Suggestion about the Merit System on Airdropped Merits.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

In order encourage every member to fight for their rank and not just relax because they have airdropped merit.
How about the Merit system be modified in away that those who have airdropped merits for each rank and have never bothered to earn any merit have their signature limit reduced to a lower rank next to their current rank for a beginning, for example,

Legendary with Earned Merits - Can wear a Legendary Signature.
Legendary without certain number of Earned Merits - Can only wear a Hero Member Signature.

Hero Member with Earned Merits - Can wear Hero member Signature.
Hero Member without certain Earned Merits - Can only wear a senior member Signature

Senior member with Earned Merits - Can wear Senior Member Signature.
Senior member without certain number of Earned Merits - Can only wear a Full Member Signature
and so on...

What do you members think about this?

[1714154066]

1714154066

[1714154066]

1714154066

[1714154066]

1714154066

[1714154066]

1714154066

[1714154066]

1714154066

[1714154066]

1714154066

[tranthidung]

The point is your suggestion is far from demotions on users whom have not earned a single merit or a minimum of required merits to maintain their ranks.
Reducing their rights to wear signature of lower ranks, but their ranks will be remained. What are purposes of this suggestion?
If something will be implemented, it should be demotion.
If it will not be demotion, I think we should stick with what we have now.

[akamit]

I think we already have enough drama in regards to the Merit System, no need new pains for the community (1000s of new threads will be created about the new system).

[suchmoon]

It's similar to a previously floated idea of decaying airdropped merits, either gradually, or just one-time one-merit subtraction. So a Hero who never earned a merit would go from 500 to 499 and automatically become a Sr.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I think we already have enough drama in regards to the Merit System, no need new pains for the community (1000s of new threads will be created about the new system).

Yeah, I think if suddenly Legendaries or any other higher-ranked members got their signature space reduced or any other sort of demotion, there would be a firestorm in Meta--and probably worse than last year when the 1-merit requirement to rank up to Jr. Member was implemented.  Not only don't we need that drama, but it isn't a change that needs to be made.  People get grandfathered into positions all the time, and that's just how it works in the real world. 

And I'd also like to point out that the bulk of the problems that led to the merit system being introduced and its subsequent tweaks were never caused by higher-ranked members (in general).  The problem was all the newbie shitposters and idiot account farmers trying to rank up 100s of low-ranked accounts.  There isn't a need to punish older members for the sins of a bunch of low-ranked accounts.

[bones261]

Legendary with Earned Merits - Can wear a Legendary Signature.
Legendary without certain number of Earned Merits - Can only wear a Hero Member Signature.

Just wanted to point out that there is no additional functionality gained by becoming a Legendary. The signatures a Legendary can wear would be the same as the signatures a Hero can wear.. However, a bounty manger can implement their own rules regarding merit to effect any payouts. I believe some bounty managers already have campaigns that require a minimum amount of earned merit just to be qualified to join.

[tbct_mt2]

It's similar to a previously floated idea of decaying airdropped merits, either gradually, or just one-time one-merit subtraction. So a Hero who never earned a merit would go from 500 to 499 and automatically become a Sr.

Demotions on high ranks, from Legendary to Full Member ranks, like what we saw with Junior Member rank in the year of 2018. To be fair, if there are rank promotions for all ranks, there also should have demotions on all ranks. Consequently, we might see another spam wave in Meta board.  

[jackg]

It's similar to a previously floated idea of decaying airdropped merits, either gradually, or just one-time one-merit subtraction. So a Hero who never earned a merit would go from 500 to 499 and automatically become a Sr.

We should do this with everyone earnt or airdropped and make it a popularity contest lol 🤣.

Actually a drop in a merit a week isn't horrible but there are some users here that do a lot of trading and such and thus don't earn much merit or any in some cases.


This wormhole keeps opening up and you're going to end up with pages and pages of spam at some point (don't say I didn't warn you)...

@bones, quality of posts and payments is exactly that - the role of the campaign managers. Maybe some of the bounty managers need stricter rules as the last time I posted in the alts board, it just sank...


Making a competition out of things solves nothing... Have you come across many legendaries that actually shit post (I can't say I'm not a good judge).

[mikeywith]

This will piss a lot of people off, you can't give someone something and then take it back like that , some people will be really really mad , what i suggest for a compensation would be keeping the rank but showing only earned merit, so that someone who earned 1000 merit does not look the same as someone who got them from the airdrop , doing this won't make a lot of them mad since they can keep their ranks , i guess .

[Steamtyme]

I like this idea a lot. It's been long enough now we don't need to see the initial drop of merit, it should be taken off all ranks. If we only show earned merit it would definitely show the difference between quality posting habits and accounts that have just been here.

I'm not sure what the original reason was for the airdropped merit unless it had something to do with the distribution of smerit, or if it was solely tied to what is needed to achieve that rank. Either way, unless it breaks the system for some reason would be a great move.

[kastara]

If it were to improve us better in this forum there's no harm in trying every formula that is considered good and good to raise every individual in this forum.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

If this suggestion was made specifically because of the competition forum users experience when it comes to applying for open slots in campaign, no need to worry because as a self-made (rank-up users) or a user who have recieved some decent amount of merits, you have more advantages over those that just have airdropped merits when it comes to getting accepted into signature campaigns.

But if that wasn't the reason for your suggestion then lets not complicate things. Using legendary rank for explanation, legendary members are legendary members irrespective of when they achieve the rank status and shouldn't be deprived of the same privileges as a "self-made" it's their privilege as early users of the forum and possiblity are, they were also early adoptors of bitcoin so let them enjoy it.

[akamit]

There isn't a need to punish older members for the sins of a bunch of low-ranked accounts.

By the Merit System Implementation, older members who are non-spammers, non-shitposters already got punished. Anything new implementation to tighten the ranks will be an injustice for them imo.

[Mpamaegbu]

OP, this issue of rank demotion via merit reduction has been thrown up in the recent past without a clear solution. As you can see, the house is already divided on it here again. Well, I believe Theymos' reticence on it may likely be pointing towards him creating more rank categories than demoting early users without earned merits. We may likely see this change sooner than we anticipate.

[lobcmt2]

OP, this issue of rank demotion via merit reduction has been thrown up in the recent past without a clear solution. As you can see, the house is already divided on it here again. Well, I believe Theymos' reticence on it may likely be pointing towards him creating more rank categories than demoting early users without earned merits. We may likely see this change sooner than we anticipate.

In the past, the population of self made users is small, so it likely was reason with theymos did not consider about demotions on higher ranks, and only took actions with Junior Member rank. However, maybe now and might be in the next one or two years, when population of self made users expanded, demotions on higher ranks might be seriously considered, I believe. There should not have grand-father-rights for old users whom are not able to earn a single merit over 3 or 4 years.

[darklus123]

There is actually no point, some of this old members aren't that active right now in the forum yet have contributed  from the forum alot before.

Therefore some of them deserves the certain benefits of being a hero member. Why would we take that from them?

It is like taking the wwII veterans deserving benefits for their contributions for the reason of they are no longer active of their services

[lobcmt2]

There is actually no point, some of this old members aren't that active right now in the forum yet have contributed  from the forum alot befor

Clarifying a little bit, demotions should categorise forum users into two groups:
- Inactive users: They are inactively in the forum at least one year, maybe a continously 12 months or separate ones; and they don't actively posting in the
 last 12-month-period. Because, if we don't define the term inactive users well, we might mis-categorise users whom simply login their accounts, but don't make a single post.
- Active users: They are actively both log-in their accounts, and actively posting during last 12-month-period.
Demotions should aim at the second group of active users, because it is a big joke if you are actively post 1000 post last 12-month-period and don't earn a single merit.
For inactive users, they can maintain their ranks.

[darklus123]

Clarifying a little bit, demotions should categorise forum users into two groups:
- Inactive users: They are inactively in the forum at least one year, maybe a continously 12 months or separate ones; and they don't actively posting in the
 last 12-month-period. Because, if we don't define the term inactive users well, we might mis-categorise users whom simply login their accounts, but don't make a single post.
- Active users: They are actively both log-in their accounts, and actively posting during last 12-month-period.
Demotions should aim at the second group of active users, because it is a big joke if you are actively post 1000 post last 12-month-period and don't earn a single merit.
For inactive users, they can maintain their ranks.

Therefore you should have to put a certain standards to how much posts a certain user does and yet doesn't still received any merits. Tho, I still am against the idea of demoting a user because of not receiving any merits (If that's the case we should no longer include the activity and the longevity of the certain accounts as a requirements of being promoted).

Why Am I against it? because Merit System is far from a great system as of the moment and has a lot of holes and abused ( that would sound so unfair for a regular poster who don't do spam yet posting a neutral posts that doesn't actually deserves to be merited being demoted. Then there are this users who actively trading merits and gains the benefits unethically).

So before we proposed for certain standards we have to make sure first that the system we were referring is good enough and can do it's job fairly. We should accept that there are certain people who don't posts really good yet still contributed to this community.

[lobcmt2]

Therefore you should have to put a certain standards to how much posts a certain user does and yet doesn't still received any merits. Tho, I still am against the idea of demoting a user because of not receiving any merits (If that's the case we should no longer include the activity and the longevity of the certain accounts as a requirements of being promoted).

Something like merit per post rate: 0.01 is enough. It means users have to earn at least 1 merits for each-100 posts they made. So, let's move further and assume that a user only made 1 post per 2 days, after 2 years that user will made around 365 posts. For such 365 posts, that user have to earn at least 365 x 0.01 merit per post = 3.65 merits ~ 4 merits.
or 10 merits for 1000 posts
I don't think it is a big matter, if users are not spammers. 
Something is same as when a professor from university retired, he or she won't be able to hold the title professor of university A, B, C for all-dear-life. It only lasts for a fixed number of years.

[darklus123]

Something like merit per post rate: 0.01 is enough. It means users have to earn at least 1 merits for each-100 posts they made. So, let's move further and assume that a user only made 1 post per 2 days, after 2 years that user will made around 365 posts. For such 365 posts, that user have to earn at least 365 x 0.01 merit per post = 3.65 merits ~ 4 merits.
or 10 merits for 1000 posts
I don't think it is a big matter, if users are not spammers. 
Something is same as when a professor from university retired, he or she won't be able to hold the title professor of university A, B, C for all-dear-life. It only lasts for a fixed number of years.

Even so, That can still not guarantee some of the old members who are not so active able to earn such posts for that certain span of time. Well at some point that might be good I am just taking some considerations here.

That's the point you based on a professors point of view while I do refer it to a military veteran and that's a whole different interpretation