I think you should start naming some names and providing more evidence on how both "systems" are being controlled by a particular group of members. If you think they are shutting down people by not giving the merits they are deserving as well as them giving neg trust to people they don't like this is clearly an abuse of the system as the way I see it is you are describing how this group is removing their competition for this limited "Paid2Post Campaigns". I won't be siding with anyone but your accusations are really big and without any proof being shown in your post it just makes you look like you are hating some of these people part of these sig campaigns.
Make sure to read and fully understand that regarding my description of the systems of control there is no argument. That part is simply a description of how they work? There is clear motivation for abuse and they are clearly wide open to abuse. That is the factual and central point to tackle first and most importantly.
There is no point drilling down to an individual level (although i have done so already if you examine the thread but this is now i see a mistake because it clouds the bigger issue by introducing subjectivity.). You need to look at the system as a whole or you risk giving anecdotal individual experiences more weight than they should have.
However these drilled down claims can again be written off as anecdotal or an isolated case that has no real weight on the system value as a whole. This is obviously subjective although I believe corroborated by events clearly. I am shifting my focus from this to an objective clearly observable and undeniable presentation of pure fact based description of how the entire system works.
There is no real point in me criticising mikey for his anecdotal post if I rely only on anecdotal accounts myself. I am clearly demonstrating the system as a whole is as I say it is.
I mean there is no need for an opinion really . I am stating an observable account of how the systems currently operate and the facts they are wide open to abuse (well it is hard actually to abuse a subjective system if you want to put it like that so that makes it worse) the facts there are clear motives to abuse and the fact of the small issue of subjective nature on what is deserving of merit . That's without the facts that posts that make clearly incorrect points may be assumed correct by system controllers anyway.
So you therefore have a system that at the very same time creates scores of very low or misleading value you also introduce a system of control of the many by the few that have the motive for selfish gain in terms of financial reward and also in terms of pushing their own person views.
If the only comeback to these facts is - - people may not choose to act selfishly at any point when there are clear financial rewards and clearly other rewards then you need to go back and have another look and think about it.
To help keep merit ( that does help in some ways and i think could help a lot with a few improvements)
maybe these could help and maybe they will not
1. Put a filter on the merit scores like the removal of the top200-300 on the top 200 - 300 but perhaps leave 10%
2. No merit source can be a trust source
3. If you are demonstrated to have given merit to an incorrect post or misleading post 3x you are removed from merit source for 6months and lose 100 merits. Learn to give merit to posts that are net positive only. Flying in early to a thread and pumping a ton of merit to a post you assume is correct then only at the end is that side of the debate debunked and shown to be incorrect means you simply added support to a flawed argument and proves you did not understand the topic - - therefore why should you be a merit source??
Not retrospective though -- from now on forward.
4. Make all legends merit sources.
5. Criteria that must be met for giving merit (fail 3x banned from merit source for 6 months)
6. Obvious and blatant merit abusers = 6 month ban and all merits gone.
7. Decouple merit from rank after snr unless all the above 6 can be introduced to avoid restriction of free speech after that rank.
Really I mean anyone not wishing to tighten up the merit system and prefer to leave if totally subjective are demanding it remains a low value metric and even a misleading one and wants the systems left open to abuse and the control over free speech being an obvious and factual possibility.
There is no room for opinion on HOW the systems operate. They operate as they operate.
The argument that some people may not act selfishly even if there are not rules to stop them doing so when there is financial rewards plus other rewards is as ludicrous as many other things I have heard since visiting meta.
It stands to reason before you start using merit scores as a tool to fix the board (more than just holding off everyone who does not get 1 merit from financial rewards in one way - which it does do and has helped plus account farmers) then you need to make the merit scores have some moderate value and not be misleading. I think again that seems quite obvious and beyond argument too.
Ask yourselves whom would fight to stop things becoming "less open" to abuse? at the same time as pushing for more systems to be grounded on these scores. Simple answer...
From now on please only post replies if you want to refute the core point regarding how the entire systems currently operate and improvements that can be made. I am not going to focus on gangs and bring in personal experiences going forward. These will cloud the main issue and I believe with the correct improvements it will solve any gang abuse or actually any individual abuse so win win.
I like merit but we need to just give it a few tweaks before more people are scared to say what they want even if it may be true.
Perhaps first even going back to basics and the real core.... what is a net positive post... what is a net negative post...
