Should we put a merit/post ratio? Like torrent site

[bitart]

This suggestion from o_e_l_e_o

A suggestion I did see in another thread, which I would prefer over this one but has a similar outcome, is charging users 1 earned merit per activity period (2 weeks) to display a signature. If they run out of earned merit, they lose their signature until they earn more.

...

I quite like the idea of diminishing sig spamming by restricting signatures to people managing to acquire merit. Do anyone see a problem with that? It would at least reduce spam while allowing anyone who just wants to talk do it.

I like o_e_l_e_o's proposal a bit better, but with more time allowed (e.g. 3 activity period at least) to earn that merit, because if you're on a holiday or have something to do in real life for a while, you should not lose your merits because of inactivity.
Or, if we count only those activity periods, when the user has posted at least 1 post. This would not burn the acquired merits if someone is inactive.

[1715035052]

1715035052

[1715035052]

1715035052

[1715035052]

1715035052

[1715035052]

1715035052

[suchmoon]

I like o_e_l_e_o's proposal a bit better, but with more time allowed (e.g. 3 activity period at least) to earn that merit, because if you're on a holiday or have something to do in real life for a while, you should not lose your merits because of inactivity.
Or, if we count only those activity periods, when the user has posted at least 1 post. This would not burn the acquired merits if someone is inactive.

But the signature is still visible on all the posts they made previously. They could remove it manually before going on vacation if they don't want to be charged.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I like o_e_l_e_o's proposal a bit better, but with more time allowed (e.g. 3 activity period at least) to earn that merit, because if you're on a holiday or have something to do in real life for a while, you should not lose your merits because of inactivity.
Or, if we count only those activity periods, when the user has posted at least 1 post. This would not burn the acquired merits if someone is inactive.

As I said, I read this on another thread, and I've since gone to the bother of looking it up. It was stompix's suggestion here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5092399.msg49017143#msg49017143. His original suggestion includes what suchmoon is suggesting: 1 merit for each activity period in which you display a signature. If you don't want to be charged the 1 merit, then remove your signature.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

This suggestion from o_e_l_e_o

<***>

Clearly points out a better solution than the one I was proposing first.

Should I lock the thread? Or allow the discussion to continue on this new base ground?

Topic shouldn't be locked yet but you should edit your topic body and update it with o_e_l_e_o suggestions so the discussion can be based on it since his suggestions is more appealing. The topic can be locked when you notice the discussion are been diverted to something else (off topic).

It's an interesting topic, and I just changed my mind from disliking the idea to liking it based on o_e_l_e_o quoted suggestion.

[kvipcn]

If a person does not get merit for every 20 posts he makes, that does not mean he is a shitposter or he should not be allowed to post on the forum. This is a place were freedom of speech is respected and should be.

There are many flaws in this.

1. People who are new here mostly don't get merits even after posting 100+ posts.

2. Most of the people are unmerited even after writing quality posts as they are just not detected by someone with smerits.

3. Some of the people just tend to post updates about there services here so that posts are obvious to get no merits.

4. If you check marketplace section much of the people just use there accounts to bid on some stuff there, so they usually earn less merits.

Much more...

All this things can make much worthy people of the forum to be banned from posting.

So, I think its not a good idea to put merit requirements to the forum members to post.

I definitely agree with you on this. The merit system is a nice regulatory initiative but I don't think its really working. I see it as the rich get richer scheme. Sometimes I get the idea that either good posts made by people are not seen by merit source or are just ignored. Looking at the nature of the merit system, its prefect to solve the spamming on this forum. 

[o_e_l_e_o]

Sometimes I get the idea that either good posts made by people are not seen by merit source or are just ignored.

I am always actively on the lookout for good posts by newbies or other more junior members to give merit to, but honestly, they are few and far between. If you are coming across any posts which you think are good enough to be given merit, but haven't received any, please link us to them on this thread so we can review them: [self-moderated] Report unmerited good posts to Merit Source.