Request: Disable merits in the Wall Observer thread

[joker_josue]

Those who give merits have their attribution criteria, we may not agree, but we have to respect them.

We absolutely do not.

Don't we have to respect the opinions of others, even when we don't share the same opinion?
I think that in a free forum like this, respecting different opinions is essential, so that everything continues to work well, as has happened over the last 15 years.

When I say respect, I don't say accept. Now, since there are no rules about how each person distributes their merits, each person chooses their criteria. And I, even though I don't agree with your criteria, respect your freedom to have them.

Who am I, to question your freedom of choice/decision?
Because there is this respect, we can be here to debate this subject. 

It would be completely unfair to block an area of the forum from merits, harming users who make a clear effort to write good content for the community.

Its one thread -- one thread in one child board of one subsection of the entire forum.

You're just helping me!

Which makes it even more difficult, technically speaking, to make a topic not capable of receiving merit. I don't know if you know programming, but the way the software works would require major changes for this to be done. It's one thing to configure a board for this limitation, another is a specific topic.

Furthermore, this could set a dangerous precedent where whenever the subject of a topic was bothersome, the merits would be disabled. Someone is very dangerous that line of reasoning.

[1714473929]

1714473929

[1714473929]

1714473929

[1714473929]

1714473929

[1714473929]

1714473929

[1714473929]

1714473929

[nutildah]

Don't we have to respect the opinions of others, even when we don't share the same opinion?

No, we don't. Everyone has the right to express their opinion. They do not have the right for their opinion to be respected -- there's no such right.

I don't know if you know programming, but the way the software works would require major changes for this to be done. It's one thing to configure a board for this limitation, another is a specific topic.

Not really -- signatures are already turned off in WO, for the very reason why I think merits should be turned off there: they are conducive to spamming.

Furthermore, this could set a dangerous precedent where whenever the subject of a topic was bothersome, the merits would be disabled. Someone is very dangerous that line of reasoning.

What? It's like you didn't actually read anything that was being said here at all. Oh, you didn't:

Well... I'm not going to read 4 pages of posts.

Personally I like the idea floated by PowerGlove about the option to turn merits off in a topic by its creator. Seems like a straight-forward implementation and would assist those who want discussion in their thread to be more serious.

[joker_josue]

Not really -- signatures are already turned off in WO, for the very reason why I think merits should be turned off there: they are conducive to spamming.

Not exactly, it will depend on how the merits were created in the software. Signatures have been configured to be enabled or disabled.
I don't care about its merits, I don't know of any place on the forum where it is disabled. In other words, they may not have been developed with this function, which could involve redesigning everything.

Personally I like the idea floated by PowerGlove about the option to turn merits off in a topic by its creator. Seems like a straight-forward implementation and would assist those who want discussion in their thread to be more serious.

The idea is not bad, the user can activate or deactivate it. But I repeat, I don't know to what extent, at a programming level, I would require rewriting this part. Impossible, isn't it! Necessary? I don't think so.

Now, the idea that I criticize is this: "more serious discussions, if there are no merits".
The idea of merit is to promote quality. Therefore, it should be the opposite, merits bring greater quality.

If this doesn't happen, it's not the merits' fault, but rather those who have a low quality criterion. But, as the forum has no rules for assigning merits, everyone gives the merits to whoever they want. I may not agree with that attribution of merits, but they weren't mine, each one gives to whoever he wants.

The point is that merit hunters don't need the WO topic for that. They can create topics themselves, and give merit to alts.
Saying that the sources of merits are not giving merits to those who deserve it in this topic is the same as saying that they do not have a good criteria for giving merits throughout the forum. And honestly I don't believe it!

[suchmoon]

The point is that merit hunters don't need the WO topic for that. They can create topics themselves, and give merit to alts.
Saying that the sources of merits are not giving merits to those who deserve it in this topic is the same as saying that they do not have a good criteria for giving merits throughout the forum. And honestly I don't believe it!

I don't think the argument is that those who deserve merit don't receive it, it's about those who don't deserve it (shitposters) receiving it.

Anyway, WO is where posting low-effort twitter copypasta can get you merits (especially if it's "bullish"), and shitposters are exploiting that. There aren't many, if any, other places on the forum like that. So your extrapolation here is incorrect.

[Rikafip]

Personally I like the idea floated by PowerGlove about the option to turn merits off in a topic by its creator. Seems like a straight-forward implementation and would assist those who want discussion in their thread to be more serious.

While that implentation looks convenient, I don't think that it would bring desired effect and those threads would probably end up like Serious Discussion/Ivory thread - basically ignored.

[JayJuanGee]

Personally I like the idea floated by PowerGlove about the option to turn merits off in a topic by its creator. Seems like a straight-forward implementation and would assist those who want discussion in their thread to be more serious.

While that implentation looks convenient, I don't think that it would bring desired effect and those threads would probably end up like Serious Discussion/Ivory thread - basically ignored.

I agree that PowerGlove suggestion does seem like it would be something that could be implemented for thread starters to be empowered in a kind of way that they are empowered with their decisions whether to have a open thread or a self-moderated thread, yet at the same time, the PG suggestion does seem to go a bit far to give that much power to individual thread starters to potentially undermine the likely advantages of having merit sending and receiving abilities across all threads.. and yeah the Ivory tower does seem to be an exception.. and I am doubtful that I have participated very much in those threads.. even though I don't always look which section I am in if someone (or a post) ends up referring me to a topic.  


By the way, I just made several changes to my earlier post in this thread (from about 12 hours ago), and I probably did end up getting a bit carried away with some of the at-first attempts at mere clarification that ended up being substantive... so if anyone might be interested in looking at that post again here's a link.

[joker_josue]

I don't think the argument is that those who deserve merit don't receive it, it's about those who don't deserve it (shitposters) receiving it.

Anyway, WO is where posting low-effort twitter copypasta can get you merits (especially if it's "bullish"), and shitposters are exploiting that. There aren't many, if any, other places on the forum like that. So your extrapolation here is incorrect.

But who gives merits?
Are each other's alts doing this? I repeat, for this you do not need the WO.

Now, are large forum merit sources distributing these merits to these spammers? I have serious doubts.

Unfortunately, what I saw, in a little analysis I did of this topic, is that it is used for users to attack each other. And halfway through, the guys distribute merits just to tease. In other words, because they start making accusations, many are making fun of the situation. Is this beautiful? No. But, when you start to question the credibility of those who give merits, and want to control how people give merits to each other, that's what happens.

I think it would be good for the main players in this situation to calm down and move on. 

[suchmoon]

But who gives merits?
Are each other's alts doing this?

No.

Now, are large forum merit sources distributing these merits to these spammers? I have serious doubts.

Yes. Not sure why you'd have doubts about that - read 10-20 pages of WO and it's quite obvious.

Merit sources are not infallible. And perhaps in this case they believe that Bitcoin-bullish posts (even low-effort ones) deserve merits. It all comes down to this: "do I want to see more posts like this in this forum/thread/etc". I don't. I guess nutildah doesn't either. Users who send merit for those posts apparently do.

I don't think anyone's credibility is being questioned here. It's just a difference of opinions. And as one of the WO "regulars" explained to us peasants, our opinions don't matter anyway.

[joker_josue]

Merit sources are not infallible. And perhaps in this case they believe that Bitcoin-bullish posts (even low-effort ones) deserve merits. It all comes down to this: "do I want to see more posts like this in this forum/thread/etc". I don't. I guess nutildah doesn't either. Users who send merit for those posts apparently do.

But I saw it.

And the idea I had is that these sources of merit are giving merits on purpose, because they started to pick on them. The situation is like: "does this bother you? so I'll continue".

Is it nice to see? No... but, people have to calm down and move on. Let this phase pass for a while, so things can more or less return to normal on this topic.

We are talking about a topic with more than 32000 pages, and it has the same amount of time as I have on this forum.  The topic existed before merits, and has existed since the first day of merits. It has survived a lot on this forum, it will survive this phase.

[JayJuanGee]

I don't think anyone's credibility is being questioned here. It's just a difference of opinions. And as one of the WO "regulars" explained to us peasants, our opinions don't matter anyway.

Ok.  Aren't you undermining the argument that smerit sending/receiving should be disabled on the WO thread?

If you are tolerant regarding the idea of differences of opinions, then wouldn't you be tolerant of ideas about differences of opinions in regards to members who have smerits using their own individual discretion in order to decide which posts they want to send smerits, and if so, how many smerits they would like to send to such posts?

If you see a problem with abuse of discretion, then report those posts... or put together a package of posts and then report them all, and if theymos and/or his merit czar (if he happens to have a secret one) agree with your report, then maybe he will remove that member as a source or reduce his/her source amount.

The problem is TOO BIG, right?




right???






rrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhttttttt?? ?? ?? ??


That's why dumb-ass, drastic, spiteful, elitist and perhaps other categories of thingies measures need to be taken in order that we no longer have nice things.. which is a nice little WO thread... that some members in this here forum seem to NOT appreciate.



I am starting to get the sense of what is being said here.  




The amount of smerits being sent on the WO thread is too damned high!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  







AmInotrite?

[LoyceV]

The amount of smerits being sent on the WO thread is too damned high!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  
~
AmInotrite?

I made this post yesterday:

Observing 27,145@stamp
Where am I?

In the past

It received 4 Merit. I've made better posts that received 0 Merit. I think it's safe to say earning Merit in WO is even easier than in Meta.

[vapourminer]

I made this post yesterday:

Observing 27,145@stamp
Where am I?

In the past

It received 4 Merit. I've made better posts that received 0 Merit. I think it's safe to say earning Merit in WO is even easier than in Meta.

it gave me a chuckle for whatever reason - so one merit from me... thats my story and im sticking to it

and now i must resist going back and giving 49 more.

[fillippone]

I made this post yesterday:

Observing 27,145@stamp
Where am I?

In the past

It received 4 Merit. I've made better posts that received 0 Merit. I think it's safe to say earning Merit in WO is even easier than in Meta.

it gave me a chuckle for whatever reason - so one merit from me... thats my story and im sticking to it

and now i must resist going back and giving 49 more.

That was a damn good post.
The kind of humour I like on theWO. A good giggle is worth my standard amount of merits.
If you point me toward your best post I might , or might not merit shower also those.

[Ludmilla_rose1995]

merit on the WO thread in my opinion is like the like button on social media, so if the merit is disabled from the WO thread, how can other members like each other's posts with the same WO members?

but what about the idea if the merits obtained on the WO thread cannot be shared use it in another thread, is there any possibility to make something like that?

[ibminer]

The amount of smerits being sent on the WO thread is too damned high!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  
~
AmInotrite?

I made this post yesterday:

Observing 27,145@stamp
Where am I?

In the past

It received 4 Merit. I've made better posts that received 0 Merit. I think it's safe to say earning Merit in WO is even easier than in Meta.

It was pretty funny given the situation, if my sMerit supply wasn't so precious to me (I won't bore you with the meme.), I probably would have merit'd it.

With WO being one of the more active threads on the forum, it stands to reason that there would be a higher flow of sMerit in that thread.. maybe with more active sources viewing it?

In some ways, I think it should be easy to get merits for simple witty posts that entertain people, in other ways I think it should be somewhat difficult to make people put more time and effort into what they post to earn the merit.. but then I wouldn't want to discourage or devalue something like what LoyceVMobile posted.  

[joker_josue]

This little example shows that merit worked correctly. Even if it doesn't seem like the sight of some readers.

The merit should be given when someone's post meets our ideas, stirs our emotions or a way to agree with what is said.
The merits should not be limited when indicating the work a user has had writing or developing a project for the community.
Merit is much more than that. We need to understand that.

[suchmoon]

I don't think anyone's credibility is being questioned here. It's just a difference of opinions. And as one of the WO "regulars" explained to us peasants, our opinions don't matter anyway.

Ok.  Aren't you undermining the argument that smerit sending/receiving should be disabled on the WO thread?

I never said that it should be disabled. Some merit sources could be more careful with the privilege bestowed upon them by the almighty forum dictator, but that's just my opinion.

If you are tolerant regarding the idea of differences of opinions, then wouldn't you be tolerant of ideas about differences of opinions in regards to members who have smerits using their own individual discretion in order to decide which posts they want to send smerits, and if so, how many smerits they would like to send to such posts?

Source smerit sending discretion has limits and those limits have been successfully tested in the past (i.e. merit sources have been stripped of their privileges for misuse). Generally speaking, if there is a scenario where shitposters get merited by a source so consistently that they can successfully farm merits, that to me sounds like a problem for the forum even if it's perfectly fine for WO.

If you see a problem with abuse of discretion, then report those posts... or put together a package of posts and then report them all, and if theymos and/or his merit czar (if he happens to have a secret one) agree with your report, then maybe he will remove that member as a source or reduce his/her source amount.

There is no way to report posts for incorrect meriting (I mean one could report them but that would do fuck all other than a bunch of bad reports).

The problem is TOO BIG, right?

It's a problem. Not even in the top 10 BIG problems on this forum IMO.

AmInotrite?

I'll give you a solid maybe on that one.

[JayJuanGee]

I made this post yesterday:

Observing 27,145@stamp
Where am I?

In the past

It received 4 Merit. I've made better posts that received 0 Merit. I think it's safe to say earning Merit in WO is even easier than in Meta.

it gave me a chuckle for whatever reason - so one merit from me... thats my story and im sticking to it

and now i must resist going back and giving 49 more.

It made me giggle too.. but for whatever reason I did not end up sending an smerit to that particular post.. even though I have sent smerits to similar kinds of posts.. and whatever random thing that might be going on with me at the time too.. or maybe I ran out of smerits at the time.. so yeah a bit of randomness, perhaps?

.. I think describing why one of us might send several smerits to a seemingly low quality post (from a usually (overwhelmingly) high quality production robotic-like member) goes to the point that there is quite a bit of subjectivism in smerit sending, and surely there is no problem with theymos saying that he would prefer smerit sending from sources to aim towards the meriting of the higher of quality posts - but there is still no exact resolution towards getting away from a certain level of subjectivity and even any of us could have days in which our judgement might happen to be fogged and even perverted.. and surely if any of the merit source members are acting in those kinds of ways on a regular and ongoing basis, theymos may well choose to remove them as merit source members and/or to reduce the quantity of their source smerits.

We could also back theymos in a corner, if we might publicly proclaim that our purpose might happen to be to do the opposite of what he has stated to be concerns of his regarding the sending out of smerits.. and yeah sure threads like these might push the subject matter and even contribute towards theymos considering that some actions might be needed by him... but I am still having my doubts regarding the extent to which either OP or the paradoy OP have pointed out concerns to actually show that there is some kind of a problem in which there is questionable objective value to some posts that are getting merited by some merit source members.. just for shitz and giggles...

.....but even shitz and giggles does not rise to the level abuse, corruption and/or quid pro quo, which seems to be more in the baliwick of smerit distribution devolution that theymos might well feel that he would need to see in order to actually conclude that the problem is worthy of some kind of a solution attempt. and the dumbass kind of a solution of creating a change that ONLY affects the WO thread seems a wee bit nutso.. but hey. .anything can happen, even if a couple of nutsos creating threads to argue such nutso ideareas.. ..

....or maybe if we go by the recent ruling against the SEC, I am not even sure if merit source members would need to be arbitrary and capricious in their smerit sending in order to be enough to disqualify them from carrying out their smerit sending because there would likely need to be some level of showing bad faith rather than their randomness or not really having any kind of a reason for the merits they sent.. although , I am sure that theymos does prefer some kind of conscientiousness in the smerit sending.. rather than pure aribtrariness.. and the idea of capricious does have some kind of irresponsibility built into it.. and maybe in that regard, I recall that QuestionAuthority was removed as a merit source member after he had engaged in some seemingly random game-related merit distribution practices...and who knows what else was going on with QA (that was of theymos's then concern).. and maybe the QA example goes to the idea that some level of publicness might push theymos into feeling that maybe some kind of action from him might be preferable.

[philipma1957]

Ahh just remember bitcointalk.org signature campaigns are worth huge amounts of coin to lots of people.

So shutting wo thread from merits may not really help the website.

I think keeping enough but not too much signature action is a big function of bitcointalk.

[nutildah]

merit on the WO thread in my opinion is like the like button on social media, so if the merit is disabled from the WO thread, how can other members like each other's posts with the same WO members?

Simple, you just reply "+1 WOmerit". It's been a tradition in the thread for a few years now.

This little example shows that merit worked correctly. Even if it doesn't seem like the sight of some readers.

The merit should be given when someone's post meets our ideas, stirs our emotions or a way to agree with what is said.
The merits should not be limited when indicating the work a user has had writing or developing a project for the community.
Merit is much more than that. We need to understand that.

I don't really understand what you've been attempting to say here, at all... You keep framing the discussion in ways that are irrelevant to the original topic at hand.

I don't care how anybody spends their merits outside of the WO thread.

It's just blatantly obvious that the low moderation standard for that particular thread has created a spam problem, which is due to the regular meriting of low-quality, cut-and-paste posts.

Actually its gotten a lot better in there since this thread started to gain some traction. No doubt they will be back at it after attention shifts away from the issue.