Terminator' (sounds fun terminology!) sees a spammy/extremely low quality and irrelevant post, and it isn't Merited, can they still 'DeMerit' that post, so the total Merit of the account goes down? Or is this just for already Merited posts only?

No, this would only apply to merited posts. You could terminate a post without merit and thus keep it from getting any merit in the future (as long as you have the terminator privilege),
But keep in mind that the terminations you have are limited, so it would likely be a waste of a termination.
You could not remove merit from someone by terminating one of their posts that isn't merited in the first place.

If it's the latter, then may I present my suggestion from another thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2828453.0. This will help the 'Terminators' police the forum much more effectively.

Reading up on this, I like the idea.
I called the usergroup "merit patrollers" because of something like this. The Patrol page lets you browse posts from Newbies and is meant to ease up reporting/moderation.
A Merit Patrol page could be formed that shows merited pages and eases up merit-"moderation".

[Welsh]

Giving anyone the ability to demerit a post would likely just cause absolute chaos among the users of this forum. I'm certainly not a big fan of that.

Lutpins suggestion is a pretty good one. Let's give the new system a few months to get used too and see how the sources are managing it. Then possibly selecting the 'best' or most active sources and granting them the ability to become "merit patrollers"

[suchmoon]

What I could get behind on the other hand is giving a few people the ability to terminate single merited posts.
We could call this group "merit patrollers" (the quickest way would be giving sources the option, but there could be an independent selection forming another group with different users).
This should be a limited ability both in availability (users allowed to do so) and volume (every patroller gets X terminations per month).
Terminations carry more weight than regular merit, and should thus be further limited (the average source size is ~200 sMerit per month, so termination could go at 10% of that, 20 on average).

Sounds good, just give it to everyone. E.g. 1 "termination" for every 10 sMerits you send. Sure there might be some limited abuse but IMHO it's better than another centralized layer of patrollers.

[Welsh]

Sounds good, just give it to everyone. E.g. 1 "termination" for every 10 sMerits you send. Sure there might be some limited abuse but IMHO it's better than another centralized layer of patrollers.

Giving it to everyone would just be a bad idea. For example, Lauda and The Pharmacist and actmyname would be targeted by people they have found out. Although, I'm usually all for decentralization I just can't see it easily being implemented without a lot of abuse.  

However, the suggestion of getting 1 termination for every 10 sMerits you get means the account would at least need to be credited for constructive posts which might just prevent abuse. It would likely need to be set higher than that to prevent several alt accounts targeting certain users.

[CryptoChanel]

Giving anyone the ability to demerit a post would likely just cause absolute chaos among the users of this forum. I'm certainly not a big fan of that.

Lutpins suggestion is a pretty good one. Let's give the new system a few months to get used too and see how the sources are managing it. Then possibly selecting the 'best' or most active sources and granting them the ability to become "merit patrollers"

Yes, so far Lutpins suggestion is the best one, if there is an effective control over the fact that the Merit Patrollers use their power only for what it was thought for.
Giving anyone the ability to demerit on the other side would create a permanent state of civil war in the forum - I would really recommend to avoid that.

[suchmoon]

Sounds good, just give it to everyone. E.g. 1 "termination" for every 10 sMerits you send. Sure there might be some limited abuse but IMHO it's better than another centralized layer of patrollers.

Giving it to everyone would just be a bad idea. For example, Lauda and The Pharmacist and actmyname would be targeted by people they have found out. Although, I'm usually all for decentralization I just can't see it easily being implemented without a lot of abuse.  

However, the suggestion of getting 1 termination for every 10 sMerits you get means the account would at least need to be credited for constructive posts which might just prevent abuse. It would likely need to be set higher than that to prevent several alt accounts targeting certain users.

1:10 ratio wouldn't get those Lauda haters too far. Perhaps the airdropped sMerits should be excluded, i.e. only the newly earned sMerits would give you termination rights.

And it should be 1 per 10 sMerits sent (not just earned) to encourage positive merits before negative.

Yes, so far Lutpins suggestion is the best one, if there is an effective control over the fact that the Merit Patrollers use their power only for what it was thought for.
Giving anyone the ability to demerit on the other side would create a permanent state of civil war in the forum - I would really recommend to avoid that.

That's a big "IF". I'm quite certain that establishing a new caste of patrollers would cause more friction. There is already a lot of whining about merit sources and their selection process, not to mention the perennial butthurt about DT. Adding another layer should be avoided if possible. Otherwise just give the termination ability to the mods.

[poptok1]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2015233.0
Above example is one of the "spamyiest" stuff One can find among the boards.
Above example makes me actual LOL, like every efing time
Literal day-brightner yet obviously written with signature or activity bump agenda.

Now...who will decide if my potential merits given to such spam are legit?
Who has such power and authority to decide what poor poptok1 has to like and what he should not to like?
As you can see with above example, there still can be spam that could get likeable, there can be spam that is useful ( I know, no example here), life isn't black and white.  Likes terminator... wow, my dream job... where to apply? 
-I need your posts, your merits. and your accounts password.
-You forgot to say please.
I think there is no hassle, wait at least a quarter, like May maybe and than revise, inspect the data.