[...] The archives of this forum contain a hidden library of knowledge, especially in the “Development & Technical Discussion” section. Awarding merit to old posts helps highlight them; where the authors are still active, such belated recognition also has direct utility. [...]
As an abstract concept, I probably agree with you. However, you have to consider that merits and sMerits were created to solve a current problem, and that is the pollution and deterioration of the forum. To combat that you have to influence new posters to rebuild the forum. The past is the past, but we need to grasp the opportunities in the new future.
There was recently a discussion of how even
some Hero Members were newly learning Bitcoin history due to the awarding of merit to Laszlo (inactive account) for the
famous pizza post. Amidst that, and in agreement with it, I made an
impassioned plea to bring all the old technical discussion gems to the surface—and “perhaps even slowly revive the forum to those glory days!”
For my part, those archival posts represent the forum I wish I could now experience. Seizing the moment when people are fired up about the merit system itself, I thought it might be an opportunity to induce people to read those old posts—to interact with them, in a way—
to be inspired by them, as I am. Broken windows and spammy garbage posts are infectious to neighbourhoods. I’d hoped that superlative quality would be, too.
Of course,
that post of mine seems to have been mostly ignored. You may be right. I’ll have to think about it.
I keep looking at the other boards, but I'm having trouble finding posts that I like. There isn't really a lot about Bitcoin that is fresh.
Sure there is! Of course, there’s much difference between Bitcoin having fresh stuff, and the Bitcoin Forum having fresh stuff.
As to the latter, I really think it depends on your interests. I rarely go anywhere besides Development & Technical Discussion and Meta. On the development forum, the S/N ratio is disappointing but passable; of course, the real action is on bitcoin-dev (a strictly moderated list) and Github. I’ve been intending to explore other forums; but last I really tried, I found myself wading from one cesspool to another, and promptly gave up. I hope the merits system will improve the situation.
FOR SHAME. I actually did once award merit to someone who begged me for it. That person did not need it, was obviously not really seeking it, pulled it off in a genuinely ironic manner amidst witty discussion—
and did it in Latin. By contrast, you are a pathetic freak. There’s no room for you here: This village has enough idiots.
*plonk*Anyone who gives you merit for this shit needs to be punched in the balls
...whilst locked in a pillory, being shamed and pelted with rotten vegetables.
As trust is transitive, so is shame. Giving merit for utter trash is an antivoucher which should operate as the precise inverse of vouching.
Have a look, most of the people who have high amounts of merits are the ones who are posting in meta, whilst hardly any one is giving merit to those who are posting in other discussions in other boards.
I am a living counterexample to that statement. The strict majority (78/151 = 51.7%) of the merit I have thus far received was in “
Development & Technical Discussion”, plus 1/151 = 0.00662% in “
Bitcoin Discussion”. If you exclude the
+50 I got from some whackjob when I insulted him in Meta (an historic forum first!), the current proportion I have received outside Meta rises to 78.2% (78/101).
Those who who complain about the merit system either aren’t smart, or aren’t working hard on their posts—or both. Some of my best posts take hours to write, edit, proofread, gather links for, etc. I expended the level of effort in December. (I will let my post history speak for me as to smarts.) You will understand if I take a very dim view of the whiners.
Users are impatient on the fact that the merit system has just been introduced and they just want to rank up and repeat the process of signature abusal.
...which is why we need the merit system: Those who are now screaming in pain are precisely those who so
should be.
Where do you draw the line on begging? Does someone have to explicitly say "give me merit!" or could they be complaining about the merit system and sharing their "woe is me" story about how they were once so close to the next rank and now have to earn 100s of merit to get there?
Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2828412.msg29000145#msg29000145Shouldn't you ignore anyone responding to those requests for merit, be it directly or through as sob story?
Touché. (Said by me because I gave +1 to that post.)
(Aside, I think that the merit threshold for achieving Legendary status should be drastically raised—
at least doubled or trebled. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations show that reaching the current merit threshold within the time needed to accrue requisite activity is far too easy; whereas attaining the top rank of anything should be disproportionately difficult. Nevertheless, I tend to sympathize with decent posters who were
this close to the lower activity bound.)
I think that the problem should be tackled from both ends: moderation and the trust system. Whenever someone begs for merit points, their post should be archived, removed and subsequently they should be tagged. The same should be applied for sales (although disallowed, it is unclear whether and what kind of ban this will result it), and a combination of both measures should be much more effective.
I like your approach. Consider report-and-tag to be my new policy. I’d still suggest also public shaming—but only occasionally, where appropriate. That generates noise, just as any other reply to spam. I think that it’s certainly appropriate to make a public example for others, when somebody begs for merit
in a thread condemning merit-begging.
Most boards are mostly filled with shitposts. You are just going to waste your time looking.
Thought I just had: I sometimes find interesting threads by looking at the post history of someone whose posts I like. Perhaps it would be wise to keep track of where quality posters spend their time—a sort of benign quasi-stalking.
Begging for merit should be treated as attempting to trust farm. Therefore, those begging for merit should be permanently neg. rated IMO.
However, theymos might have a different perspective regarding asking/begging for merit.
Do not beg for merit excessively.
But excessive begging is another thing.
My point is, is it really justifiable to tag people asking/begging for merit when theymos allows this but to the extent of not begging just like a desperate beggar?
Earlier on this thread, I cut this part of my self-quote for brevity:
Do not beg for merit excessively.
s/excessively/at all—ever/
I disagree with theymos here. As I said, asking for merit is akin to a student asking a professor for an A. Lauda is right: Begging for merit
is inchoate trust farming, by definition. It is solicitation of corrupted approval. It poisons the whole system. It must be condemned unequivocally.
