Merit requirement should be proportional to activity

[r1s2g3]

I know theymos has no interest in knowing what rank get what bounty stakes in signature campaign but truth is that everybody agrees that signature campaigns are the main root cause of spam.

So I checked various bounties thread and my understanding about stake ratio in a campaign as follows:

Jr. member : 1 stake
Member      : 2 stake
Full Member : 3 to 5 stake
Senior Member: 4 to 6 stake
Hero  member  : 6 to 8 stake
Legendary        : 8 to 10 stake  (in some cases they are treated equivalent to hero only)

It simply look like 2 Jr. member bounty stakes are equivalent to Member  and bounty stake of 5 Jr. member are equivalent to full member.
But Full member requires to get 100 merits while it just require 5 merits for 5 Jr. member.
When you start comparing rank of Jr.Member and Member vs other higher rank , you will clearly see that  bounty stakes are favoring multiple small ranked account instead of one high ranking account.

My personal belief is that it might encourage spammer to create multiple account and get few merits by hook and crook for that account and start one more  new account instead of focusing in posting etiquette and sincerely try to rank up.

I suggest that merit requirement for each rank   should be proportional to  the activity required (or bounty stakes, but look like bounty stakes also based on activity only (before the inception of merit) and still continuing on that old model)

With my above suggestion, I guess problem of spam generation by Sig campaign might be solved but it will cause new problem of ranking up in lower ranks like 25 merits for Jr.Member rank or 50 Merit for member rank.

To counter this problem , I will suggest to reduce the number of merit required to be half to activity for each  rank.
Like 15 for Jr.Member, 30 for Member, 60 (or 50)  for full Member, 125 for Sr.Member, 250 for Hero Member and 500 for legendary. Since airdropped Merits were given to maintain the rank earlier so we should half them also for maintaining the rank.

For ex. A senior Member at the time of implementation of Merit given 250 airdropped Merit and earned 100 Merit till now will be having 350 Merits and still still short with 150 merits for hero (assumed Sr.member full filled the activity criteria.) With new proposition, Airdropped merit will be halved that become 125 and member earned 100 merit, making total to 225 and now short of only 25 merits to become hero  (assumed Sr.member full filled the activity criteria.)

I think maintaining the linearity between activity and merit will discourage user to create multiple low level account for sig spamming.

 Edit: Look like some users are taking in another sense when I am mentioning the word bounty.  My whole intent for this post is to explain that current merit requirement still encourage alt account creation at Jr.Member/Member level  for bounty farming.

[1714949714]

1714949714

[1714949714]

1714949714

[Lauda]

Why should the forum change its requirements to conform with some random bounty allocations?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Rather than lowering the requirements for higher ranks, I think a better way of combating spam would be to increase the requirements for lower ranks. Specifically, raising the merit required for Junior Member, and therefore displaying a signature at all, would do far more to reduce spam than making it easier to reach legendary.

LoyceV's data have shown us that the one merit rule has had a significant effect on spam. A 10 or 25 merit rule would be even better.

[r1s2g3]

Why should the forum change its requirements to conform with some random bounty allocations?

You can read bounty as "Activity" then.
When we says Jr.Member are spamming for signatures then activity based merit system will just discourage them to go on creating multiple accounts.
Anyway I guess bounty stakes basis was "Activity" only.

If you agree Signatures are cause of spamming then you have to create rules that can effectively counter it and it is not equivalent to "forum change its requirements to conform with some random bounty allocations"

[Lauda]

Why should the forum change its requirements to conform with some random bounty allocations?

You can read bounty as "Activity" then.
When we says Jr.Member are spamming for signatures then activity based merit system will just discourage them to go on creating multiple accounts.
Anyway I guess bounty stakes basis was "Activity" only.

If you agree Signatures are cause of spamming then you have to create rules that can effectively counter it and it is not equivalent to "forum change its requirements to conform with some random bounty allocations"

Increasing the merit requirement for jr. Members without making any reductions anywhere else is the way to go.

[ABCbits]

Increasing the merit requirement for jr. Members without making any reductions anywhere else is the way to go.

Or just disable signature on Jr. Member rank since newcomers (aka people who genuinely interested with Bitcoin technology/discussion) who don't plan join signature campaign still need feature such as no PM restriction and can post images.

[The Cryptovator]

Forum should not change rules due to bounty stake. As you mention problem is signature. Why should increase or decrease merit system? As well as its working fine. Why not just remove signature space from Jr. Members. It has been suggested by lots of user include me. But eventually implemented 1 merit for Jr. Members. It's true that few spamming already reduced. But not fully and it's not possible. Because there is lot of existing user who got merit by Airdrop. A legendary rank by airdrop it doesn't mean he is a great poster.

However spam will never end but we can reduce it more. I don't think need to touch on current merit system for that. Just remove Jr. Member from signature campaign will reduce almost 70% spam (IMO).

[Jet Cash]

Or just disable signature on Jr. Member

You beat me to it with that post. I agree, and would add the point that most new and junior members are unlikely to contribute and boost the image of the campaign product. I know there are exceptions, but in such cases, it won't take them long to become members. The need to acquire knowledge to become a member will benefit both the forum, and the signature sponsors.

[r1s2g3]

Or just disable signature on Jr. Member rank since newcomers (aka people who genuinely interested with Bitcoin technology/discussion) who don't plan join signature campaign still need feature such as no PM restriction and can post images.

I am not sure whether theymos like to disable signature for Jr. Member or increase Merit requirement to 25 from 1 from Jr.Member.

so reducing Merit requirement for each rank is one of suggestion. Whether Merit requirement increase or decrease, it ratio of Activity vs Rank should be constant for all rank.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I am not sure whether theymos like to disable signature for Jr. Member or increase Merit requirement to 25 from 1 from Jr.Member

Agreed. The move to require 1 merit was a long time coming - I suspect it will be several months more before he even considers a further change. The Meta board has been filled with requests for more moderators for months, with no sign of any progress.

I do think it's more likely he would increase the merit required to display a signature than he would decrease requirements for other ranks and remove half the airdropped merit though.

[Upgate]

This would only mean that the forum was meant for signature campaign which is absolutely wrong

Besides its illegal for an individual to enter a bounty with multiple account if caught would be penalized so that case is solved.

And if you check it the real bounties that pays in bitcoin accepts only high ranking members so there is a benefit to rise in your rank

And besides some individuals would focus on first getting the merits then after they must have gotten merit required to rise to there desired rank then then fall back to spamming just to match there activities to the rank.

[Smarty14392]

bounty stakes are favoring multiple small ranked account instead of one high ranking account.

I totally agree on this statement, it would be great if you suggest a better distribution of stakes for all ranks. I can apply it in some of my upcoming campings I guess.
Surely, the stakes are not maintained as per the difficulty of a level to reach as per merit requirements. And the same is applied by many bounties from a much long time.

[rat03gopoh]

A legendary rank by airdrop it doesn't mean he is a great poster.

Agreed,

Why not just remove signature space from Jr. Members. It has been suggested by lots of user include me.

I'm only wondering if one day the forum will apply like this:
need first 1 merit from others for Newbie to be Jr., wear the signature and post the image.
need first 1 merit from others for Member to wear the signature.
need first 2 merit from others for FM, Sr. to wear the signature.
need first 3 merit from others for Hero, Legend to wear the signature.

It does seem to undiscriminate against only newbies, fair and be spread evenly. And sorry, I don't doubt their our(Member rank & ^) quality one another. I just think this will give their our the opportunity for a while to prove that they we proper their our rank.

And besides some individuals would focus on first getting the merits then after they must have gotten merit required to rise to there desired rank then then fall back to spamming just to match there activities to the rank.

They won't do that if they remember that achieving their rank is very difficult.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Besides is illegal for an individual to enter a bounty with multiple account if caught would be penalized so that case is solved.

In theory, yes, but we all know full well that most altcoin bounty campaigns will accept anyone - shit posters, plagiarizers, alt accounts, etc. The bounty managers do not care enough to check. Just like the bounty participants, they only care about being paid, and not at all about whether or not they make half the forum unusable in the process. Hell, some of the bounty managers enroll their own alts in their own bounty.

And if you check it the real bounties that pays in bitcoin accepts only high ranking members so there is a benefit to rise in your rank

Again yes, but these bounties aren't usually the ones responsible for the majority of shitposting and spam.

[coinlocket$]

Increasing the merit requirement for jr. Members without making any reductions anywhere else is the way to go.

Yes plus, make it retroactive like the last time.
5-10 merits are the way to go.
Actually, if one jmember is banned it requires only1 merit to rank up again with a  new account. If we increase this level to 5 it will be harder to rank up abuse, buy/exchange merit and the spam will decrease.

[hugeblack]

It is still too early to judge the utility of the merit system, so it is wrong to modify it without a study of the consequences.
Perhaps making the upgrade harder, "especially for lower-ranks" makes the forum similar to sections such as Serious discussion.
The goal is not to prevent members from ranking-up but to encourage them to create more meaningful posts.
Adding solutions such as deMerit would be enough to solve that problem.

[stompix]

Is it just my impression or the Merit system wasn't put in place to reward more stakes to bounty hunters with more merit?
Probably I'm missing something here...

The moment we change the rules to fit the bounty/airdrops/whatever we probably should simply close the shop.

[r1s2g3]

This would only mean that the forum was meant for signature campaign which is absolutely wrong
Besides its illegal for an individual to enter a bounty with multiple account if caught would be penalized so that case is solved.

But you cannot deny they are bringing problem and where you read that forum rules do not allow to take part in bounty with multiple account?
It is just frowned. Do you have any idea that how much effort is required to caught all these abuser and all this is a voluntary work.

And besides some individuals would focus on first getting the merits then after they must have gotten merit required to rise to there desired rank then then fall back to spamming just to match there activities to the rank.

Instead I will say if it takes 25 merit to Jr.Member then instead of going back to spamming in first one and try to achieve 25 in second one look  stupids. It will be better for forum and user that user will try for next 25 Merit to become Member. In current situation many user are suspected that they  purchased
1 merit.

I totally agree on this statement, it would be great if you suggest a better distribution of stakes for all ranks. I can apply it in some of my upcoming campings I guess.
Surely, the stakes are not maintained as per the difficulty of a level to reach as per merit requirements. And the same is applied by many bounties from a much long time.

I am not sure what are the exact challenges BM faces in this forum but I can suggest you have stake tier based on merit like this .

1 stake for Jr. member but 1.5 stake for Jr.Member with more than 5 merits.
2 stake for Member but 3 stake for  Member who earned 10 Merits(means somebody become member by earning 10+ merit or  user who was already member at merit system implementation now having 20+ merit will have more stakes than other members)

You can go on creating this chart for all ranks.
BPIP tool can help you to understand that how much merit a user has earned and how much merit was airdropped to user when you click on user profile and you will see the chart of merit of that user that explain current and merit received. Current Merit - Merit received will give you the value of airdropped merit.

Look like some users are taking in another sense when I am mentioning the word bounty.  My whole intent for this post is to explain that current merit requirement still encourage alt account creation at Jr.Member/Member level  for bounty farming.

The moment we change the rules to fit the bounty/airdrops/whatever we probably should simply close the shop.

Closing your eyes  is also not going to help you. If you re allowing bounties here then you need to formulate rules for them too.

Actually, if one jmember is banned it requires only1 merit to rank up again with a  new account. If we increase this level to 5 it will be harder to rank up abuse, buy/exchange merit and the spam will decrease.

On top of it, Some got that one merit for whining . If you see B&H closely, Every week somebody open a whining/how to get merit thread. Unfortunately they get successful too in getting that one merit. 

[mu_enrico]

As much as I want to get enough merit to become Hero/Legendary, I disagree with this suggestion. This is the problem for bounty managers, not forum's staffs. If I'm not mistaken, @theymos did consider to separate rank and signature limitation. This separation might be a better solution since Legendary shitposters cannot get benefit from their legacy rank anymore.

I don't like the idea of further discrimination towards newbie and jr. member. Why? Because there are shitposters in every rank and you will drive away good newbies.

[LoyceV]

I'm only wondering if one day the forum will apply like this:
need first 1 merit from others for Newbie to be Jr., wear the signature and post the image.
need first 1 merit from others for Member to wear the signature.
need first 2 merit from others for FM, Sr. to wear the signature.
need first 3 merit from others for Hero, Legend to wear the signature.

So you want to distinguish between Merit based on the source it came from? I don't think that will ever happen: all Merit should be equal.