Community generated suggestions to improve the forum (+ eventual voting on them)

[TheBeardedBaby]

Let's keep this list updated. Now we have to mark the ones that are done!
Maybe someone can make a list of what has been done till now. I've seen quite many changes since I joined the forum. First were the copper members, then the CouldFlare after that came the merit, followed with the report scores, Homographs were fixed and now this. I may have forgotten something on the way but quite a lot happned for the past almost an year.

[1714539786]

1714539786

[1714539786]

1714539786

[1714539786]

1714539786

[1714539786]

1714539786

[1714539786]

1714539786

[LoyceV]

Ten is a much different ball game and becomes exponentially more difficult the more accounts you have.

I posted a different idea today, and already modified it a bit. In short:
Every time an account goes up 100 in Activity, remove 1 Merit. That means any normal person has to earn 1 Merit every 3 months to keep his rank, old inactive accounts aren't affected, and any spammer who got a Merit without deserving it, will lose it again unless he starts deleting many of his old posts.

[poochpocket]

When I was new here on the forum I thought there would be a lot of legendary account on the forum in some years and legendary would be a rank of any spammer you could think of but due to the great changes made by theymos by adding merit system to the forum he made it worth getting to the rank and also stopped the shitposting in better way.

Due to the implementation of some of the suggestions made by great community members here, bitcointalk would attract more knowledgeable people than just dumps and spammers to express themselves here and help the crypto community to grow. I am very happy that theymos tried to look into this issue and i think after the implementation process this forum can become a very great to place to gain and share information from knowledgeable people.

The best suggestion for me would be adding more mods and giving the  some extra power to ban users and all the scammers they come across. Also a power of IP ban in case the user is just creating multiple accounts.

[DooMAD]

Every time an account goes up 100 in Activity, remove 1 Merit. That means any normal person has to earn 1 Merit every 3 months to keep his rank, old inactive accounts aren't affected, and any spammer who got a Merit without deserving it, will lose it again unless he starts deleting many of his old posts.

It's certainly a bold idea, but I suspect it might fall afoul of theymos' stance that:

I don't want the forum to be unwelcoming to good newbies.

While new users are still learning, it may not be fair to expect too much, too soon.  They might have worked really hard for their first merit and I could understand some serious disillusionment if they happened to earn it at 90+ activity just for the new system to tear it away from them again shortly after.  

Don't get me wrong, though, I like the idea overall.  I'd be more than happy for higher ranks that inherited some initial starting merit to be subject to those rules.

[LoyceV]

It's certainly a bold idea, but I suspect it might fall afoul of theymos' stance that:

I don't want the forum to be unwelcoming to good newbies.

Users whom I consider "good" won't have a problem losing 1 Merit, they'd earn another one within a few days tops. Falling back from (say) 150 to 149 Merit points won't hurt any good member in the long run.
Spammers however will be seriously restricted if they lose 1 Merit, it could even lower the rank of high ranking users who haven't earned a single Merit since January.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Thanks to theymos and thanks to the various other people (you know who you are) who continue to push for a cleaner and spam-free forum. Meta is a shitshow at the moment, and the complaining posts are popping up on the other boards too, but seeing posts today from Newbie accounts with 500+ posts and 0 merit complaining about losing their bounty campaigns is beautiful.

[Thekool1s]

1 down about tree fiddy to go.

Awesome development! Theymos cares about the community after all. This can be improved tho, just like you mentioned in the "Enhanced newbie restrictions & requirements" thread i.e 10 Merits to wear the signature. Now that the first step has been taken I believe the next step should be strict action against managers who are accepting higher ranked members who haven't earned any merit and going about their daily shitposting. These managers should be the immediate next target for the staff members and theymos.

A team should be made to investigate these managers and warn them for their wrongdoings. They will have a couple of weeks to adjust their policies, Failure to do so should result in a permanent ban.

Every time an account goes up 100 in Activity, remove 1 Merit. That means any normal person has to earn 1 Merit every 3 months to keep his rank, old inactive accounts aren't affected, and any spammer who got a Merit without deserving it, will lose it again unless he starts deleting many of his old posts.

It's kind of an overkill TBH Loyce. What we need to do now is have strict rules for running the bounty campaigns. Make it official that bounty managers should only accept people who have earned at least X amount of merit. Failure to do so will result in a ban. Something like this should be a good start point. We will see immediate results if something like this gets implemented.

[Steamtyme]

Ten is a much different ball game and becomes exponentially more difficult the more accounts you have.

I posted a different idea today, and already modified it a bit. In short:
Every time an account goes up 100 in Activity, remove 1 Merit. That means any normal person has to earn 1 Merit every 3 months to keep his rank, old inactive accounts aren't affected, and any spammer who got a Merit without deserving it, will lose it again unless he starts deleting many of his old posts.

I checked out the idea, and am all for it. I wouldn't tie it to activity as you have already pointed out the work around, they would just delete posts. There would be no repercussions to them in doing so as they aren't ranking up without merit. I would say every 45 days. With all the new sources of merit that has been added, a worthwhile poster should be able to earn 1 merit in 45 days, I feel that is a generous timeline.

It's kind of an overkill TBH Loyce. What we need to do now is have strict rules for running the bounty campaigns. Make it official that bounty managers should only accept people who have earned at least X amount of merit. Failure to do so will result in a ban. Something like this should be a good start point. We will see immediate results if something like this gets implemented.

That would be nice, but Theymos is not a fan of heavy handed rules being implemented. Unfortunately the community doesn't have a tool to use though to enforce a majority consensus on how we would like to see bounties handled in the forum. I used to not concern myself with bounties as I assumed there actions were all off forum, then I realized how many of them require a signature and to post on the forum. I tried to thin kof a way that DT could be used to reign in the bounty managers but trust doesn't really affect them.

[DooMAD]

Every time an account goes up 100 in Activity, remove 1 Merit. That means any normal person has to earn 1 Merit every 3 months to keep his rank, old inactive accounts aren't affected, and any spammer who got a Merit without deserving it, will lose it again unless he starts deleting many of his old posts.

I checked out the idea, and am all for it. I wouldn't tie it to activity as you have already pointed out the work around, they would just delete posts.

Some might argue that spammers being effectively incentivised to tidy up their own mess is a good thing, heh.  Sounds like a win if the mods would normally have to delete them anyway.  

[Steamtyme]

^^

I like your glass half full attitude. 

Although I would still prefer to see them leave or improve, cutting off or restricting the ease access to their "jobs" is probably the only way to do it.

[LoyceV]

I checked out the idea, and am all for it. I wouldn't tie it to activity as you have already pointed out the work around, they would just delete posts. There would be no repercussions to them in doing so as they aren't ranking up without merit. I would say every 45 days. With all the new sources of merit that has been added, a worthwhile poster should be able to earn 1 merit in 45 days, I feel that is a generous timeline.

I think losing 1 Merit every 3 or 6 months would be enough to derank most spammers, and that was my initial idea. However, this would be bad for high quality posters who don't post often, or even inactive accounts. By tying it to activity, none of these are affected.

[Steamtyme]

I think losing 1 Merit every 3 or 6 months would be enough to derank most spammers, and that was my initial idea. However, this would be bad for high quality posters who don't post often, or even inactive accounts. By tying it to activity, none of these are affected.

I see what your saying. Perhaps the happy medium would actually come from a post count as opposed to activity or time. Say 200 or 250 posts; the kicker would be that it is a continuous total not affected by deleted posts.
This way spammers can't cheat the activity threshold by deleting posts, and it won't disproportionately affect casual or inactive users.

[LoyceV]

This way spammers can't cheat the activity threshold by deleting posts

So they'll just cheat the post count by deleting posts.

[TheBeardedBaby]

Why not this > if you don't receive any merit for 3 months activiy then you loose 1. Then the good posters will not be affected at all

Not that I care about loosing merit, I already got way more than I needed.

[suchmoon]

Bitcointalk Airlines frequent flier program:

• You're earning miles from other passengers.
• To earn miles you have to provide high-quality in-flight entertainment to other passengers.
• For every two earned miles you get one sMile that you can give to others.
• The airline has appointed 120 passengers called "mile sources" who can hand out ~200 free sMiles per month.
• Mile sources don't fly to Philippines or Indonesia and only sit in first class.
• Until you earn at least 1 mile you can only fly in the cargo hold, which does not have lavatories.
• You can't buy miles but you can buy a cattle-class seat for $15.
• If you earn enough miles you gain the right to carry an increasingly lurid placard and to shove it in the face of each passenger you talk to.
• Other passengers may spray you with red paint if you try to sell sMiles or give them to your friends or family members.

Proposed rule changes:

• Require 10 miles to upgrade from cargo hold.
• Miles expire after 3 months of no activity.

Did I capture the spirit of the system correctly?

[Steamtyme]

So they'll just cheat the post count by deleting posts.

Sorry I wasn't clear in my explanation.

I see what your saying. Perhaps the happy medium would actually come from a post count as opposed to activity or time. Say 200 or 250 posts; the kicker would be that it is a continuous total not affected by deleted posts.
This way spammers can't cheat the activity threshold by deleting posts, and it won't disproportionately affect casual or inactive users.

When I said this, I meant it as a programming fix. The forum would tabulate all posts that you create in that time frame including posts that are deleted. So in this system, it wouldn't matter if the spammers deleted their posts, as it would have still been added to the tally.

While an account may only show 190 posts in an effort to remain below the (currently imaginary) threshold for Merit reduction, their actual tally may be 201, thus triggering the removal of 1 merit. In this example they tried to delete 11 posts. With a large number like 200 or 250 posts, I feel it would give a wide enough berth for any worthwhile member of the forum to earn 1 merit...

Bitcointalk Airlines frequent flier program:

*snip*

Did I capture the spirit of the system correctly?

Love it, does it come with a fancy card?

You should ad in the safety spiel pointing the spammers to their nearest exit.

[0t3p0t]

I would like to suggest BitcoinTalk forum to launch it's official mobile app.

[InvoKing]

• If you try to sell sMiles or give them to your friends or family members you'll get deplaned at altitude.

oO
I thought selling sMiles leads to just sitting at the end of the plane with the bad boys or in a cage in the cargo.
I thought deplaning occurs when you paste papers from books or newspapers in the plane's wall and windows or jumping like a monkey outside of your cage and waking up the passengers to see what u r doin' everytime 

I would like to suggest BitcoinTalk forum to launch it's official mobile app.

Let's just wait for the new forums 
(<3 this one btw)

[suchmoon]

I thought selling sMiles leads to just sitting at the end of the plane with the bad boys or in a cage in the cargo.
I thought deplaning occurs when you paste papers from books or newspapers in the plane's wall and windows or jumping like a monkey outside of your cage and waking up the passengers to see what u r doin' everytime  

You're right, I got carried away with that one. It has been corrected.

The newspaper/monkey thing would be part of a broader package of rules and regulations that would also need to addresses issues like hoarding multiple seats or defecating in the aisle or Lamborghinis for the flight attendants.

While an account may only show 190 posts in an effort to remain below the (currently imaginary) threshold for Merit reduction, their actual tally may be 201, thus triggering the removal of 1 merit. In this example they tried to delete 11 posts. With a large number like 200 or 250 posts, I feel it would give a wide enough berth for any worthwhile member of the forum to earn 1 merit...

So it's basically pay-to-post. Pay 1 merit to make 200 posts. What if a user doesn't have any merits? Would they go negative?

I like the idea but I think it would likely create even more desperate begging in Meta.

[Steamtyme]

The pay to post is an interesting way of looking at it.

I see it as more of an earn to maintain. In a way it removes the "tenure" aspect of ranking up in the forum. It would be most notable to the 1 merit junior members, who when it was all of a sudden needed got a suspect merit awarded. In the long run though given poor enough quality it could affect any user who ranked up but does not currently create meritable posts.

From this I would not want to see negative in the merit field. People would be able to continue posting as normal after the 200 posts.

I feel this would be a good overall way of keeping forum ranks/status more fluid and current. Especially if it were applied in a way that it encompassed everyone including people who were ranked up prior to the merit system.

Edit: Just want to make sure it's known that I began thinking this system up after reading LoyceV's post