theymos shouldn't merit and trust be mutually exclusive?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

What does good grammar have to do with trust?

Ultimately if that's the question you're asking, then I would say those two things shouldn't have much to do with each other--but I have a hard time believing Theymos didn't consider the issue when he made the most recent changes to the DT system.  I also don't think he wouldn't realize who he'd be putting on or removing from DT1 when he made those changes, e.g., Lauda on, OgNasty off.  Don't know anything about Theymos, but he seems like an engineer trying to optimize a system with what he has to work with.  Unfortunately all of the parts don't quite fit all together perfectly, and the result is what we have today with the trust system.

I'd be interested to hear what Theymos has to say about Cobra's input on the matter (don't know how to make the Greek symbol in his username).  I suspect to a somewhat neutral 3rd party it does look like madness going on and I can see the desire to just scrap the system entirely--but I don't know if that's a great idea or not.  I'll have to check to see if Theymos replied or not.

Anyway, it's not about grammar.  People do earn merits on local boards, and members do earn merits even if they write horribly broken English if the posts are helpful enough. 

[o_e_l_e_o]

In other words, one has to be a good poster first to earn a vote for DT1, while possible trustworthy members with less meritable posts are sidelined.

True, and this is a potential drawback of the new system. However, I would argue that if you are a proven trustworthy member, and have been here for any length of time, you would have absolutely no problems earning 10 merit, which would give you both a vote for DT1 and the potential to be elected to DT1 yourself.

There are plenty of users with high activity who have farmed it by just spamming in Games and Rounds - such as all these spammers. 500 days spent spamming Games and Rounds or ICO Announcements isn't worth 1 day spent in Meta, reading the stickies and learning about the forum.

[cryptohunter]

In other words, one has to be a good poster first to earn a vote for DT1, while possible trustworthy members with less meritable posts are sidelined.

True, and this is a potential drawback of the new system. However, I would argue that if you are a proven trustworthy member, and have been here for any length of time, you would have absolutely no problems earning 10 merit, which would give you both a vote for DT1 and the potential to be elected to DT1 yourself.

There are plenty of users with high activity who have farmed it by just spamming in Games and Rounds - such as all these spammers. 500 days spent spamming Games and Rounds or ICO Announcements isn't worth 1 day spent in Meta, reading the stickies and learning about the forum.

That will sadly do you no good because if someone with 250 cycled merits does not want you there it is likely they will collude with the small circle of pals to get you removed.

250 earned merits are the key positions in the trust system.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

In other words, one has to be a good poster first to earn a vote for DT1, while possible trustworthy members with less meritable posts are sidelined.

True, and this is a potential drawback of the new system. However, I would argue that if you are a proven trustworthy member, and have been here for any length of time, you would have absolutely no problems earning 10 merit, which would give you both a vote for DT1 and the potential to be elected to DT1 yourself.

There are plenty of users with high activity who have farmed it by just spamming in Games and Rounds - such as all these spammers. 500 days spent spamming Games and Rounds or ICO Announcements isn't worth 1 day spent in Meta, reading the stickies and learning about the forum.

That will sadly do you no good because if someone with 250 cycled merits does not want you there it is likely they will collude with the small circle of pals to get you removed.

250 earned merits are the key positions in the trust system.

cryptohunter, you shouldn’t have a problem getting 250 ‘earned’ Merit?

You’ve been here a long time, you know how the forum works. You should get that in 12 months max if you’re a good poster.

[cryptohunter]

In other words, one has to be a good poster first to earn a vote for DT1, while possible trustworthy members with less meritable posts are sidelined.

True, and this is a potential drawback of the new system. However, I would argue that if you are a proven trustworthy member, and have been here for any length of time, you would have absolutely no problems earning 10 merit, which would give you both a vote for DT1 and the potential to be elected to DT1 yourself.

There are plenty of users with high activity who have farmed it by just spamming in Games and Rounds - such as all these spammers. 500 days spent spamming Games and Rounds or ICO Announcements isn't worth 1 day spent in Meta, reading the stickies and learning about the forum.

That will sadly do you no good because if someone with 250 cycled merits does not want you there it is likely they will collude with the small circle of pals to get you removed.

250 earned merits are the key positions in the trust system.

cryptohunter, you shouldn’t have a problem getting 250 ‘earned’ Merit?

You’ve been here a long time, you know how the forum works. You should get that in 12 months max if you’re a good . poster.

Sorry no if you are not a colluding ass kisser like yourself or hanging in meta for months backslapping and cycling them around then that is not going to be easy.

Certainly coming to their home board into the nest of vipers and bitch slapping them all around with facts demonstrating they are bunch of merit cycling colluders and trust abusers isn't likely to gain you much merit either.
.

Go tell gjhiggins, smooth, davidzimbeck and a host of real valuable posters how you are a 10x-20x more valuable poster than them too.

Merit score is meaningless according to suchmoon. As he says good poster bad poster is meaningless without definition and criteria. Hence why merit is a misleading and dangerous metric to try and build upon.

I mean you have over 400 can you show me some of your best original thought inspiring contributions so I can see these great and valuable posts.

[soulcancer]

the merit system has done a great deal to lift up those who discuss (in a positive light) the merit system...ask the many genius young coders out there who have a merit of between 1 and 2...surely, they will tell you "merit is NOT about some kind of exclusive club...no...no...no...its really all about the crypto, dude...really!"...some day (not so soon, i suspect) we will get to see the numbers regarding merit for discussing actual tech shit vs merit for discussing....well......merit

[Lauda]

the merit system has done a great deal to lift up those who discuss (in a positive light) the merit system...ask the many genius young coders out there who have a merit of between 1 and 2...surely, they will tell you "merit is NOT about some kind of exclusive club...no...no...no...its really all about the crypto, dude...really!"...some day (not so soon, i suspect) we will get to see the numbers regarding merit for discussing actual tech shit vs merit for discussing....well......merit

Being a "genius young coder" (not that you should believe anyone claiming to be one) has nothing to do with deserving merit. Actually, if one gives themselves that title then they are likely to be an asshole who doesn't write posts which deserve merit. Besides, there is no inherent need to have merit aside from reducing some rank-related restrictions.

[Upgate]

I would just ask you a simple question have you ever gone through anyone positive trust history and seen any other the reason to the positive trust being as a result of good post or merit.
Every trust one get be it negative or positive has a reason

[suchmoon]

the merit system has done a great deal to lift up those who discuss (in a positive light) the merit system...ask the many genius young coders out there who have a merit of between 1 and 2...surely, they will tell you "merit is NOT about some kind of exclusive club...no...no...no...its really all about the crypto, dude...really!"...some day (not so soon, i suspect) we will get to see the numbers regarding merit for discussing actual tech shit vs merit for discussing....well......merit

Development & Technical Discussion has one of the highest post-to-merit ratio so it doesn't seem that genius coders would have any trouble earning those merits. However if you see some undermerited ones please report them to your friendly neighborhood merit source. Thank you.