Top 200 Merit Receivers without Merit from the Top 200 Merit Receivers

[o_e_l_e_o]

As I said before remove the top 300 (circle and those desperate to enter the circle) and the circlers fav sub board meta board and you will see people lose average of 80% or greater some over 90%.

So remove all the merit sources, and remove one of the least spammy boards, and people will have less merit. I'm not sure why you think this is some big scandal or conspiracy.

Incidentally, if you take r1s2g3's data, sum the "Total Merit" column, sum the "Merits in Meta" column, divide the two and multiply by 100, the result is 26.9%. Even if you remove the 50 profiles who have earned zero merits in meta, the number is still only 33.9%.

[LoyceV]

Forget Meta, see the data, what do you say about user who got 100 plus Merits by just posting in WO threads?

I think he'll say it's great, not a single Merit earned in Meta:

Code:

Rank	Username	UserId	Total Merit	Merits outside Meta	Merits in Meta
8	micgoossens	1067333	1052	1052	0

[suchmoon]

Even though one person who was asked to present a post worthy of merit to produced this post containing your stats to suchmoon and  he said no to meriting it previously.

Please refrain from making shit up.

[cryptohunter]

As I said before remove the top 300 (circle and those desperate to enter the circle) and the circlers fav sub board meta board and you will see people lose average of 80% or greater some over 90%.

So remove all the merit sources, and remove one of the least spammy boards, and people will have less merit. I'm not sure why you think this is some big scandal or conspiracy.

Incidentally, if you take r1s2g3's data, sum the "Total Merit" column, sum the "Merits in Meta" column, divide the two and multiply by 100, the result is 26.9%. Even if you remove the 50 profiles who have earned zero merits in meta, the number is still only 33.9%.

So like if a bank made an error and took like 90% of your money away you would simply say you have less? you mean practically took all of your money right??

So to put your statement in more precise terms.

Remove only 0.13% of the boards users merits  and one tiny sub board with a tiny fraction of the forums posters (not posts) and that same 0.13% have "less" LOL less like a couple of percent or maybe 10% ......I think you meant to say their merits are crushed to a tiny tiny fraction of what they had previously been allowed to award themselves.






@ suchmoon

actually was locye who prefers to accept merits for the same data set actually
You saw the same data and did not merit either but now have as I said.

[leonair]

Very nice statistics from LoyceV once again but what happened to the forum nowadays, it seems that there are so many jealous people with members who got their hundreds of merit from the meta thread since the inception of the new system.

[cryptohunter]

Very nice statistics from LoyceV once again but what happened to the forum nowadays, it seems that there are so many jealous people with members who got their hundreds of merit from the meta thread since the inception of the new system.

What happened is simple. Look at the stats. 0.13% of the users are cycling it between them because if you remove that and one tiny board their scores dump by 80%. That is not an expected figure in a system where there is anything like a balanced objective system.

It actually leads to people within that group stating it is foolish to assume some of the remaining 99.87% of users can make posts as good or better than some of the 0.13% of users. This can lead to bookmarking post histories of fav posters and spattering them with merit compounding the skewing of these scores.

Now as I have said over 10x already this is not a huge issue so long as no weight is attributed to merit scores and to use those scores as if they are scores based on objective and fair assessment of all posts against strict criteria.  Merit is useful for preventing some spammers if you leverage it in the correct way. It is a fun way to reward posts you think are good that you choose to view. Best not to draw any other conclusions from a merit score.

Now to make it simple

Is someone with 500 earned merits going to be a better poster than one who has earned 5 merits? No that is not an assumption you can make and I am not even sure if there is a super high probability of that being true either. If that 5 merit poster had earned his 5 from 5 different sources on the alt discussion board and the 500 earned it all on meta from inside the 0.13% then I would not even as a gambling person want to bet on the 500 merits guy if the decision was made by someone who reviewed all posts against some objective criteria that was proven valuable to the board.  

I have been ready to let the issue drop for quite some time but every time I see people either raising it again with fresh excuses or some strange logic claiming it would be strange it the stats were any other way then it all has to come up again.

The problem is really that the top merit hoarders are hoping somehow to becoming merit sources, DT members and MODs. This is leading to a centralised power here that should be prevented before it goes to far. Already they are close to such a goal.

If you are to have a centralised power that can crush people with Neg DT or ban them or hold them back through the merit system. Then you best hope the entire merit system is redone with objective criteria so that only the people most suitable will end up in positions to control behaviour and opinion here.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The problem is really that the top merit hoarders are hoping somehow to becoming merit sources, DT members and MODs. This is leading to a centralised power here that should be prevented before it goes to far. Already they are close to such a goal.

According to who? Is theymos telling you some secret criteria he uses to pick mods? Can you provide evidence of a single case where a member was added to Default Trust or chosen to be a moderator based on their merit score?

[suchmoon]

Best not to draw any other conclusions from a merit score.

Then don't. You're the one obsessed with those scores to the point of pushing others around to manipulate them to your liking. If you don't care then just move on. I think most sane users have figured out how to interpret the scores in a way that suits them without drowning Meta in their conjecture.

Is someone with 500 earned merits going to be a better poster than one who has earned 5 merits? No that is not an assumption you can make and I am not even sure if there is a super high probability of that being true either. If that 5 merit poster had earned his 5 from 5 different sources on the alt discussion board and the 500 earned it all on meta from inside the 0.13% then I would not even as a gambling person want to bet on the 500 merits guy

Meaningless without providing those two user IDs. Seems to be based entirely on your allegation that top 200 merits and Meta merits are not indicative of post quality, not to mention the unclear definition of "better poster".

if the decision was made by someone who reviewed all posts against some objective criteria that was proven valuable to the board.  

Let me guess. Someone else should do it. And you'll be bitching about them doing it wrong.

The problem is really that the top merit hoarders are hoping somehow to becoming merit sources, DT members and MODs.

Who are these horrible people?

[LoyceMobile]

actually was locye who prefers to accept merits for the same data set actually

Please show me how I can reject merit.
In other words:

Please refrain from making shit up.

[cryptohunter]

The problem is really that the top merit hoarders are hoping somehow to becoming merit sources, DT members and MODs. This is leading to a centralised power here that should be prevented before it goes to far. Already they are close to such a goal.

According to who? Is theymos telling you some secret criteria he uses to pick mods? Can you provide evidence of a single case where a member was added to Default Trust or chosen to be a moderator based on their merit score?

would I need to provide that.

I said they are hoping to be

Look at the proposed new mod suggestions draw your own conclusions.

@suchmoon

"Meaningless without providing those two user IDs. Seems to be based entirely on your allegation that top 200 merits and Meta merits are not indicative of post quality, not to mention the unclear definition of "better poster".

LOL I mean the entire fact you want a definition of "better post" or good post or it is meaningless  completely substantiates my claim that you can not take merit at all as an correct measure of some objectively derived quality  and is meaningless there is no objective criteria/definition given for its basis. The fact you can not see this is quite funny. Your entire statement is a only valid in your own mind to be anything other than word salad. I mean you just proved my entire point without even bothering with the data that demonstrates to anyone considering the fact that if you remove just 0.13% of users merit given that that same 0.13% is crushed by over 80% is well......

As to your other points which are nonsense I have answered I am responding to those directly posting nonsense as an explanation or bringing me up personally to discuss what I apparently predicted without stating my full criteria for those predictions then apparently proving me wrong whilst actually proving my predictions were quite accurate. Anyway It seems I was pretty near the mark so no need to discuss further.

Thanks for posting.
We can leave it there unless people want to continue discussing.

[suchmoon]

draw your own conclusions

One obvious conclusion is that merit score has no merit (pun intended) for moderator selection. Two new mods appointed this year (Welsh and FHF) were chosen not for their merit scores.

[DdmrDdmr]

<...>
would I need to provide that.
I said they are hoping to be
Look at the proposed new mod suggestions draw your own conclusions.

I guess you are referring to the poll originated here: User nominated names of possible moderators for forum and eventually voted here: Vote for new moderators who deserve it. @theymos please take a look..

The names on the (short) list were added not by self-nomination, but through the suggestion of other forum members on the first thread. Not that it was really going to serve seriously as a shortlist pool to draw moderators from, but it was one of the hundreds of proposals created on Meta that serve the purpose of creating a little brain storming around an idea.

If I recall correctly, some of the people clear stated that they had no real intent to become moderators at all. What’s more, merits I doubt count in any way towards the possibility of becoming a moderator. It would rather be a good report count, a perceived knowledge of the area to be moderated, and a certain fairness of judgement, aside from a willingness to perform a task which I doubt is a very grateful and personally rewarding one.

[cryptohunter]

<...>
would I need to provide that.
I said they are hoping to be
Look at the proposed new mod suggestions draw your own conclusions.

I guess you are referring to the poll originated here: User nominated names of possible moderators for forum and eventually voted here: Vote for new moderators who deserve it. @theymos please take a look..

The names on the (short) list were added not by self-nomination, but through the suggestion of other forum members on the first thread. Not that it was really going to serve seriously as a shortlist pool to draw moderators from, but it was one of the hundreds of proposals created on Meta that serve the purpose of creating a little brain storming around an idea.

If I recall correctly, some of the people clear stated that they had no real intent to become moderators at all. What’s more, merits I doubt count in any way towards the possibility of becoming a moderator. It would rather be a good report count, a perceived knowledge of the area to be moderated, and a certain fairness of judgement, aside from a willingness to perform a task which I doubt is a very grateful and personally rewarding one.

That's a load off then.

So none of those want to be mods and were just pushed forward by others and will refuse such a position.

No doubt about it that a certain fairness could be a good thing to have in that position.

[DdmrDdmr]

<...> So none of those want to be mods and were just pushed forward by others.<…>

Not sure if anyone would like the post or not, but it wasn’t a thread created by forum members to postulate their candidacy to it, and the idea really dies with the referenced threads themselves, going no further.

This, on the other hand, was at some point and unofficial voting that took place at the end of 2016, with what seemed to have had 126 voters and 8 candidates to "choose" a Global Moderator: [Unofficial] New Global Moderator Election - [Voting]. The poll seemed more serious, and originated by staff members themselved. The poll winners were @Lauda and @Mitchell, although I haven’t been able to trace it from there to see if the poll had any influence at all on the selected Global Moderator.

[marlboroza]

~

Thanks. I hope you won't reject my merit 

So none of those want to be mods and were just pushed forward by others and will refuse such a position.

How this discussion moved from "merit circle of jerks" to "wannabe moderator"?

Digaran, is that you?

[cryptohunter]

~

Thanks. I hope you won't reject my merit 

So none of those want to be mods and were just pushed forward by others and will refuse such a position.

How this discussion moved from "merit circle of jerks" to "wannabe moderator"?

Digaran, is that you?

Stop sig spamming. Keep to sensible comments. I don't think you should get 4 bucks or whatever for this kind of post.

You are not a "wanna be moderator" because I heard you will refuse the position (not that i'm saying it would be offered to you)

[marlboroza]

Stop sig spamming. Keep to sensible comments. I don't think you should get 4 bucks or whatever for this kind of post.

I am not spamming and I don't remember receiving dollars, especially not 4 bucks.
You wanted to prove something here, so how is your new thread going?

Well I have been telling the top merited individuals here you are not all just a bunch of morons or here to suck every penny out of this board with spam and fake conversations to promote your fav shit ICO.

Merit giveaway for posts in altcoin section ended up on 4. page and in 5 hours no one posted in it neither I see you merited any post in altcoin.

How is that you didn't send merit to anyone in altcoin? You didn't search for quality posts or something?

Look, you merited 2 posts in Meta today:

You are funny girl, you know.

[cryptohunter]

Stop sig spamming. Keep to sensible comments. I don't think you should get 4 bucks or whatever for this kind of post.

I am not spamming and I don't remember receiving dollars, especially not 4 bucks.
You wanted to prove something here, so how is your new thread going?

Well I have been telling the top merited individuals here you are not all just a bunch of morons or here to suck every penny out of this board with spam and fake conversations to promote your fav shit ICO.

Merit giveaway for posts in altcoin section ended up on 4. page and in 5 hours no one posted in it neither I see you merited any post in altcoin.

How is that you didn't send merit to anyone in altcoin? You didn't search for quality posts or something?

Look, you merited 2 posts in Meta today:

You are funny girl, you know.

Stop spamming your sig and stalking me and my posts. Using them as an excuse to spam your sig is annoying.

Rome was not built in a day and I will merit whom I please you clearly still do not understand there is nothing wrong with sending merit in meta nor have I said there is nor is there anything wrong with sending them to the top merit holders. If you understood how merit works and what it demonstrates rather than what you want it to mean and what you want it represent then you would stop worrying about it and replying to these posts. Of course you will reply to anything to gain some btc dust. If you stfu I will send you some wireless coins which are great during time travel. Bitcoins don't work before 2009.

Please read my posts before reposting stuff others have said 10x and that I have said myself many times before instead of apparently revealing something that amuses you that is not funny nor amusing because it does not contradict anything I have said. You find it funny only because you don't have the capacity to realise if I send all my merit to suchmoon or foxy on meta board it does not mean anything with regard the point I have been making.

Go spam your sig elsewhere. Make some posts in ivory tower or serious discussion ..... oh wait no sigs in there?

[Joel_Jantsen]

I'm surprised my profile is still on that list! It's been months since I last posted here or have earned a merit. Makes me wonder if the forum's quality posts are actually deteriorating. Anyhow, the drama above is the reason why I don't want to leave this place anytime soon.

[marlboroza]

Stop spamming your sig and stalking me and my posts.

I am not stalking you and I am not spamming.

I will merit whom I please.

Quoted for record and archived http://archive.is/blsV4#selection-9073.32-9073.58  

Make some posts in ivory tower or serious discussion .....

Why? Because you told me so?

/ignored.