Suggestion: Raise merit requirements at the lower and highest ranks (@theymos)

[nullius]

This post was mostly drafted on 27 February 2018.  It was delayed by some unlucky drama; I now post it on the negative one-year anniversary of when I can first be activity-eligible for Hero rank.

Starting with 17 merits awarded to some of my old Jr. Member posts by people who remember them, I reached the Hero threshold of 500 merits within 27 days, 8 hours, 16 minutes, 22 seconds of active posting.  All in all, from the moment that theymos announced the merit system, it took me 32 days, 9 hours, 14 minutes, 51 seconds to go from zero to Hero—at least insofar as merit is concerned.  Yet when I received my 500th merit, I still had a 98 activity level; the earliest I can reach Hero Member status will be Activity Period 1283, which will start during 12 March 2019.

This is not to brag about myself.  There is already a thread which somebody else started to do that for me; and anyway, the number below my name speaks for me, in and of myself.  Rather, I am offering an object demonstration in support of my suggestion that merit requirements for the highest ranks are far too easy.

Moreover, from discussions I’ve observed and also from patterns of abuse, I think some small adjustments are needed at the lowest ranks.  I do think that the middle ranks’ thresholds are fairly set for ordinary decent posters.

Here is my concrete suggestion for merit thresholds, with proposed changes set in bold.  Discussion of my reasoning follows.

___Rank___	Threshold
Newbie	0
Jr. Member	10
Member	30
Full Member	100
Sr. Member	250
Hero Member	1000–1500
Legendary	3000–5000

I do think that the merit requirements for ranks through Member through Sr. Member are currently optimal.  To rise in rank at the level permitted by activity currently requires earning merit at an average rate of just over +1/day.  I think that’s a reasonable expectation for an ordinary intelligent person who spends a moderate amount of time engaging in generally pleasant forum discussions.

But “Hero” and “Legendary” are such strong words; and the substance of successful ranking systems always holds the highest ranks to standards which not only increase, but accelerate.

Proud, unapologetic elitist though I am, I do not for one moment imagine that I be a superman.  If I can merit zero to Hero in four weeks, then surely any person who wishes to bear a rank and title of honour should be able to earn much more than a measly one merit per day.

Wherefore, I urge that @theymos consider the following adjustments:

• The merit threshold for “Hero Member” should be raised to at least 1000, perhaps 1500.  I don’t really think that earning a bit over +2–3 merit per activity-day (or waiting a very long time) should qualify somebody as a “Hero”; but anything less is an insulting abuse of the term.
• The merit threshold for “Legendary” should be raised to at least 3000, perhaps even 5000.  Likewise:  Can somebody who fails to average less than around +3–5 merit per activity-day be called a “Legend” with a straight face?  I fear my standards are too low here.

Don’t simply be proud of these titles:  Make them signify an achievement to be proud of!


Of course, I waved my hands past one obvious flaw in premises:  I infer that the system is designed so that good posters “rank up” at about the same rate as before; and I agree with that goal.  But the mechanism does not enforce it.  A system with a “merit velocity” measure would surely be an easy programming task; however, it would be unpredictable and confusing for humans.  On the latter account, I would argue against any such system.  Moreover, I suggest that this “flaw” is unproblematic.

If an ordinary reasonable poster steadily makes decent posts for years, plural, then they will enter the top ranks simply on the basis of seniority, patience, and predictable dependability.  It seems obvious to me that such a person is here for all the “right reasons”, and barely even interested in matters of rank (or its potentially lucrative increase of privileges).  Certainly, I doubt that any spammer or account farmer could keep it up that long without being nuked by mods.


Final note:  Now is a good time to raise merit thresholds for Hero and Legendary.  I myself am the only person below Hero rank who has thus far passed the Hero threshold; and I hereby waive any complaints I might have if that threshold were suddenly doubled or trebled at this time.  Starting now, I’d have another year to reach the new threshold...

Anybody else who legitimately even comes close to having earned 500 merits is already Hero or Legendary.  Thus at this time, a change in merit rules for the highest ranks would neither have any impact on anybody (except me) who had already passed the higher thresholds, nor create any disparity between accounts which “ranked up” before and after the change of rules.

Changing the rules for Jr. Member and Member would cause some small unfairness.  However, the thresholds in question are trivial; and the unfairness and disparities thus caused would be commensurately insignificant.  It may be understood if somebody who had earned >500 merit were to be upset by a changing of the Hero threshold, especially if anybody else had already ranked up to Hero under the initial merit rules.  But anybody negatively affected by changes in the 10–30 merit range should see the disparity evened out within a very short time, if a good poster.  I’d expect that any complaints over such changes would only come from those who have been whining about the merit system in total, viz., wannabe spammers.

All in all, the time to make changes is when the merit system is still yet young.

[1714947639]

1714947639

[1714947639]

1714947639

[Lovecove]

I'm not completely opposed to this. There's a huge discrepancy between Member and Full member merit points. I'm not sure about you guys, but it took me over 92 posts, some of which are 300 words long, to get my 11 current merits.

Now, I haven't been here long enough to study the mechanics of merit reception. I'm not sure if, over time, my old posts will gain merits by people happening to read them. If so, then perhaps in 90 days I'll have thrice as many merits without having to post new posts.

But if merits are only given on fresh posts with your highest chances of getting a merit for your post within 3 days of posting, then I'd say that my 11 merits are all I'm going to get for my 92 posts. I'm not complaining as I don't really care too much for merits at this juncture. I'm in this for the long run, perhaps years-long, so I'd rather attain merits naturally, over time.

Now I understand that OP is saying it's far too easy to rank up to Hero. I'm not really sure. I've spent hours on this forum, and not just hours, maybe about 24 or more cumulative hours making long posts. OP is talking about becoming a Hero member when the merit system just came out... that was a long time ago.

The merit atmosphere is now very different. People are more stingy about merits because now they have a better grasp of what they are and what they can do in the wrong hands. They're aware of forum farmers and merit farmers, and etc.

People now understand that awarding someone a merit is almost akin to awarding them a Trust Rating. I've noticed that people with merits are actually looked upon with more respect in the Trading sections.

That said, I myself, have stopped myself from giving a decent post any merits even though I wanted to... simply on the basis that someone was a new member and I was not sure whether they were a scammer or a genuine poster. So I didn't give them a merit. I'm more apt to give someone a merit if they have a decent post history with no negative trust.


Merit is now becoming a quasi-trust system. And I can safely say that I would never give a merit to someone with negative DT feedback unless the feedback was nonsense (which it rarely is if it's DT feedback). Now, that's unfair for people with negative feedback. There are people who will never give them merits because of their negative feedback (whether it's legit or just a fluffy accusation). They're just going to see the negative red and never click on +Merit. Will these people ever be able to rank up? Yes, but slowly... There will be other people who will give them merit regardless.

That said, I think we should increase and decrease the merit requirements so that it's more realistic. I propose:

Jr. Member = 30 activity AND 1 - 4 merits. Why? Because there's just so much account farming going on nowadays. People are posting just enough to get away with spam, to get their 30 activity, then use that account for some kind of signature campaign or (hopefully not) to go scamming people in Trade. The merit requirement will act as a gatekeeper from potential scammers because most of these scammers probably aren't going to put well-thought posts out enough to get a merit. It won't deter scamming altogether, but it will help significantly, I believe.

Member = 15 merits. Like I said, it was tough for me to get my 11 merits... But I do believe we should increase the Merit thresshold for Member level because I'd like to decrease the threshold for Full Member. This way there isn't such a huge gap that makes no sense.

Full Member = 50 merits. A Full Member is someone who supposedly knows his way around the forum. He's someone who is a full member of bitcointalk.org. He's a regular on the forum. Someone many people will know by name. But making Full Member merit requirement 100 is kind of ridiculous. I believe 50 is a good mark, since Member requirement is 15. In the current merit atmosphere, getting 50 merits is difficult. If you're not joining "merit contests or giveaways," and just getting them naturally by posting, 50 merits is a tough break. People only award posts 1 - 2 merits. Even if you get a meritable post per week, that's max 8 merits per month.

Sr. Member = 150 merits. Once you're a Full Member, you should probably get the gist of how to get merits. You'll know which posts work and which posts don't. You'll know the sections to post in where merits are most awarded. I think, at this point, you'll understand the limits of getting merits naturally. You'll see that it's a little impossible to get like 10 merits for one post. You'll realize that if you want to rank up, you'll have to apply to a merit campaign or some other contest in Meta. That said, I feel as though Sr. Members are people who are either so selfless on the forum that they're just pumping out 1000-word posts everyday without reason or care for merits... or they're people who actively join merit giveaways. In other words, the Sr. Member rank is one of fluff. It's basically there for people who game the system or are tirelessly loyal to bitcointalk.org. That said, I don't mind the merit requirement being 100 more than Full Member.

For Hero and Legendary Member ranks, I agree with your 1000 - 5000 requirement (lol did you know Theymos doesn't even have 3000 merits yet?). I think it's just impossible for Hero and Legendary members to get merits unless they actively join these giveaways. And that's understandable. You can only reach these levels by gaming the system.

That said, I believe we should create a new rank above Legendary for people who are dutiful to Bitcointalk.org. The ones who aren't merit farming or trying to game the merit system by participating in giveaways.

Should be like:

Trusted Member = 7000 merits. This is for people who are in it for the long haul. People who want to be a part of this community earnestly without any hidden agenda to rank up. These are people who will stick with Bitcointalk.org for 4 years straight or longer. The biggest requirement for this rank is that they have no negative trust and never participate in a merit contest / giveaway. These are the true members who post diligently, contributing intellectually to threads everyday without care for merits. They're the ones who organically gain merit until they finally get this rank, which they deserve.

[Toughit]

Legendary is the only level that won’t be able to differentiate between history rankers and merit rankers.
 
So, whatever the required merit quantities might be… create a level above Legendary just as there is for all the other ranks.

As it is right now, with limited merits to pass, and no ranking possibilities, giving any merits to legendaries from someone like me (with 5 as a starting point) does not make sense. I’m guessing other people feel the same way.

Which means that nullius is probably not the yardstick, and existing legendaries can’t be used either, as they probably have not been receiving as many as they would if they counted.


Sorry for the short post.  

[TheQuin]

Having spent far too much time reading about merits lately I've noticed a tendency towards suggesting changes that would benefit the person suggesting them rather than benefit the forum overall. Now I'm going to have to try very hard not to argue against change for self interest. If the merit system hadn't been introduced I would automatically have become a Hero tomorrow, but that doesn't bother me at all. Whether anyone believes me or not, I really don't care what my rank is.

The reason I disagree is that I believe the intention of the system is to block the spammers from ranking up and not to cause an obstacle to anyone using the forum as intended. The average of 1 merit a day requirement to keep within the existing activity based schedule seems well chosen to achieve that goal. Now that the initial distribution of sMerit has dried up it has become impossible for shitposters to ever achieve Hero or above (Sr. is probably also beyond their grasp). Anyone who is here for the right reasons should easily outstrip the 1/day requirement and not be affected by it at all.

Your suggestion is rather to change the ranking system to mark out exceptional posters (like yourself). Now that is not a bad objective per se, but not what Merit was meant to be the solution to. It is actually very easy to spot the exceptional posters simply by looking at the actual number of merit they have been awarded. I know this has already been suggested elsewhere but I'd go along with the introduction of a new beyond Legendary rank. That would indeed mark out the exceptional members and also give the existing Legendaries something to aim for.

[Prolly11]

Having spent far too much time reading about merits lately I've noticed a tendency towards suggesting changes that would benefit the person suggesting them rather than benefit the forum overall. Now I'm going to have to try very hard not to argue against change for self interest. If the merit system hadn't been introduced I would automatically have become a Hero tomorrow, but that doesn't bother me at all. Whether anyone believes me or not, I really don't care what my rank is.

The reason I disagree is that I believe the intention of the system is to block the spammers from ranking up and not to cause an obstacle to anyone using the forum as intended. The average of 1 merit a day requirement to keep within the existing activity based schedule seems well chosen to achieve that goal. Now that the initial distribution of sMerit has dried up it has become impossible for shitposters to ever achieve Hero or above (Sr. is probably also beyond their grasp). Anyone who is here for the right reasons should easily outstrip the 1/day requirement and not be affected by it at all.

Your suggestion is rather to change the ranking system to mark out exceptional posters (like yourself). Now that is not a bad objective per se, but not what Merit was meant to be the solution to. It is actually very easy to spot the exceptional posters simply by looking at the actual number of merit they have been awarded. I know this has already been suggested elsewhere but I'd go along with the introduction of a new beyond Legendary rank. That would indeed mark out the exceptional members and also give the existing Legendaries something to aim for.

Hello,

I was just reading this thread... and I was wondering if what you're saying is true? Can someone really get 1 merit per day easily? It seems like a rather difficult goal.

I've perviewed many threads on here and rarely do I see the green italics above a post denoting someone was merited.

[TheQuin]

Hello,

I was just reading this thread... and I was wondering if what you're saying is true? Can someone really get 1 merit per day easily? It seems like a rather difficult goal.

I've perviewed many threads on here and rarely do I see the green italics above a post denoting someone was merited.

The system has only been in place for 44 days and there are hundreds of members that have received more than 44 merits so obviously, that is true.

[Prolly11]

Hello,

I was just reading this thread... and I was wondering if what you're saying is true? Can someone really get 1 merit per day easily? It seems like a rather difficult goal.

I've perviewed many threads on here and rarely do I see the green italics above a post denoting someone was merited.

The system has only been in place for 44 days and there are hundreds of members that have received more than 44 merits so obviously, that is true.

Oh, what? I had no idea the system was only in place for 44 days... That's amazing. From the way everyone is reacting, I had thought it had been around since last year or something.

This is good news. That means the system is still tweakable. I do honestly believe that we'll see a change in the ranking system such that Jr. Members will have a merit requirement.

In fact, I'm almost certain.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Having spent far too much time reading about merits lately I've noticed a tendency towards suggesting changes that would benefit the person suggesting them rather than benefit the forum overall. Now I'm going to have to try very hard not to argue against change for self interest. If the merit system hadn't been introduced I would automatically have become a Hero tomorrow, but that doesn't bother me at all. Whether anyone believes me or not, I really don't care what my rank is.

The reason I disagree is that I believe the intention of the system is to block the spammers from ranking up and not to cause an obstacle to anyone using the forum as intended. The average of 1 merit a day requirement to keep within the existing activity based schedule seems well chosen to achieve that goal. Now that the initial distribution of sMerit has dried up it has become impossible for shitposters to ever achieve Hero or above (Sr. is probably also beyond their grasp). Anyone who is here for the right reasons should easily outstrip the 1/day requirement and not be affected by it at all.

Your suggestion is rather to change the ranking system to mark out exceptional posters (like yourself). Now that is not a bad objective per se, but not what Merit was meant to be the solution to. It is actually very easy to spot the exceptional posters simply by looking at the actual number of merit they have been awarded. I know this has already been suggested elsewhere but I'd go along with the introduction of a new beyond Legendary rank. That would indeed mark out the exceptional members and also give the existing Legendaries something to aim for.

I totally agree. Nullius is probably the best poster nowadays, and rules can’t be made taking what’s exceptional as the norm.

TheQuin is quite a good poster, and the fact that it will take longer for him to get to Hero level shows that the system is not soft.

[TheQuin]

TheQuin is quite a good poster, and the fact that it will take longer for him to get to Hero level shows that the system is not soft.

It's only going to take me longer because my activity was so close to 480 when the system was brought in. It takes 8.5 months to gain the activity to go from Sr. to Hero so it's not surprising I couldn't do it in less than 2. If the system had been introduced on the day I became a Sr. it would have had no effect and that is why I think theymos has got the balance right with the current requirements. It is a barrier to the spammers and shouldn't hold back those who are genuinely here because they are enthusiasts. It might be a little slower for people just starting out as they have to go through learning before they can really make a contribution, but that exactly how I think it should work.

[hilariousetc]

Starting with 17 merits awarded to some of my old Jr. Member posts by people who remember them, I reached the Hero threshold of 500 merits within 27 days, 8 hours, 16 minutes, 22 seconds of active posting.

But you will be the glaring exception here. In fact, you're probably one in ten thousand or something. I can't really think of another user here who made such an impact in such a short time and for users like you the merit system will work as intended. Great posters will have no issue issue in rising through the ranks so I don't think it should be made more difficult, though the numbers could be adjusted slightly I guess but we'll have to see how things go. Poor posters will get nowhere unless they abuse the merit system but I do have some sympathy with average or even 'good' posters as they could take quite some time to get the merit points they need or deserve. It takes 4.5 months to become a Full Member and nearly one and a half years to become a Hero so lets see how people get on over time because it's certainly too early to say right now.

[Cobalt9317]

nullius is always offering a good cause for every member like myself, If I become a Hero with 3000 merit there's a value in it not just the rank itself.

He/She is pushing everyone to achieve something that is extraordinarily exceptional I like this guy I like the idea even if it is unattainable to a few members it is still achievable to a selected member like nullius itself.

Even if the idea is sort of cynical there's no explainable evidence that nullius is getting something in return undoubtedly.

P.S if I myself get to that HERO/Legendary rank every morning I wake up there's something good that happen to my life in this community and everything is priceless.

[ACVinegar]

Only the author of the merit system can make a decision if they increase or decrease the needed merit points before rank up. I think many users were disagree with that suggestion, since most of the participants of this site now are complaining regarding merit system.

However as of now complainant were already lessen maybe because they understand now the good intentions of this new rule. Therefore many bitcointalker are willing to improve and evolve their posts quality.

I think nullius have a a good intention why they can suggest it, but we need also to consider the other people. Almost more of the bitcointalker are not first language the English so we need to understand that it's hard for them to construct a concrete sentences.

Other than that let's also hear first the comments or opinion of many before deciding to change the rule. I hope I cannot offended the others.

[wantjokull]

Just because you got the merits rapidly doesn't mean that we should declare the standard of average merits to +1 per day. If we had so many talented people around us then im sure that we would create a world full of Einstein.

Everyone's posting habit is different and everyones thinking capacity is different. Many times people want to express themselves but they fail due miscellaneous insufficiency in them. Have you considered that thought while reframing the merit system? The forum is full of multinational crowd and people are coming from the Non English background too. This takes them to the back foot and thus adds up even more challenges while getting the merits. Local boards merit is unaccounted and they are mostly seen as merit farming.

I completely disagree with your views on the merit system and would think about the whole system as common mans perspective.

You are talking like that everyone here is like you and it would be easy to earn merits in so called 32 days, 9 hours, 14 minutes, 51 seconds to go from zero to Hero.

There is no meaning to your theory and it is just coming out of thrilled journey of yours and nothing else.

[Flying Hellfish]

Don’t simply be proud of these titles:  Make them signify an achievement to be proud of!

What the fuck is with these fucking people...  Dude its a fucking web forum.  The rank achieved here is nothing to be proud of...

Holy shit people get a fucking life that isn't tied to this fucking forum...  Go outside take a walk enjoy nature, get a fucking blowy (from a real person not some 15 yr old boy pretending to be a 19 yr old women on the webz), smoke a dube, have a glass of wine.

When you start saying things like"blah blah blah insult to the word hero" and "can you really call someone legendary".  Hey dude it's a forum, guess what those ranks actually mean, NOTHING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LOLOLOLOLOLOL

A persons trust, merit, and rank are completely inconsequential because interwebz and also have zero bearing on the content of their posts.

[TheQuin]

When I said this:

Whether anyone believes me or not, I really don't care what my rank is.

These are the words I was really looking for.

What the fuck is with these fucking people...  Dude its a fucking web forum.  The rank achieved here is nothing to be proud of...

Holy shit people get a fucking life that isn't tied to this fucking forum... 

[RYXES]

Here is my concrete suggestion for merit thresholds, with proposed changes set in bold.  Discussion of my reasoning follows.

___Rank___	Threshold
Newbie	0
Jr. Member	10
Member	30
Full Member	100
Sr. Member	250
Hero Member	1000–1500
Legendary	3000–5000

I have about 230 posts currently and let me tell you that achieving 10 merits by far the hardest thing to achieve with all the help in the mining forums I try and do, believe you me.
Like trying to get blood out of a stone.

But I agree on the top end of the rankings as there seems to be a psychological notion to give more merit to people on their rankings than their actual posts.
Not bitter in anyway as I approve of the system but just an observation that is very noticeable.

[Jet Cash]

I'm starting this in a bad mood, because a rapid scroll through the initial long arsed post killed my main computer. Windows had a wobbly, and I'm going to have to pick it to pieces to see what happened.
So my first comment is - for god's sake stop posting books to start a thread. It will probably be quoted in various posts during the thread, and make the whole thing unreadable.

I think the posted suggestion would be bad for the forum. It might be good for self- aggrandisement, but the merit system levels are sufficient to serve their intended purpose, and that is to remove most of the posts that sig spammers make in order to leech minimal income from the forum.

Nullius is fortunate in that he has a number of junior(ish) members who have the same posting skills and obviously have empathy for him, and who are able to award him merits. His initial post was awarded a merit by such a member, despite the fact that the proposition would be a serious disadvantage for him. Most of us don't have this dedicated following.

Isn't it time that we accepted that the merit system seems to be working at a basic level, and we got on with the business of discussing crypto-currencies in a rapidly changing world economy.

[hilariousandco]

Don’t simply be proud of these titles:  Make them signify an achievement to be proud of!

What the fuck is with these fucking people...  Dude its a fucking web forum.  The rank achieved here is nothing to be proud of...

Potato.

[ACVinegar]

Don’t simply be proud of these titles:  Make them signify an achievement to be proud of!

What the fuck is with these fucking people...  Dude its a fucking web forum.  The rank achieved here is nothing to be proud of...

Holy shit people get a fucking life that isn't tied to this fucking forum...  Go outside take a walk enjoy nature, get a fucking blowy (from a real person not some 15 yr old boy pretending to be a 19 yr old women on the webz), smoke a dube, have a glass of wine.

When you start saying things like"blah blah blah insult to the word hero" and "can you really call someone legendary".  Hey dude it's a forum, guess what those ranks actually mean, NOTHING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LOLOLOLOLOLOL

A persons trust, merit, and rank are completely inconsequential because interwebz and also have zero bearing on the content of their posts.

Slightly bitter!!😁

Relax dude! It was only suggestion, don't worry theymos is the only one who make a decision regarding that matter.

[nullius]

Having spent far too much time reading about merits lately I've noticed a tendency towards suggesting changes that would benefit the person suggesting them rather than benefit the forum overall.

[...]

Your suggestion is rather to change the ranking system to mark out exceptional posters (like yourself).

Your implication as to me was not entirely clear; I think you were disclaiming that your words were not self-serving as to yourself, and I don’t wish to cherry-pick a few parts of what you said to turn it backwards.  Nevertheless, for clarity:  I should like to emphasize that my suggestion in OP is strongly against my own interests.  Or at least, it is what most people would consider to be against my interests.

As of now, I could kick back, make one marginal post (barely above the moderators’ deletion threshold) every two weeks, and still be called a “Hero” starting on 12 March 2019.  Also, I am almost two-thirds of the way to Legendary, insofar as merit is concerned.  Yet I am advocating that I should be required to continue working hard here.

That said, I have sufficient pride that I don’t consider a greater challenge to be against my interests.  To the contrary:  As I said in OP, I want for earning Hero rank (and higher) to be something to be proud of.  That means it must be difficult to achieve.

Perspective check:  If the first person below Hero rank to ever reach the Hero rank merit threshold says that the threshold is too low, then I should hope that others would consider that opinion.

Don’t simply be proud of these titles:  Make them signify an achievement to be proud of!

What the fuck is with these fucking people...  Dude its a fucking web forum.  The rank achieved here is nothing to be proud of...

[Image: Potato balance with coins; “IT’S ALL ABOUT MONEY!”]
https://www.jalilga.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Its-all-about-money-1-min.jpg

Potato.

Nailed it.  Poh-tah-toh.

But you will be the glaring exception here. In fact, you're probably one in ten thousand or something. I can't really think of another user here who made such an impact in such a short time and for users like you the merit system will work as intended. Great posters will have no issue issue in rising through the ranks so I don't think it should be made more difficult, though the numbers could be adjusted slightly I guess but we'll have to see how things go. Poor posters will get nowhere unless they abuse the merit system but I do have some sympathy with average or even 'good' posters as they could take quite some time to get the merit points they need or deserve. It takes 4.5 months to become a Full Member and nearly one and a half years to become a Hero so lets see how people get on over time because it's certainly too early to say right now.

Thanks, hilarious.  But at the high end, as for what you say, my concern is twofold:

0. Changes will become more difficult to make.  For a hilarious analogy, consider the old Bitcoin blocksize.  Do you want to try to design a Segwit to softfork rank requirements between old and new merit thresholds?  Hahah.  Seriously, we already saw enough strife over the “grandfathering” of merits based on rank at the introduction of the merit system.

1. As I said, the difficulty of achieving higher rank should not only increase, but accelerate at the top levels.  Consider officer ranks in a military, or executive ranks in a corporation.  Most “users” will never reach the top ranks, or even remotely approach them.  If this forum is now on some level a meritocracy, then it would be sensible for middle ranks to have moderate requirements, and high ranks to have extreme requirements.

The merit atmosphere is now very different. People are more stingy about merits because now they have a better grasp of what they are and what they can do in the wrong hands. They're aware of forum farmers and merit farmers, and etc.

I should hope so!

People now understand that awarding someone a merit is almost akin to awarding them a Trust Rating. I've noticed that people with merits are actually looked upon with more respect in the Trading sections.

That said, I myself, have stopped myself from giving a decent post any merits even though I wanted to... simply on the basis that someone was a new member and I was not sure whether they were a scammer or a genuine poster. So I didn't give them a merit. I'm more apt to give someone a merit if they have a decent post history with no negative trust.


Merit is now becoming a quasi-trust system. And I can safely say that I would never give a merit to someone with negative DT feedback unless the feedback was nonsense (which it rarely is if it's DT feedback).

I like what I’m hearing here.  For my part, I have taken to checking post histories before I award merit to those I’ve never seen before—especially those at the Newbie and Jr. ranks, and those in upper ranks who seem to have earned little or nothing above their “grandfathered” merit.  Not a few times, I have backed away from the merit button after a glance at post history revealed bounty posts or other spammish behaviour.  Also, I have recently developed a policy of never awarding more than +1 per post to a Newbie; since this is unfair, I have a very short list of posts to which I plan to return in a few months and add more merit, if I see evidence that the person still deserves it.

Sorry for the short post.  

Length of a post is never a sole criterion of meritoriousness.  I once awarded +5 to a post which contained a single two-letter word “ok”, excluding quotations.  (In context, it was a meritorious action:  Contemptuous dismissal of whining by a merit abuser who got red-tagged.)

I'm starting this in a bad mood, because a rapid scroll through the initial long arsed post killed my main computer. Windows had a wobbly, and I'm going to have to pick it to pieces to see what happened.

It is my fault that your computer is a piece of trash.  I apologize.

So my first comment is - for god's sake stop posting books to start a thread. It will probably be quoted in various posts during the thread, and make the whole thing unreadable.

And that’s my fault, too.  It is not as if proper trimming of quotes were the responsibility of the person who is quoting another post.  I never gently explain quote-trimming to newbies, and certainly never flame non-newbies to a cinder for failure to trim quotes.

You’re right:  To avoid injuring you and your “wobbly” computer, or proximately causing hypothetical untrimmed quotes by others, I must desist from making long posts.

(By the way, didn’t you say that you were a speed-reader?)

I think the posted suggestion would be bad for the forum. It might be good for self- aggrandisement,

How, exactly, would it be “good for self-aggrandizement” for me to place myself further away from Hero rank after I’ve already earned it, at least insofar as merit is concerned?  You seem to have not thought this through.

Nullius is fortunate in that he has a number of junior(ish) members who have the same posting skills and obviously have empathy for him, and who are able to award him merits.

Try checking my merit summary before you say such things.  Yes, you will consider it “long arsed”; but you can’t properly blame me for that.  My very first merit on 2018-01-25 was awarded by a forum moderator; and that set the trend.  Most of my merit has come from those with sMerit to give.  Many “junior(ish) members” may like my posts; and merit awarded to me by “junior(ish) members” is all the more significant to me for how dear that sMerit is to them.  But by the numbers, they usually don’t have much sMerit.  Furthermore, I see no evidence that anybody has ever awarded me merit out of empathy—a concept I abhor.  I’d throw it in their faces!

Isn't it time that we accepted that the merit system seems to be working at a basic level, and we got on with the business of discussing crypto-currencies in a rapidly changing world economy.

Like you do?  Oh, right.  Check post history.

Stop preaching to others what you don’t practice—indeed, what they practice more than you do.  And if you care about the merit system’s integrity, by the way, I suggest that you drop the link currently in your signature and instead start red-tagging beggars.  Listing beggars on your website will have zero effect, other than making you feel better.  It does not help the forum.  The same applies as for ignore-listing.  Whereas I’ve hurt merit-beggars sufficiently that I’ve received a hate-PM advising me in “fuck you!” terms that I seriously hurt a wannabe spammer.  Check my trust summary page, which is also “long arsed” compared to yours.


Overall:  Jet Cash, I know that you’re upset over how close you were to the Legendary activity range when the merit system was introduced.  But that is no reason to both mischaracterize my posting and merit histories, and blame me for your “wobbly” computer being unable to handle texts longer than a Tweet.  If you dislike my suggestion for any reason other than that it would place you about 2300 merits away from Legendary rank, I suggest that you argue on its merits (so to speak) rather than posting pointless ad hominem drivel.  HTH.

Don’t simply be proud of these titles:  Make them signify an achievement to be proud of!

What the fuck is with these fucking people...  Dude its a fucking web forum.  The rank achieved here is nothing to be proud of...

Holy shit people get a fucking life that isn't tied to this fucking forum...  Go outside take a walk enjoy nature, get a fucking blowy (from a real person not some 15 yr old boy pretending to be a 19 yr old women on the webz), smoke a dube, have a glass of wine.

When you start saying things like"blah blah blah insult to the word hero" and "can you really call someone legendary".  Hey dude it's a forum, guess what those ranks actually mean, NOTHING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LOLOLOLOLOLOL

A persons trust, merit, and rank are completely inconsequential because interwebz and also have zero bearing on the content of their posts.

Slightly bitter!!😁

Relax dude! It was only suggestion, don't worry theymos is the only one who make a decision regarding that matter.

Flying Hellfish is evidently sore because I calmly rejected his ridiculous high-handed preaching to me of sexual mores which I do not share.  Thus, the string of F-bombs and low-brow insults.  This is not an assumption; he underscored his point, “fucking blowy (from a real person”.

As for the advice to “smoke a dube”, no way!  Recreational psychotropic drug use is against my moral values.  I am strongly opposed to the use of marijuana, and very judgmental about it.