Trust: The New Rank requirement?

[hilariousetc]

I dunno. I think this will just lead to people trying to farm their feedback to try achieve the rank. I think there should be a new level above Legendary though. There's a big difference now between a new user signing up and eventually achieving legendary and someone who signed up a few years ago and just got it by being here a while. Maybe the activity to get Legendary should be changed so it all has to be earned merit and not airdropped and anyone who doesn't have sufficient merit is demoted to Hero. There's not really any benefits to being a Legendary over Hero anyway other than in name so it won't matter much. That would then at least give the rank some meaning. There's far too many Legendaries about now and there's probably not gonna be many more made naturally so I think there should be some distinction between those who just go lucky.

I've spoke about a new rank before. Fixing Legendary to 960 merit or upping it drastically would still be a good idea:

Holy crap... 2000+ activity should definitely be a new rank, Legendary just doesn't cut it. And 2000+ merits of course.

Or perhaps remove the rank name altogether at that level. Leave the newbies guessing who they're dealing with. Sort of like debadging a car.

There should be an addition rank made. It could supersede Legendary and Legendary is bumped up to a higher activity requirement. Legendary is becoming far too common now and will only become more so as time passes. I have suggested fixing Legendary at 960 activity and the new rank is double that at 1920. You could also make the merit requirement very high for this rank so it's only for the very highest contributors. 2000 merit would probably do as that would be very difficult to achieve and would only be likely done so by the very top percentile of contributors here.  

[NavI_027]

I foresee a situation where the Trust score will begin to serve as the new requirement for members to rank up. Honestly, Theymos could be harbouring this thought. It's over a year now since the sMerit system was instituted and his silence so far in creating another level after the "Legendary" rank portends something, I should think. What do you guys think?

I don't think the same way and I really hope theymos didn't too. Merit system is doing fine, the shitposters and spammers as well as the good mediocre members (unfortunately) are perished already what more if your suggestion would be implemented? Yeah! The brighter side would be a total eradication of toxic members lurking but at the same time there's a high tendency that most of the members might stop growing (of course, not all of us are as good as the veterans here ).

I'm not saying that it wasn't a good idea at all but for me it was not feasible. I will agree more if there will only be a new rank above Legendary.

[lobcmt2]

I dunno. I think this will just lead to people trying to farm their feedback to try achieve the rank. I think there should be a new level above Legendary though. There's a big difference now between a new user signing up and eventually achieving legendary and someone who signed up a few years ago and just got it by being here a while. Maybe the activity to get Legendary should be changed so it all has to be earned merit and not airdropped and anyone who doesn't have sufficient merit is demoted to Hero. There's not really any benefits to being a Legendary over Hero anyway other than in name so it won't matter much. That would then at least give the rank some meaning. There's far too many Legendaries about now and there's probably not gonna be many more made naturally so I think there should be some distinction between those who just go lucky.

For now, maybe old generation of Legendary have reason to keep their ranks, but if we look at 10 years later, it will be ridiculous if 10 years after merit system born, they won't earn a single merit and still be a Legendary.
Why only demoted to Hero?
I suggest to have auto-demotion over time.
For example:
4 years after merit system's birthday, if a Legendary won't earn enough 500 merits, account will be demoted to Hero.
6 years after, if a Legendary won't earn enough 250 merits, account will be demoted to Senior Member.
8 years later, a Legendary won't earn enough 100 merits, account will be demoted to Full Member.

[stompix]

For now, maybe old generation of Legendary have reason to keep their ranks, but if we look at 10 years later, it will be ridiculous if 10 years after merit system born, they won't earn a single merit and still be a Legendary.
Why only demoted to Hero?
I suggest to have auto-demotion over time.
For example:
4 years after merit system's birthday, if a Legendary won't earn enough 500 merits, account will be demoted to Hero.
6 years after, if a Legendary won't earn enough 250 merits, account will be demoted to Senior Member.
8 years later, a Legendary won't earn enough 100 merits, account will be demoted to Full Member.

I've always said that merit decay should be introduced, maybe not that drastic cut and maybe just based on activity periods as it would be unfair for someone who has been off the board for 8 months to be next to those who have made 2000 bounty posts in that period.

That would make the legendary rank mean something again.
-1 airdrop merit per activity period. Simple, brutal for shitposters, and god for copper membership sales .

Back to the trust requirement, although I wouldn't like to see such a requirement for the next rank level I also can't help asking my self, If you don't trade don't leave and receive feedback, why would you want a higher rank? This considering you have already earned 1000+ merits so you're already pretty well known and your opinion is respected even without a new badge.

But it's not going to happen anyway..
 

[samputin]

I foresee a situation where the Trust score will begin to serve as the new requirement for members to rank up. Honestly, Theymos could be harbouring this thought. It's over a year now since the sMerit system was instituted and his silence so far in creating another level after the "Legendary" rank portends something, I should think. What do you guys think?

Trust score as the new requirement to rank up seems too much. Merit is still doing fine. It still keeps spammers and shitposters from ranking up. And Trust is hard to gain here somehow. Just look at the accusations that suddenly pop up. What would be your criteria for giving someone a Trust score? I just can't imagine it happening right now. At least, in merit system, you would know if the post is of good quality and informative enough to deserve merit since we are only talking about the post alone. Maybe another rank after Legendary is more acceptable. But a new requirement? I don't think so.

[slocker]

Trust to be included this this will be little much overrated. Isnt trust for trade purpose, or for some job here done. Merit is received for constructive or funny in topic post if im not mistaken then why would it be necessary to have trust. Isnt trust for members who want to be in DT table. But if this is necessary this could easily be again be manipulated like in the beginning of merit system. Many will try to sell at start or trade for it. Im not that high in rank and dont know if this is good or not but again its no for me to decide only to say my opinion like many of you. But everything new have good and bad sides maybe this will be like this or it will never be implemented at all.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Requiring positive trust to rank up will completely ruin the trust system. People will make tiny irrelevant trades and take out tiny loans they don't need just to build trust. People will leave frivolous ratings for their friends or trade trust between themselves. Some users will inevitably try to buy and sell trust. There would be loads of issues that needed addressing, such as deranking users if their positive trust is removed, or they gain more negative than positive trust.

Merit is for ranking, and trust is for, well, trust. Trying to combine the two would make both systems worse as well as being a total headache.

[El duderino_]

Requiring positive trust to rank up will completely ruin the trust system. People will make tiny irrelevant trades and take out tiny loans they don't need just to build trust. People will leave frivolous ratings for their friends or trade trust between themselves. Some users will inevitably try to buy and sell trust. There would be loads of issues that needed addressing, such as deranking users if their positive trust is removed, or they gain more negative than positive trust.

Merit is for ranking, and trust is for, well, trust. Trying to combine the two would make both systems worse as well as being a total headache.

I also don't see trust needed to rank up, @this time the people who buy and sells on the forum have build a kind of community and knows of each other who's to deal with and when to take precautionary measures before dealing with.... as o_e_l_e_o says and everybody is making tiny trades and giving good trust comments on friends, then the trust system will become unreliable, activity is the main factor in ranking up... only when your really dedicated as a new member you will reach high activity combined with merit to become legendary so even higher will be very tuff as a new member.