cryptohunter's problem with the top 200 merit receivers

[cryptohunter]

The complaint stems from jealousy and a lack of own constructive opinions worth "meriting". This is the classic "everyone else is to blame except me" nonsense. Do people not have something better to do than to create "useful statistics" which only result in TV-like drama regarding who got a lot of useless points from who?

Cryptohunter makes a LOT of posts and a lot of them are very big long posts that took a lot of effort but are not inline with the views of those who have merit to give, so he gets few. Not that he needs them for any reason anyway.

A lot of big posts full of garbage and horrible opinions. A TMAN style "insert random swearing" response to a nonsensical thread is in most cases more worthy of merit.

I need to look up who the top givers in these circles are. I'll only read their posts from now on (placing everyone else I see on ignore). Since I see nothing else, meriting their objectively constructive posts is proper use of the merit system. Am I doing this right?

I don't think it'd work out. I'm already in a three-way with Moloch (58% of his merit was sent by me alone) and gmaxwell (37%), and like most foxes I only have so many holes available.

I'm certain that you have a dinner invite planned for me somewhere down the road. Why else would you be showering me with all these merits? Quite classy I must say.

LaudaM lol - nobody listens to scammers and scam promoters like you.

Nobody would invite you to dinner without chaining the silverware down.

Horrible opinions? Sorry Dash promoter your opinions have been proven horrible since the start. How are you even still allowed on this forum with all your red trust.

Read his early posts whilst promoting Dash scam. He/it was always swearing and trying to bully people around. Now butter would not melt in its mouth now apparently.

Then turns 180 once he dumps his dash scam coins saying it is a scam after all. Never trust this scammer.

Turn coats and scammers are not to be trusted so remain silent.

Give this fool more red trust if you are genuine about saving people from getting scammed.  

No wonder you were removed from any place of responsibility and trust. So remain silent snake tongue. Else I bring a big thread examining you in depth you in in full detail. Get back under your rock.

[coinlocket$]

It just is what it is. If I was just out to get merits I'd make tons and tons of posts that most sources would agree with, but I don't because I don't care that much to not just chill and be me.

That is, a good merit source, in my opinion, should merit a post even if he don't agree with, acknowledging the effort from users.
For the rest I agree on the most are you saying here, some posts are over merited for no reason and others are under merited only because you are not on the "good poster" for the source.
We maybe also talk about the reduction of required merit for legendary rank since if someone is lucky to hit legendary around 750-800 activity why he should wait till 1k merit? Maybe having a rank that require merit=activity after hero rank is the way to go.
And for last point, some legendary accounts really don't deserve their rank, they shit spam on the forum while other people with lower rank post better than them and they are still stucked on lowers ranks.

[Lauda]

So remain silent snake tongue. Else I..

Its true colors quickly show themselves.

Cryptohunter IMO is just a cranky contrarian who thinks everyone's brain should function with the logic of a computer, and yet he has this obvious bleeding-heart liberal mentality which manifests itself in him constantly thinking there's some underdog situation on bitcointalk whereby a cabal of senior members are keeping the lower ranks down, like slaves on a 19th century Louisiana plantation.  I just don't see it that way, and I've put him on ignore.  I'm just tired of reading his posts, which are probably made with good intentions but are consistently way off the mark.

Don't let someone push you aside with pseudo-logic. If only it remotely resembled actual logic, we wouldn't even get to this thread to begin with.

That is, a good merit source, in my opinion, should merit a post even if he don't agree with, acknowledging the effort from users.

If you reward people just for the effort, then you going to raise a wave of spoiled users very quickly (which most people complaining about this nonsense in fact are).

[cryptohunter]

So remain silent snake tongue. Else I..

Its true colors quickly show themselves.

Cryptohunter IMO is just a cranky contrarian who thinks everyone's brain should function with the logic of a computer, and yet he has this obvious bleeding-heart liberal mentality which manifests itself in him constantly thinking there's some underdog situation on bitcointalk whereby a cabal of senior members are keeping the lower ranks down, like slaves on a 19th century Louisiana plantation.  I just don't see it that way, and I've put him on ignore.  I'm just tired of reading his posts, which are probably made with good intentions but are consistently way off the mark.

Don't let someone push you aside with pseudo-logic. If only it remotely resembled actual logic, we wouldn't even get to this thread to begin with.

LOL else I out your previous and quite likely current shady practices.

WOW what a threat I help prevent people getting scammed by you. Why do you consider this a threat if you will be vindicated.

Sorry for mentioning you're a scam pusher/probable current scammer ............my true colours hey

TP is one of your ass lickers supporting bullshit like you keeping 3000bch apparently ... I cant take his moral compass seriously being a former scam lover of dash either. Even if is not true ( i have not looked into it) the fact that he thinks it is fine if it did happen even though the investors did not come off well over all of this is an example of his reasoning. I mean if I have got this wrong and we need a thread opened on it to examine the facts and help me get it all straight before commenting further on the entire episode let me know.

I mean perhaps this is all smoke without fire. So a thorough investigation of your prior history could be put under scrutiny to ensure I have not got you all wrong perhaps you are just a prior scam promoter and not a current scammer.

Pseudo logic - lol. Come on Lauda that's like saying you're a pseudo scammer/scam pusher with pseudo red trust and psuedo ass kick  from any position of trust or influence (except over TP).

[DireWolfM14]

So if we do a little bit of maths for @The pharmacist  
total sum received from 10 users = 636 merit = 61% from just 10 persons all (except 2 are part of the top 200).
If we look at the top 100 (remove foxpup, dbshck, Winner)
He has received 283 merit from the Top100 it is 28% of his merits from just 6 persons.
If you take the top 150, then it is 569 merit received (56% of all his merit) from just 8 persons, all in the elite.



I had a look to other names in the top 50 merit receiver, but without a bot it is time consuming and i am at work  
@Lauda = 362 merit received ( 53%) from 10 persons.  https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Lauda
@Suchmoon = 527 merit received (52%) from 10 persons   https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=suchmoon
@Jet cash : 479 merit received (56%) from 10 persons  (6 of them are in the top100 - merit by top100 = 295 = 35% )

I appreciate the effort you've put into this post, and the math is quite telling.  But, like nearly all statistics they only tell part of the story.

If we take my example: I'm not one of the top 200 merit recipients, yet I've only received 22 of my 133 merits from outside the Top 200 Merit Recipients.  That's only 16% of my total.  I'm new around here, and certainly wouldn't consider myself as a member of the "Circle Jerk."

Of the members you referenced as examples, (to the best of my knowledge) three of them are very likely merit sources.  They can afford to be generous with their sMerit.  I myself, have never given more than a single merit to any post, and yet I've never received fewer than 4 from suchmoon.  And frequently receive a minimum of 2 from the Top 200.

It seems fairly clear to me that merit is awarded to good posts 99.99% of the time.  Of course "good posts" are subjective, and that's why we have over 100 merit sources on the forum, so that subjectivity is spread around.  

In my opinion, Cryptohunter's issue with legendary members getting banned is the opposite side of the effort to reduce spam.  The merit system is working in reducing spam, but there are still many hero and legendary spammers around.  They escaped the merit system simply by being here a year or two before it's implementation, and it's only for that reason that they were awarded their rank.  To keep their rank, they merely need to follow the rules.

[cryptohunter]

If we take my example: I'm not one of the top 200 merit recipients, yet I've only received 22 of my 133 merits from outside the Top 200 Merit Recipients.  That's only 16% of my total.  I'm new around here, and certainly wouldn't consider myself as a member of the "Circle Jerk."
  

In my opinion, Cryptohunter's issue with legendary members getting banned is the opposite side of the effort to reduce spam.  The merit system is working in reducing spam, but there are still many hero and legendary spammers around.  They escaped the merit system simply by being here a year or two before it's implementation, and it's only for that reason that they were awarded their rank.  To keep their rank, they merely need to follow the rules.

Aside from spreading around subjectivity to those that are already demonstrating they are hoarding inside the 0.13% hoping for improvement... and aside from the fact you are found to be supporting the circle at most opportunities I am not shocked they gave you some rewards I'll see you gave them some back too. I mean here you are now trying to bolster their nonsense with yet more stupid nonsense that I just revealed in 1 second but others may fall for hence why I called for the minimum of the top 300 to be removed along with meta board. You are adding weight to my argument that the top 0.13% not only benefit from their own cycling of merit ... they also gain merit from merit seeking ass kissers who hang out in meta and give them some back. I mean you are actually proving my point more than you realise.

However my main concern is those that have not sussed out to kiss ass nonsense and obvious broken logic theories in meta to sidle into the club eventually.

Let's get to this part I have left.

What are you trying to say exactly? be clear because what I am reading is totally and provably incorrect about me being anti spam reduction. Produce something more concrete than because I want legends to have a fair review.

Try not to take forever to reply I see these people sitting there online trying to think of their next excuse or support for a bunch of people not ready to accept they are mediocre posters incapable of anything of real note but are having fun all aligning and agreeing with each other in meta regarding how great their posts are and how to analyse merit best to make them look better or more credible.

[LoyceV]

It seems fairly clear to me that merit is awarded to good posts 99.99% of the time.

Your numbers are quite optimistic
From the many merit abuse threads I've seen, and considering 281640 sMerits have been sent until last Friday, I estimate a 2 digit percentage of this to be Merit abuse. But those came from the 600k sMerit airdrop. If you find a Merit source making very bad choices, he may be removed as a source once reported.

[coinlocket$]

~ I estimate a 2 digit percentage of this to be Merit abuse. But those came from the 600k sMerit airdrop. If you find a Merit source making very bad choices, he may be removed as a source once reported.

Back on days when I was looking at a weekly transaction (around May) the estimate amount of merit abused was around 30%, considering the merit sold, bought and exchanged.
I can also assume now the merit abused is lower than May, I think a 10% is the optimistic value.

[cryptohunter]

I understand and almost agree with @Cryptohunter's feeling.

But usually when you are in a privileged position you don't really notice what others might.

if i quote the pharmacist :

Awesome work Loyce
<snip>
**Shoots 1 Merit at Loyce into the circle jerk**

Agree, excellent data though it still makes me look a bit like part of the jerking circle, as less than 300 of the 1023 merits I've earned came from outside the top 200 club.  Or at least I'm betting that's how Cryptohunter will view it, though I haven't finished reading this thread and don't know if he's replied yet.  And LoyceV, you'll have to excuse me for not meriting you for your excellent analysis.  I don't have much sMerit left (still haven't figured out how merit sources get their sMerits replenished, and it always seems like I'm out of them), and I don't want to contribute to the "problem".

By the way,

putting cryptohunter on ignore  

....is not a bad idea.  Haven't done it yet, but it's been on my mind.

Edit:

Great work so far and I do appreciate the effort.

Ooops, that'll teach me to read the whole thread first before posting.  

he seams happy to see that 30% of his merit doesn't come from the top 300

Well, i see it this way :

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=The%20Pharmacist

Merit Fans of The Pharmacist
Profile     Number   Sum  Rank
Foxpup ------133------286------143
TMAN------   43------100------21
suchmoon------30------85------7
dbshck------25------47------287
LoyceV------21------21------3
Jet Cash------15------   21------14
hilariousetc------12------21------54
Winner------1------20------never received a merit so not in classement -  he only sent 3 time 20 smerit within 5 minutes to post on the goods section
o_e_l_e_o------ 12------18------14
paxmao------ 11------17------92

So if we do a little bit of maths for @The pharmacist  
total sum received from 10 users = 636 merit = 61% from just 10 persons all (except 2 are part of the top 200).
If we look at the top 100 (remove foxpup, dbshck, Winner)
He has received 283 merit from the Top100 it is 28% of his merits from just 6 persons.
If you take the top 150, then it is 569 merit received (56% of all his merit) from just 8 persons, all in the elite.



I had a look to other names in the top 50 merit receiver, but without a bot it is time consuming and i am at work  
@Lauda = 362 merit received ( 53%) from 10 persons.  https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Lauda
@Suchmoon = 527 merit received (52%) from 10 persons   https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=suchmoon
@Jet cash : 479 merit received (56%) from 10 persons  (6 of them are in the top100 - merit by top100 = 295 = 35% ) https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Jet%20Cash


I guess CryptoHunter is showing a mixed feeling of jalousie and also a will to get rid of the Merit-archy (word invented, derived from patriarchy but with the merit root).  Let's be honest, everybody is a little bit racist, has a preference to the charity they give, only hire people that like, only make friends with people they relate, would be reticent to help a foreigner but quite keen to help a fellow citizen. Would rater help a hot mom with a stroller than an old homeless.

Merits do stay in the top 100 / 200 / 300 call how you want.
The same way merit doesn't really cross boards. Merit earned in meta stays in meta.
I have seen some members that on spend all their meta received merit in their national board trying to help merit-deserving members to get the recognition that is very often just to hard to get.


post edited after suchmoon spotted a few typos. Edits are in italic

I totally missed this post and I am now going to take a good look over it. It seems even more telling than the figures I had looked at before.  This is great work.  

I wonder if those 10 users that are contributing to any of those people that get 100's upon 100's of merits are by any chance any of those arguing that there is nothing to see here in all of these threads and I am making a big fuss over nothing.  

Well I certainly see that the receivers of these generous 10 are in all of these threads LOL  

I mean the entire thing is quite funny.

I thought removing 80% of circle merits  for the top 200 was good. But now I see many can have over 50% removed from just 10 others. That is very revealing news. Who would have though lauda would be there or PT his supporting and understanding pal.

Can't wait for suchmoon and malborozo to have theirs done too.... weeeeeeeee that's like the merit snakes and ladders game when you have you  best ten buddies merits taken away and you fly down the reality merit slide.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

TP is one of your ass lickers supporting bullshit like you keeping 3000bch apparently ... I cant take his moral compass seriously being a former scam lover of dash either. Even if is not true ( i have not looked into it) the fact that he thinks it is fine if it did happen even though the investors did not come off well over all of this is an example of his reasoning.

I'm not a Dash lover by any means, though I've stated in the past that it's one of the coins I've liked.  I don't own any and have never done anything to seriously hype it, nor have I ever owned more than about 12 Dash at any given time.  I've always said I liked it because of the low transaction fees and quick confirmation times and its somewhat bad-boy reputation as being originally intended for use on the dark markets (which I've never had a part of).  I've always stated that I'm aware of its shady beginnings, the instamining and all of that.

As far as that situation with the 3000 BCH, I did pose a question in the thread about what happens in situations when a deal is underway and then a fork happens, i.e., who keeps the forked coins.  I can also tell you that I don't completely understand what that whole situation was about, much less what Lauda's role in it really was.  I often find myself reading claims on bitcointalk and not knowing all of the background or who's telling the truth, since there are so many scammers and liars here. 

I'm not trying to use ignorance as an excuse in the case you're referring to--I'm genuinely ignorant of what that deal was about, but I knew enough to question whether there was something arranged between the parties involved beforehand about the forked coins.  If you've got an investigation you can bring forth about Lauda, why don't you just do it instead of talking about it.  Then I'd like to hear the honest opinions from a variety of senior and/or trusted members. 

I don't appreciate being called an ass licker of Lauda.  I just happen to be loyal to people who've supported me, but not to the point of endorsing scamming behavior, and if that's what happened in that escrow deal then I don't condone that (but I'll need proof that's dumbed-down enough for me to follow)--but I'll always respect Lauda's scam- and spam-busting activities and general attitude.  But don't think for a minute that I'm in anyone's pocket, because I'm not.

[cryptohunter]

TP is one of your ass lickers supporting bullshit like you keeping 3000bch apparently ... I cant take his moral compass seriously being a former scam lover of dash either. Even if is not true ( i have not looked into it) the fact that he thinks it is fine if it did happen even though the investors did not come off well over all of this is an example of his reasoning.

I'm not a Dash lover by any means, though I've stated in the past that it's one of the coins I've liked.  I don't own any and have never done anything to seriously hype it, nor have I ever owned more than about 12 Dash at any given time.  I've always said I liked it because of the low transaction fees and quick confirmation times and its somewhat bad-boy reputation as being originally intended for use on the dark markets (which I've never had a part of).  I've always stated that I'm aware of its shady beginnings, the instamining and all of that.

As far as that situation with the 3000 BCH, I did pose a question in the thread about what happens in situations when a deal is underway and then a fork happens, i.e., who keeps the forked coins.  I can also tell you that I don't completely understand what that whole situation was about, much less what Lauda's role in it really was.  I often find myself reading claims on bitcointalk and not knowing all of the background or who's telling the truth, since there are so many scammers and liars here.  

I'm not trying to use ignorance as an excuse in the case you're referring to--I'm genuinely ignorant of what that deal was about, but I knew enough to question whether there was something arranged between the parties involved beforehand about the forked coins.  If you've got an investigation you can bring forth about Lauda, why don't you just do it instead of talking about it.  Then I'd like to hear the honest opinions from a variety of senior and/or trusted members.  

I don't appreciate being called an ass licker of Lauda.  I just happen to be loyal to people who've supported me, but not to the point of endorsing scamming behavior, and if that's what happened in that escrow deal then I don't condone that (but I'll need proof that's dumbed-down enough for me to follow)--but I'll always respect Lauda's scam- and spam-busting activities and general attitude.  But don't think for a minute that I'm in anyone's pocket, because I'm not.

I may donate time to laudaM in future but since he is already assumed a scammer by many and untrustworthy by more then I can donate my time in other ways that are perhaps even more beneficial. However if you insist we bring this investigation then keep pushing for it and if you want the truth out so bad and I am being lazy on that then you must do what your conscience dictates yourself without waiting for me,  I mean if you want to know if you are supporting a scammer out of some misjudged loyalty then perhaps you really need to get to the bottom of this and get all the  high merit legends in on the investigations of his entire actions since being here. I mean supporting anyone if you are unsure they are a scammer is very dangerous ground.


That is for you to decide so speaking up saying if there was nothing in the contract saying he could not keep money that was derived off other investors money (investors afaik that got fucked and lost on the project over all) is fine if there is nothing in the contract to say he can not is not moral to me. If it is to you then I would advice people recognise this before listening to your views on anything else. But then I am some bleeding hearted liberal so that again must be decided by others themselves.

I am not out to get you or anyone else specifically. I am simply wanting a fair and objective review of things and will not hesitate to push the facts and observable events out there for public examination.


What does putting on ignore mean here? I though that means you can not read my posts? put me on it or don't put me on it.

Even better bring me 1 instance of me making a false argument here  that has no corroborating events behind it. Just because you do not approve of the things I am looking into does not mean they should not be analysed at all for modifications to ensure more optimal results.

Everyone on these threads opposing me are the same names I am seeing where 50% or greater of their merit vanishes from just 10 pals being deleted and you keep meriting their excuses and nonsense.

I am not sure that you are a willing participant in the circle or just fox pup wants to take you out on a date.

Either way be objective on things or just stay out of it.  Else I can only conclude you are part of it.





 

[Foxpup]

I am not sure that you are a willing participant in the circle or just fox pup wants to take you out on a date.

Hey now, I can take a joke, but you just crossed the line. I can assure you that everyone I date is a willing participant, and I resent any implications to the contrary.

[suchmoon]

suchmoons assumptions and logical fails that he makes time and time again.

My what now?

Stop worrying so much about it all and creating more and more threads about it even though I have said I consider the case closed several times. Then telling me I am continuing to proliferate threads about this topic. Typical example of suchmoon madness.

You've been spamming quite a few merit threads with your tenuous claims so this thread is an attempt to keep it all in one place. I'm sure you'll appreciate that and refrain from off-topic posts elsewhere.

I have demonstrated with suchmoons assistance they are meaningless now

Sorry, what exactly did I assist you with?

so let's discuss some other interesting topics

That's what this thread is for so it's really up to you.

Even suchmoon has now confirmed without definition of a good post or good poster then the score is meaningless.

Really? Where did I do that?

There is no incorrect way to look at the 0.13% lose 80% or greater of their merits if you simply remove the opinions of the same 0.13% the fact or not they are merit sources with most to give  then that is an result of the system and how it is set up and not an excuse to claim that still representing better posts get more merit than less good posts. However, as I have said there is no issue so long as you do not make silly claims about what the numbers mean.

That is simply numbers... that are not bending fact, not looking at the numbers upside down.

No, it's your personal opinion. The numbers don't say why those merits are sent that way. You're simply setting up a straw man argument (e.g. 150k users are eligible for merit) and then topping it up with a false dilemma (e.g. if someone is saying that 0.13% deserve those merits then they're saying that 99.87% can't make better posts). That's not how it actually works. Most users are shitposters, and yes most Legendaries are too - I know you're gonna like this one - so most of those 150k will never receive a single merit, which is how the merit system is supposed to work.

25k users have received merit. Some received more than others, which is inevitable. But simply taking out merit sources or certain boards isn't gonna prove unfairness even if it exists. You can still believe it if you want. It's just that the numbers you keep throwing around don't mean that.

~ personal attack

~ personal attack

So a thorough investigation of your prior history could be put under scrutiny to ensure I have not got you all wrong

Let me guess. You're gonna enroll someone else to do the investigation?

~ personal attack

~ personal attack

~ personal attack

~ personal attack

I'm getting a feeling that you have personal problems with some (or many) of the top 200 merit receivers, or with people who disagree with you in general, and you're trying to find a way make them look inferior in some way. Which is fair game I guess. As long as you can keep it in this thread and not all over the place (hint: nobody is stalking you even if they happen to post in the same threads as you do).

[eddie13]

What examples can you show of well written posts that you profoundly disagreed with, and you gave merits to?

Quickseller's post about Kavanaugh for example. A few other posts in P&S as well, just can't find links quickly.

You are right. I was too narrow in the way I said it because it does happen on occasion but I still believe it is not the norm.
I also need to work on not saying "you" so much in my posts or addressing a certain other poster like that because I certainly don't mean/want to put a specific person on the spot like that, usually..

I should have said something more like - "How many merited posts do you all see merited for quality of writing and effort despite the sender profoundly disagreeing with the message of the post they merited?"

I think it is natural for us to use merit as a "+1", or a "Yeah, what he said." to show our support for a well placed message that we want to back up as an endorsement.
Or even something funny but low effort, just whatever we enjoy.

Try sarcasm, that's the real money Merit maker

It's very true and natural for us to do and I don't think it is wrong to do so, but I can see why someone from another perspective who thinks it's not so funny would feel butthurt seeing a low effort post get merited.

User eddie13 - (0.4973 Merit per new post)

Hey, that's pretty good but look at this one..

  181. eddie13 earned 191 50 Merit from outside the Top 200 Merit Receivers

   181. eddie13 earned 191 27 Merit from outside the Top 500 Merit Receivers

My stats there are abysmal! (If the ratio means something bad like some perspectives seem to think.)

If you're not a Merit source yet, I think you should apply!

I might some day..

[suchmoon]

What examples can you show of well written posts that you profoundly disagreed with, and you gave merits to?

Quickseller's post about Kavanaugh for example. A few other posts in P&S as well, just can't find links quickly.

You are right. I was too narrow in the way I said it because it does happen on occasion but I still believe it is not the norm.
I also need to work on not saying "you" so much in my posts or addressing a certain other poster like that because I certainly don't mean/want to put a specific person on the spot like that, usually..

I should have said something more like - "How many merited posts do you all see merited for quality of writing and effort despite the sender profoundly disagreeing with the message of the post they merited?"

I'd still say quite a lot. I'm abrasive with pretty much everyone and I'm still getting merited occasionally. I can see some merit sources sending merits to both sides of a good debate.

I think it's easier to send merits where I don't need to take sides (e.g. some purely technical discussion that doesn't involve Bitcoin Cash).

I think it is natural for us to use merit as a "+1", or a "Yeah, what he said." to show our support for a well placed message that we want to back up as an endorsement.
Or even something funny but low effort, just whatever we enjoy.

Possible. But for the top 200 or some other group to collude in a way that cryptohunter was implying is just unfeasible. I might "like" your post here but after that I have no control whatsoever whom you send your two earned sMerits to, e.g. it could be TECSHARE, whom I don't "like" at all. Not to mention there are 119 merit sources with many different viewpoints. So even if I'm being too naive about bias on the individual level I still think the system ends up quite diverse and unbiased overall.

[cryptohunter]

suchmoons assumptions and logical fails that he makes time and time again.

My what now?

Stop worrying so much about it all and creating more and more threads about it even though I have said I consider the case closed several times. Then telling me I am continuing to proliferate threads about this topic. Typical example of suchmoon madness.

You've been spamming quite a few merit threads with your tenuous claims so this thread is an attempt to keep it all in one place. I'm sure you'll appreciate that and refrain from off-topic posts elsewhere.

I have demonstrated with suchmoons assistance they are meaningless now

Sorry, what exactly did I assist you with?

so let's discuss some other interesting topics

That's what this thread is for so it's really up to you.

Even suchmoon has now confirmed without definition of a good post or good poster then the score is meaningless.

Really? Where did I do that?

There is no incorrect way to look at the 0.13% lose 80% or greater of their merits if you simply remove the opinions of the same 0.13% the fact or not they are merit sources with most to give  then that is an result of the system and how it is set up and not an excuse to claim that still representing better posts get more merit than less good posts. However, as I have said there is no issue so long as you do not make silly claims about what the numbers mean.

That is simply numbers... that are not bending fact, not looking at the numbers upside down.

No, it's your personal opinion. The numbers don't say why those merits are sent that way. You're simply setting up a straw man argument (e.g. 150k users are eligible for merit) and then topping it up with a false dilemma (e.g. if someone is saying that 0.13% deserve those merits then they're saying that 99.87% can't make better posts). That's not how it actually works. Most users are shitposters, and yes most Legendaries are too - I know you're gonna like this one - so most of those 150k will never receive a single merit, which is how the merit system is supposed to work.

25k users have received merit. Some received more than others, which is inevitable. But simply taking out merit sources or certain boards isn't gonna prove unfairness even if it exists. You can still believe it if you want. It's just that the numbers you keep throwing around don't mean that.

~ personal attack

~ personal attack

So a thorough investigation of your prior history could be put under scrutiny to ensure I have not got you all wrong

Let me guess. You're gonna enroll someone else to do the investigation?

~ personal attack

~ personal attack

~ personal attack

~ personal attack

I'm getting a feeling that you have personal problems with some (or many) of the top 200 merit receivers, or with people who disagree with you in general, and you're trying to find a way make them look inferior in some way. Which is fair game I guess. As long as you can keep it in this thread and not all over the place (hint: nobody is stalking you even if they happen to post in the same threads as you do).

LOL please re read out prior conversations and find all of those answers for yourself.

If you are unable to then get assistance from anyone else who can read and recall what they have read after 5 mins.

If they are not free to assist you then if you state that I will not find any grounding for those statements one by one and list them as above I will come and assist you.

I don't really have any personal issues with ANY person on this board except scammers/scam enablers/scam protectors.

I will post where I like and when I like so long as I please to do so. You are a spammer and have continuously wanted the last (incorrect) word on everything forcing the conversation to continue as you are doing now.

Loyce and you have now made 2 threads to continue this discussion on this specific topic after I had already said I am ready to move on and happy with the presentation that has been made.

I will not be contained to this thread just because you say so.

[suchmoon]

LOL please re read out prior conversations and find all of those answers for yourself.

If you are unable to then get assistance from anyone else who can read and recall what they have read after 5 mins.

If they are not free to assist you then if you state that I will not find any grounding for those statements one by one and list them as above I will come and assist you.

No idea what this all means but please do assist. I need your help very much. Anything that keeps you from trolling the rest of the forum is welcome here.

I don't really have any personal issues with ANY person on this board except scammers/scam enablers/scam protectors.

I will post where I like and when I like so long as I please to do so. You are a spammer and have continuously wanted the last (incorrect) word on everything forcing the conversation to continue as you are doing now.

Loyce and you have no made 2 threads to continue this discussion on this specific topic after I had already said I am ready to move on and happy with the presentation that has been made.

I don't know about LoyceV but i made this thread for you to air your grievances, whatever those might be. If there aren't any - great. IDGAF whose word is last but then again, you think people posting in the same thread are stalking you.

Can you list also these personal attacks on yourself that I have made that have no grounding also I am interested in them.

Dude... your attack is under my avatar and then you attacked me for putting it under my avatar

[cryptohunter]

LOL please re read out prior conversations and find all of those answers for yourself.

If you are unable to then get assistance from anyone else who can read and recall what they have read after 5 mins.

If they are not free to assist you then if you state that I will not find any grounding for those statements one by one and list them as above I will come and assist you.

No idea what this all means but please do assist. I need your help very much. Anything that keeps you from trolling the rest of the forum is welcome here.

I don't really have any personal issues with ANY person on this board except scammers/scam enablers/scam protectors.

I will post where I like and when I like so long as I please to do so. You are a spammer and have continuously wanted the last (incorrect) word on everything forcing the conversation to continue as you are doing now.

Loyce and you have no made 2 threads to continue this discussion on this specific topic after I had already said I am ready to move on and happy with the presentation that has been made.

I don't know about LoyceV but i made this thread for you to air your grievances, whatever those might be. If there aren't any - great. IDGAF whose word is last but then again, you think people posting in the same thread are stalking you.

Can you list also these personal attacks on yourself that I have made that have no grounding also I am interested in them.

Dude... your attack is under my avatar and then you attacked me for putting it under my avatar

LOL i see. You mean I described how you actually are and how you actually act. I can see why that may seem like and attack ...it is called reality.

Then I told you that you should not be using my prior art and descriptive flair and passing it off as your own original work. Put it in " " or that could be plagiarism. I was obviously joking since about that part since I am not the sort of gimp who would see a legend banned for one single incidence of this unless it was financially motivated and a repeated offence.

Now  back to grassing legends up for incidents that took place 4 years ago and feeling good about yourself. Don't allow me to keep making fun of you I feel bad about if afterwards and have to lash myself each night. I would feel better for you if you just stayed clear of me unless you have really thought through your entire point before throwing word salad at me. Then denying it or pretending you do not know what I am referring too.

Now no need to continue on about all of this because I am happy to let it drop for now. Any post of yours about this merit hoarding and cycling is willingly and knowingly forcing the conversation to continue so don;t then complain I am going on about it. That is just another logic fail of yours that you can not realise.

[cestmoi]

~snip~

I appreciate the effort you've put into this post, and the math is quite telling.  But, like nearly all statistics they only tell part of the story.

If we take my example: I'm not one of the top 200 merit recipients, yet I've only received 22 of my 133 merits from outside the Top 200 Merit Recipients.  That's only 16% of my total.  I'm new around here, and certainly wouldn't consider myself as a member of the "Circle Jerk."

Of the members you referenced as examples, (to the best of my knowledge) three of them are very likely merit sources.  They can afford to be generous with their sMerit.  I myself, have never given more than a single merit to any post, and yet I've never received fewer than 4 from suchmoon.  And frequently receive a minimum of 2 from the Top 200.

It seems fairly clear to me that merit is awarded to good posts 99.99% of the time.  Of course "good posts" are subjective, and that's why we have over 100 merit sources on the forum, so that subjectivity is spread around.  

In my opinion, Cryptohunter's issue with legendary members getting banned is the opposite side of the effort to reduce spam.  The merit system is working in reducing spam, but there are still many hero and legendary spammers around.  They escaped the merit system simply by being here a year or two before it's implementation, and it's only for that reason that they were awarded their rank.  To keep their rank, they merely need to follow the rules.

Thanks for your answer, I am probably wrong, and indeed anyone can make number saying anything.

I wanted to show that I can understand cryptohunter because it looks like (at least in the meta) that the merit is always circulating between the same person.
Also you are right, i didnt check if any of them was a merit source.

~snip~

Merits do stay in the top 100 / 200 / 300 call how you want.

Again: you're looking at this the wrong way. Instead of looking where the Merit came from, you should look at the post it was sent to. Obviously there's some abuse, but I'm pretty sure most of the Top Receivers received it for legit good posts. Why would it matter who gave it, if the post deserves it?
I've merited your post, not because I agree, but because it's worth reading and you're not a spammer.
~snip~

Yes you are right, it is a valid point that @Suchmoon has put forward a few times.
Don't get me wrong, i am not siding with CryptoHunter in saying that the merit is being abused and that legendary want to keep it for them.
I just wanted to express the point that if you look at numbers from a certain angle (top receiver, getting merit from top receivers), it appears that it is circulating amont a small number of high ranked users. Hence trying to explain why cryptoHunter might feel that there is a jerking circle.

Your message and @direwolfM14's  are perfect at explaining why my conclusion / view was not right and that there is more to it than just looking at the layer i did.
I do not have the skills to dig it more. I'm happy with the conclusion drawn from your message here and also the link you provided  [TOP-200] Members who support newbies - Thanks!

cheers

[suchmoon]

LOL i see. You mean I described how you actually are and how you actually act. I can see why that may seem like and attack ...it is called reality.

It's not. I don't have a horse.

Then I told you that you should not be using my prior art and descriptive flair and passing it off as your own original work. Put it in " " or that could be plagiarism. I was obviously joking since about that part since I am not the sort of gimp who would see a legend banned for one single incidence of this unless it was financially motivated and a repeated offence.

You're right. It was very inconsiderate of me to disrespect your non-intellectual property. I've fixed it.

Now  back to grassing legends up for incidents that took place 4 years ago and feeling good about yourself. Don't allow me to keep making fun of you I feel bad about if afterwards and have to lash myself each night. I would feel better for you if you just stayed clear of me unless you have really thought through your entire point before throwing word salad at me. Then denying it or pretending you do not know what I am referring too.

I see. It seems you're also upset about me reporting shitposters to mods. Is that at the root of all this? You don't like plagiarists to be banned and it aggravates you that some of the reporters are also in the top 200 of merit receivers?

Now no need to continue on about all of this because I am happy to let it drop for now. Any post of yours about this merit hoarding and cycling is willingly and knowingly forcing the conversation to continue so don;t then complain I am going on about it. That is just another logic fail of yours that you can not realise.

No, I'm not going to complain about you posting in this thread - that's exactly what it's for. I actually asking you to post here as much as you can.