Is this not merit abuse really ?

[LoyceV]

Well, it appears that your source merit either wasn't upped to 250 a month like me, or you are just letting it expire.

Last time I checked, I had 200 per month as a source. Lately, I've managed to empty it on many days, and even got to touch my stockpile of "my own" sMerits. Getting rid of all sMerit is difficult, especially since most of the time I only give 1 Merit.

I don't let much source merit expire. Let's compare the amount of Merit we've sent:
Mine:


Yours:

The graphs show this:

Each column width is 5 days (10 pixels). "Days" start the second the first Merit was transfered, and count exactly 5*3600*24 seconds after that. It has nothing to do with calendar days in any time zone
The maximum is 100 Merit per column (2 pixels per Merit). If more than 100 Merit was transfered in a 5 day period, the top of the column gets darker.

Both graphs look quite similar.

Theymos gave me instructions to try and do my best to distribute all of it. I'm doing the best that I can; yet have already had complaints.

It seems different Merit sources have received different instructions depending on when they received them.
Can you share the link to your abuse-thread? I haven't noticed anything wrong with your meriting (but I also didn't look into it).

I really despise this statistic. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=topsendban Now I am on the list that appears to point out merit abuse suspects. I was originally very honored to become a merit source. But now I feel that my reputation is at stake with every single merit that I am obligated to distribute.

Not a nice list to be on Do you know who was banned? It's "just" 29 Merit in 180 days, it's very well possible a user received 5 Merit per month from you, and got banned for plagiarism later on.

[1713988642]

1713988642

[1713988642]

1713988642

[1713988642]

1713988642

[bones261]

Well, it appears that your source merit either wasn't upped to 250 a month like me, or you are just letting it expire.

Last time I checked, I had 200 per month as a source. Lately, I've managed to empty it on many days, and even got to touch my stockpile of "my own" sMerits. Getting rid of all sMerit is difficult, especially since most of the time I only give 1 Merit.

I don't let much source merit expire. Let's compare the amount of Merit we've sent:
Mine:


Yours:

The graphs show this:

Each column width is 5 days (10 pixels). "Days" start the second the first Merit was transfered, and count exactly 5*3600*24 seconds after that. It has nothing to do with calendar days in any time zone
The maximum is 100 Merit per column (2 pixels per Merit). If more than 100 Merit was transfered in a 5 day period, the top of the column gets darker.

Both graphs look quite similar.

I retract my statement against you. I just glanced at your merit history, originally, and obviously looked at it wrong. (Probably because I am being overly defensive.) I can now see that you are very busy.

Theymos gave me instructions to try and do my best to distribute all of it. I'm doing the best that I can; yet have already had complaints.

It seems different Merit sources have received different instructions depending on when they received them.
Can you share the link to your abuse-thread? I haven't noticed anything wrong with your meriting (but I also didn't look into it).

The thread wasn't originally directed at me. But I was reprimanded none the less. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5031029

I really despise this statistic. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=topsendban Now I am on the list that appears to point out merit abuse suspects. I was originally very honored to become a merit source. But now I feel that my reputation is at stake with every single merit that I am obligated to distribute.

Not a nice list to be on Do you know who was banned? It's "just" 29 Merit in 180 days, it's very well possible a user received 5 Merit per month from you, and got banned for plagiarism later on.

The bulk of it went to anunymint. He was originally banned for multi-posting. It was turned into a permaban for ban evasion. Since his opinions are very unpopular, and he doesn't take any steps to hide who he is when he tries to return, his new alts eventually get banned. However, he has had stints were his new alt lasted for several months before given the boot. I gave him merit because one can definitely see his posts take a good deal of thought; although with all the links and conspiracy theories, many fall into the category of TLDR.  

[S_Therapist]

~snip~

nice

30 merit left?

Those two are ridiculous. In his merit giveaway, he has merited users Full Member and above. I have seen some lower ranked users had also submitted posts. If QA was in hurry to award merit, s/he could find some users from that list too.

[theymos]

Well, it appears that your source merit either wasn't upped to 250 a month ago like me, or you are just letting it expire. Theymos gave me instructions to try and do my best to distribute all of it. I'm doing the best that I can; yet have already had complaints. I really despise this statistic. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=topsendban Now I am on the list that appears to point out merit abuse suspects. I was originally very honored to become a merit source. But now I feel that my reputation is at stake with every single merit that I am obligated to distribute. I know that I only have black trust at the moment. However, I keep checking my trust rating to make sure some DT member doesn't decide to red tag me because they feel that I am being "abusive" or derelict in my duty.

If they complain about amounts, tell them to complain to me. It's best if sources try to exhaust their source allocations, even if it means giving posts higher amounts than is typical. If you have 150 source merit and you only see 3 merit-worthy posts in a month, then I'd rather you over-give each of them 50 merit than let the merit expire. That way there are more people capable of sending merit, and the "merit economy" is less top-down.

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

Aside from that, if people complain about whether things deserve merit at all, then that's something to perhaps think about, but if you conclude that they're wrong, then that's that. You don't need to stress about it or defend yourself constantly. It's conceivable that someday you and I will end up disagreeing too much about this stuff and I'll remove your source status, but it's really not a big deal.

The topsendban list is just a first indication of abuse, and many excellent people are on it. Your place on there acts as a sort of benchmark: eg. chandra12 has a similar score there, but whereas you are an extremely active merit-giver with a diverse selection of posts merited (most of which anyone would agree with), chandra12 only has two large merit sends. His behavior in comparison to yours while having a similar topsendban score is what creates a strong abuse impression.

I appreciate the work of you and other sources who take it seriously!

[bones261]

If they complain about amounts, tell them to complain to me. It's best if sources try to exhaust their source allocations, even if it means giving posts higher amounts than is typical. If you have 150 source merit and you only see 3 merit-worthy posts in a month, then I'd rather you over-give each of them 50 merit than let the merit expire. That way there are more people capable of sending merit, and the "merit economy" is less top-down.

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

Aside from that, if people complain about whether things deserve merit at all, then that's something to perhaps think about, but if you conclude that they're wrong, then that's that. You don't need to stress about it or defend yourself constantly. It's conceivable that someday you and I will end up disagreeing too much about this stuff and I'll remove your source status, but it's really not a big deal.

The topsendban list is just a first indication of abuse, and many excellent people are on it. Your place on there acts as a sort of benchmark: eg. chandra12 has a similar score there, but whereas you are an extremely active merit-giver with a diverse selection of posts merited (most of which anyone would agree with), chandra12 only has two large merit sends. His behavior in comparison to yours while having a similar topsendban score is what creates a strong abuse impression.

I appreciate the work of you and other sources who take it seriously!

Thank you for the encouraging words. I'll do my best not to fret. It's the curse of an INTP personality type. I'm always second guessing myself. 

[The Cryptovator]

snip

Thanks for clear everything. So I don't think we should highlight merit abuser on future is there isn't strong evidence of merit sale. Obviously spend merit is better than dry it. Especially for merit source. I believe merit source aren't involved with sale or abuse. On the other hand they are doing a job like without salary . However I am going to delete all negative feedback from merit abuser since admin are not encourage.

[marlboroza]

I really despise this statistic. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=topsendban Now I am on the list that appears to point out merit abuse suspects.

That is list of accounts who sent merit to accounts which are banned, nothing else. Just ignore it.

But now I feel that my reputation is at stake with every single merit that I am obligated to distribute.

Nonsense.

However, I keep checking my trust rating to make sure some DT member doesn't decide to red tag me because they feel that I am being "abusive" or derelict in my duty.

I don't see any reason why anyone should tag you. You are not:

1) selling/buying merit
2) exchanging merit between alt accounts
3) ranking up alt account farm which will be later used for all kind of shady deals(scamming, payed bumping etc) which is anyway very hard to prove unless it is obvious

[bones261]

snip

Thanks for clear everything. So I don't think we should highlight merit abuser on future is there isn't strong evidence of merit sale. Obviously spend merit is better than dry it. Especially for merit source. I believe merit source aren't involved with sale or abuse. On the other hand they are doing a job like without salary . However I am going to delete all negative feedback from merit abuser since admin are not encourage.

Perhaps if you disagree with how someone doles out their merits, the proper term is merit carelessness, rather than abuse.(If no financial incentive seems to be tied to it.) I really don't think QA handing out merits in a giveaway on Wall Observer is abuse. Although I do agree it is a bit careless.

[The Cryptovator]

Perhaps if you disagree with how someone doles out their merits, the proper term is merit carelessness, rather than abuse.(If no financial incentive seems to be tied to it.) I really don't think QA handing out merits in a giveaway on Wall Observer is abuse. Although I do agree it is a bit careless.

Yes QA is little bit careless about spending smerit. Its clear that his intention isn't abuse the system or involved with sale or trade. Because even he didn't join signature, its means he isn't greedy abut it. I just got all point from admin reply. I am glad to see that admin care about members. He don't like to dry smerit due to unspent. Obviously this is a good intention.

However I will not lock this thread since admin reply here with few important things. So others peoples will able see that. And I almost clear about aim of admin regarding merit system.

[hilariousetc]

Perhaps if you disagree with how someone doles out their merits, the proper term is merit carelessness, rather than abuse.(If no financial incentive seems to be tied to it.) I really don't think QA handing out merits in a giveaway on Wall Observer is abuse. Although I do agree it is a bit careless.

Yes QA is little bit careless about spending smerit. Its clear that his intention isn't abuse the system or involved with sale or trade. Because even he didn't join signature, its means he isn't greedy abut it. I just got all point from admin reply. I am glad to see that admin care about members. He don't like to dry smerit due to unspent. Obviously this is a good intention.

However I will not lock this thread since admin reply here with few important things. So others peoples will able see that. And I almost clear about aim of admin regarding merit system.

He should be removed as merit source in my opinion. He seems to be mistaking merit for candy that he will give to anyone who asks for it.

I mean seriously:

Oh, I am going to do one thing before I sign off for now. Since most people are off work/school today because it’s the weekend, and there should be more people on line than during the week and I have too much merit laying around, the next 5 people to respond to this thread get 30 merit.

could really handle some merit!

Oh, I am going to do one thing before I sign off for now. Since most people are off work/school today because it’s the weekend, and there should be more people on line than during the week and I have too much merit laying around, the next 5 people to respond to this thread get 30 merit.

I'm here!

Oh, I am going to do one thing before I sign off for now. Since most people are off work/school today because it’s the weekend, and there should be more people on line than during the week and I have too much merit laying around, the next 5 people to respond to this thread get 30 merit.

 Oh yeah I'm a merit slut


edit: oops

nice

30 merit left

See what I mean! If I had done this 4 years ago any day of the week this thread would already be at 10 pages after my post.

30 merit left?

Late for the merit party. Pity. Could use a few 

All given 30 points by QuestionAuthority. Giving it out to anyone who asks for it is reckless and it defeats the entire purpose of the system.

[S_Therapist]

snip

However I am going to delete all negative feedback from merit abuser since admin are not encourage.

I think it is not needed. theymos didn't ask people not to talk about merit abuse or not to tag them. It's your choice.
theymos responded specifically in case of bones261, IMO.
As per the rules of trust (No mandatory rule almost), I can give positive/negative feedback in general terms and of course, the general terms include merit abusing. If a people can abuse merit system, s/he is not trustworthy in my eyes and there is no problem with tagging him/her. If you think, someone is abusing merit, why don't you tag him?

[The Cryptovator]

If a people can abuse merit system, s/he is not trustworthy in my eyes and there is no problem with tagging him/her. If you think, someone is abusing merit, why don't you tag him?

Although admin reply to bones261 but this is applicable for all. Not only for bones261, this is just example. Admin already mentioned, if someone not involved with abuse like buy sale merit then we shouldn't tag them. Otherwise it should not consider merit abuse according to theymos. For us we could tag that merit abuser not trustworthy, but if a DT want to tag then there should be strong evidence. DT just can't tag someone for that he don't trust. He is the responsible person and red tag will reflect on tagged profile. Since admin agree to spread merit over forum, then I don't think DT need to tag them also (if not involved with merit sales).


It's really not good that someone earning  merit by doing nothing and someone not earning even working hard. That's the main problem. Intention of merit to build decent forum, but people just think intention is rank up. So they are abusing it.

@LoyceV post edited.

[LoyceV]

Admin already mentioned, if someone involved with buy sale merit then we should tag them.

That's not what theymos said:

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

Saying they shouldn't be tagged by DT if they're not selling Merit isn't the same as saying they should be tagged when they do sell Merit.

[Kavelj22]

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

In this case, many DT members should not be in DT for much longer. I can't remember how many profiles had been tagged because of merit issues (not selling). I think DT members have to review some of their judgements.

[Lauda]

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

In this case, many DT members should not be in DT for much longer. I can't remember how many profiles had been tagged because of merit issues (not selling). I think DT members have to review some of their judgements.

That's absolutely untrue. Abusing merit via alts falls under the acceptable category. If the system disallowed punishments for users that a clearly abusing it via alt accounts, then the system would be a joke and shouldn't exist in the first place.

[Kavelj22]

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

In this case, many DT members should not be in DT for much longer. I can't remember how many profiles had been tagged because of merit issues (not selling). I think DT members have to review some of their judgements.

That's absolutely untrue. Abusing merit via alts falls under the acceptable category. If the system disallowed punishments for users that a clearly abusing it via alt accounts, then the system would be a joke and shouldn't exist in the first place.

Abusing merit via alts deserve an immediate RedTag, but let's remember about accounts being tagged for "begging for merit" which falls also under acceptable category deserving RedTrust but also a something stupid (less than selling merits) that destroy reputations of many users.

[Lauda]

Abusing merit via alts deserve an immediate RedTag, but let's remember about accounts being tagged for "begging for merit" which falls also under acceptable category deserving RedTrust but also a something stupid (less than selling merits) that destroy reputations of many users.

Sounds about right. We're replacing spam posts with merit begging posts; indeed a very helpful policy. Liberalism strikes again.

[Kavelj22]

Abusing merit via alts deserve an immediate RedTag, but let's remember about accounts being tagged for "begging for merit" which falls also under acceptable category deserving RedTrust but also a something stupid (less than selling merits) that destroy reputations of many users.

Sounds about right. We're replacing spam posts with merit begging posts; indeed a very helpful policy. Liberalism strikes again.

https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fi2ARpvsAPsg%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&sp=a9cd2713c78e5028b7318870d0e6f6ee

I totally agree with you Lauda as it's not allowed, by rule, to beg for merit, but this statement from Theymos can be interpreted in many ways;

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

So what should be those stupid things involving merit, and less than selling merit that doesn't desrerve a Tag

[r1s2g3]

@All.

This thread has lost track now. Actually "OP" is created for "dice-bet" abusing merit or probably bought and sold them. Instead of focusing on it, we are distracted to "QA" or in short towards "Merit Source".

Will not like to comment "QA" 30 merits giveaway but somebody dragging "bones261" for just giving 1 merit is unfair.
1. Merit sources are human they can do error to.
2. One Merit is the least amount they can give. If they like some thing, I guess they(or any forum member) can give 1 Merit without any need to defend himself/herself.

Actual problem I see the "Air dropped" smerits, that did not expired. After more than 9 months of the system, some user still have them and they are occasionally using them to promote newbie to Jr. member (might be there own alt accounts) or might be selling also as in suspected in case of Dice-bet.

[The Cryptovator]

It's really sad to see QA has been removed from merit source.  . It's just happened because of his fan. I was replied only his thread that he shouldn't spend merit for like 'nice' reply. But unfortunately some of his fan strongly attacked me and insult too. My fault was, I had added my post link for example and they thought I am trying to gain merit. I have just tried to defend, really my intention wasn't make sound against him and I believe didn't.

Apologies to all concerned, I will no longer be handing out merit in this thread. Theymos removed me as a merit source because he disagreed with the way I spent my merit. I will leave this thread open and you can continue to post merit requests here if you like; however, I won’t be answering them.

Good luck to all.

CBH