Request: Disable merits in the Wall Observer thread

[PowerGlove]

The WO thread is its own cool little universe. I don't know if there's a good way to balance (1) trying to control the volume of merit getting thrown around all willy-nilly, against (2) trying not to disturb the WO's whole "Fuck you! We do what we want!" thing...

One thought that must have come up over and over (I see DPD mentioned it a few posts up, but, I'm pretty sure that I've encountered it several times before) is to separate ordinary merit from "WO merit". I really like that idea, but, having a bunch of extra logic and presentation-wise stuff in place for just one thread seems like something that theymos wouldn't seriously consider doing. (I guess, a more general version of this idea would be to have board/topic based "merit weights". As in, if it's particularly easy to earn merit on Meta, for example, then merit earned there should be scaled down by some factor during balance calculation. Because all merit transactions are stored in the database individually, this idea could be applied retroactively, and I think I see a way for it to be done pretty efficiently, too.)

Another idea that I've been rolling around for a while now is to allow 0-merit sends. Sending someone "0" merits could be thought of as sending them a "like" (and, for example, instead of it displaying above a post as "LoyceV (0)", it could appear as "LoyceV (L)" or "LoyceV (+)", or something). I could see a "like system" based on 0-merit sends being very straightforward to implement (with maybe a one-click "+Like" button next to the "+Merit" button to make the whole thing feel more natural). I mean, that idea is worth pursuing all on its own, IMO, but, connecting it back to what we're talking about now: I wonder if the WO regulars would be very against the idea of their thread being made "like-only"? (If that's too heavy-handed, then maybe something that still allows for them to merit other regulars, but limits them to just 0-merit "likes" for new arrivals that haven't yet made 100 WO posts, or something. That way, WO regulars can form a substantial impression of someone before they dump actual merit on them. And, in the course of a merit-seeking spammer trying to cross that threshold, they'll hopefully end up on a few important ignore lists.)

There are a bunch of other "soft spots" on the forum that account farmers seem to rely on. It would be nice if it became a convention for certain kinds of threads to be marked by the creator as "like-only". In my view, you shouldn't be able to formulaically rank-up an account by carving a pumpkin, baking a pie, making a shitty pizza, and then repeating agreeable things on the WO. Off-topic, but, one thing I really miss is how selective DarkStar_ was when it came to assigning slots for the ChipMixer campaign. That campaign was pretty much the reason I joined Bitcointalk to begin with (in fact, I only fell into the whole SMF-patching thing because I was trying to get my merit-to-post ratio high enough for it to make sense for DarkStar_ to admit me as soon as I hit "Sr. Member"). Looking at Bitcointalk now, I don't think I'd join today... I used to get strong cypherpunk vibes from this place (even correcting for my naive view of the forum at the time). Now it feels like some kind of weird third-world school where the passing grade has been lowered over and over and all the "graduates" are idiots (I mean, I realize that that statement doesn't make much sense when you look back further and consider that rank used to depend only on post count, and then only on activity, before depending on merit, too. I'm just talking about the decline I've noticed during the 3 years that I've been paying attention).

[JollyGood]

As that been discussed for and it has not led to any acceptable resolution (the status quo remains), what can actually be done?

Granted those that are comfortable giving merits in WO, the onus nevertheless has to be on them to avoid what others could deem to be as a frivolous use of merits because it only encourages account farmers to keep churning out accounts.

Had action been taken a long time, this situation would not have occurred.

I'm sure removing merit from that section is the best thing for the majority of bitcointalk users.

I think this as well but the thread poll results would suggest we are in the minority.

[stwenhao]

I am able to earn 0 merit... in my local section.

Local section is a different story. There is much less traffic, and also, you correctly noticed, that merits are always subjective. They are similar to "likes", but just have a more serious name.

All my posts worthless ? ALL ?!? ....

No, it just means, that people are either hoarding merits, or there are not enough sources in a given place.

And casually all people that write "yes thank you" or "yes I agree with you" .... These deserve merits because I have said something useful or something right?

Giving a merit is very similar to writing "+1", "thank you", "I agree", or something similar. Theymos didn't receive a single merit from Satoshi, but when he got "+1", then you can look at it in the same way, as if he would get it.

Because this is the main reason, why the whole merit system was invented. If all posts would have high quality, then that system would never be needed, because the mere presence of a given post would imply, that it is worth reading. And this is the case for example in mailing lists, where everything is strictly moderated. But when you have a forum, where newbies are also invited, then something like merit system is needed, just because newbies don't want to see "your post is waiting for approval" after writing anything.

And also, the presence of "+1", "thank you", or similar posts, instead of merits, is usually a hint, that instead of writing it, merits should be sent. Which is why I think some people should be able to somehow reach negative amounts of merits, which could be filled by those with positive balance. Then, we wouldn't need topics like "link posts to merit sources", but instead, some users could do that from UI directly, and that list of posts could be browsed by sources. Maybe it is a good idea, to have a rank somewhere between "source", and "non-source", where some people would be able to fill that kind of lists (making it open for everyone would be too spammy I guess).

My own definition of giving a merit is "this post is not a spam". I can disagree with someone, and merit that person anyway. Maybe I want to correct someone, who is wrong, by quoting that person, and pointing it out (and also sending a merit, because if something is worth replying to, then it is usually also worth a merit).

And then, it becomes semi-automated: if something is quoted, then it is usually merited (unless blacklisted). And if something is "not a spam", then it can be whitelisted. By using "quotelist - blacklist + whitelist", I can spend many merits, without thinking too much about it (and of course, it is never fully automated, so each merit requires a manual action from me; my tools can only make suggestions, not decisions).

I guess, a more general version of this idea would be to have board/topic based "merit weights".

It is already implemented. You can give any amount from 1 to 50. If you want to split it between WO merits, and non-WO merits, then just send a single merit in one place, and two merits everywhere else.

Not to mention that merit history can be explored by anyone on pages like BPIP, so maybe it is just a matter of adding some rows and columns, when displaying statistics of a given user.

Another idea that I've been rolling around for a while now is to allow 0-merit sends. Sending someone "0" merits could be thought of as sending them a "like" (and, for example, instead of it displaying above a post as "LoyceV (0)", it could appear as "LoyceV (L)" or "LoyceV (+)", or something).

Sending things should have some costs. If that would be implemented, then users would need to provide some Proof of Work, before sending zero merits.

Also, merits should be treated as "likes". It has a serious name, but it is just an anti-spam feature, really.

I wonder if the WO regulars would be very against the idea of their thread being made "like-only"?

I think it is better to link posts to people, who have plenty of merits. And then, they can give just one, if they like the content.

In my view, you shouldn't be able to formulaically rank-up an account by carving a pumpkin, baking a pie, making a shitty pizza, and then repeating agreeable things on the WO.

Merits are always subjective. And I think demerits should be avoided. If you think, that there should be less content, then this is what can be achieved by making moderated threads, where every post would be reviewed by someone, before being published. Some places, like mailing lists, are using that model, the question is: do you want to see it here?

Looking at Bitcointalk now, I don't think I'd join today...

You can always try to reach more moderated places, like mailing list, GitHub comments, Delving Bitcoin, or things like that. They have higher standards than forum, and if you wonder, why developers are no longer as active here, as they were in the past, then I can give you an answer: they just moved somewhere else.

But, if you decide to join different places, then be prepared for your posts being rejected. Or be prepared to wait a few days, to see your content published. It is all normal and healthy: if there are higher requirements, then obviously, there is less content.

Now it feels like some kind of weird third-world school where the passing grade has been lowered over and over and all the "graduates" are idiots

Because it is often the case. There are many things, which I would like to see (and merit), but they are not there yet, because a lot of effort is needed, to make them. And it is yet another reason, why I usually send a single merit, and not "50". Also, receiving a single merit from 10 people is usually worth more in my eyes, than a single person sending 10 merits, because then, there is a bigger circle of people, who need my content, and think I am not a spammer.

As that been discussed for and it has not led to any acceptable resolution (the status quo remains), what can actually be done?

And what is done, when some features for BTC are proposed, and rejected? Well, you make a soft-fork, or a no-fork solution, and then it pushes things one step forward (some people also make altcoins, but then, they are usually worse than the original version).

Want to see zero merits flying around? Write a plugin for a browser (hint: put some Proof of Work or other protections, to avoid being flooded). Want to separate WO merits from normal merits? Just display them differently, and count them differently in statistics. There are a lot of things, which can be solved by plugins or third party tools like BPIP, if they won't be solved officially, by changing the code on server's side. If server cannot meet your requests, then you have to modify the client, or make another server, which will do, what you want.

Do you think I should make a "WO Explorer" on Talksearch to help with the thread navigation?

Yes, of course, that's the spirit! This is exactly what should be done in practice: less complaining, more coding. Because this is what can really push things forward.

[OgNasty]

Come on... it's evident that some "users" are using this specific power to enrich themself and probably to keep some sections like shit.

Enrich themselves?  Merit is worthless. 

Do you think I should make a "WO Explorer" on Talksearch to help with the thread navigation?

Why would I care one way or the other?  As long as what you're doing isn't negatively effecting anyone else, do what makes you happy.

[bitbollo]

OGNasty,
those accounts that receive merits are able to "rank up" in the forum. After you had a good rank you get enrolled in a signature campaign.
Maybe it's worthless but if you have it... you can earn money on the forum. It's not like anymore like 2014 where accounts grow thanks to activity.

Moreover as we have seen in collectibles, accounts could be easily used for scamming people after have a kind of trust...
Some guys are even collecting personal data as "side job" from this section of other collectors! ...  they think this is "normal" but no its not .
 
Now you had to receive merits. But these are assigned "based on mood of the source".
I can try to understand stwenhao post, but it's evident something isn't working since 95% of post merited are only from certain guys and something like:

"Are they like AIs that do things with trading? I don't understand. Where can I find something to read about it? Thanks to anyone who can provide me with information."
"Here we go! Now it's beer and chips, but where are the beer and chips? So now you're part of the Olympus of the gods, lucky you. Good for you."
"And here you are right, definitely worth selling."

These are the first two (unofficial) rules of the forum. It's clear that this section is not applying rules anymore. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0
1. No zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads. [1][e]
2. No off-topic posts.

It's clear that retard messages receive dozens of merits for no reason, meanwhile long explanation about bitcoin remains without merits (maybe because the poster is not an alt account or some friend of a scammer).
If we continue to keep all "at personal evaluation" it's clear that scammers can just support between them.
Some local sections (and not only full threads like WO) are already pure garbage with no real users but just clones or clones supporter.

If you support those cheap scammers, you're supporting in some way a scam behaviour that would impact brands advertising in forum, even the way we trust each other.
Did you think it's normal there are "cartels" of scammers that have growth Hero and Legendary accounts by farming merits?
I don't think this is something ok, so it's better to keep ALL posted in public about this argument.
If I have spent 162 days on the forum has been for bitcoin and for community (the good part of community) that is here around.

[stwenhao]

I can try to understand stwenhao post, but it's evident something isn't working

Now it feels like some kind of weird third-world school where the passing grade has been lowered over and over and all the "graduates" are idiots

Because it is often the case.

I agree, that "something isn't working". It is all about making this forum just a bit better place, even if it is invaded by troggs.

And you don't have to convince me, that there are places with higher standards. As I said, developers are already somewhere else. Here, many people just treat this forum as a playground, where they can post things, which they never would in more moderated areas.

It's clear that this section is not applying rules anymore.

Of course. If moderators can give one-word answers, then why users shouldn't:

other one word posts

However, it can be crafted with some math, without any forks.

Nope.

It's clear that retard messages receive dozens of merits for no reason

Of course. Because, again, as I said, merits are similar to "likes", but they have just a more serious name. And a lot of merits are sent just for fun, between closed circles of people, who like each other, and they merit mainly themselves. It was always like that.

meanwhile long explanation about bitcoin remains without merits

That's why I think some people should be allowed to make a list of links with good posts, directly from UI. But, again, it requires some effort, writing some code, a plugin for a browser, or something. And also, it requires some anti-spam protection, to not be flooded by every newbie, trying to suggest every single post as a candidate to be merited.

If we continue to keep all "at personal evaluation" it's clear that scammers can just support between them.

Without merits, there would be just more spam, like it was before this system was introduced. With demerits, there will be wars between users, who hate each other. So, what exactly do you want to change, and how?

Did you think it's normal there are "cartels" of scammers that have growth Hero and Legendary accounts by farming merits?

It's not. But every system can be abused in that way or another. Bitcoin is also used for many illegal activities, as well as fiat currencies are. It is clear, that merit system is abused in some places, but to limit that abuse, you have to invent better rules, and deploy something, which would limit such cases. So, how do you want to do that?

[bitbollo]

@stwenhao
Lets be clear here, since I am seeing a questionable "defense" on your side.

If a moderator or a reputable user posts one time a "one word" comments, doens't means nothing since this is just "one time". And probably this was an answer to provide, maybe has just avoided a long text because he is not earning from signature .
If there are users that have reached the higher ranks creating ALL worthless messages, yes this is worth. And there are dozens of these.
This is ongoing clearly from years and anyone could just check how 90-95% of merits are collected by just few users with non sense post.

You decide to make this assumption (wrong) that merits are "like +1" .
No this is not the meaning and clearly people are using for launching altaccounts/scam brands that advertising here.
Even if you consider as "like +1". Some users have reached higher level of yours granting 0 meaning on the forum.

Even another assumption (wrong) is that without merits the forum will be garbage.
In this way we created the "elite garbage" where "questionable" users that have hundreds of merits can decide who can be a shitposter and who not.
This has just created a new category "spammer supported by merit sources" .

Of course any system could be abused. That's why I am highlighting this... I am not proposing a solution but just clearly exposing an issue.
Also because I continue to highlight that some of these users involved ARE STOLEN PRIVATE DATA OF OTHER USERS... it's clear they are acting in a fraudolent way and they don't deserve any kind of trust/respect.

Of course, if the same users are also merit source it's an offense for ALL serious /trusted users of the forum or all people that are following this community.

[EarnOnVictor]

Granted those that are comfortable giving merits in WO, the onus nevertheless has to be on them to avoid what others could deem to be as a frivolous use of merits because it only encourages account farmers to keep churning out accounts.

Had action been taken a long time, this situation would not have occurred.

Many unfair things are going on in the WO section indeed, but nothing is completely fair anywhere, which is why I don't care if they allow merits there or not. As some posts were not worth meriting, but attracted more merit there, the same thing is happening elsewhere on the forum, while those posts that are worth meriting are overlooked.

On this ground, I say the WO section's merit should be left alone, removing its merits is tantamount to overcontrolling. It has been stripped of its signature appearance, which should be enough.

Perhaps, they should limit the maximum merit permissible per post on the thread.

[mindrust]

If we disable merit usage on certain threads, there will be no end to it. Eventually it will be banned in most mega threads. Not sure how that makes sense.

The thing is account farmers will always find a way to exploit the system no matter which one is in place. It is because they adapt.

Why not establish a system that only allows users only making minimum 2 pages long academic level posts to be  ranked up?

Or just demand a PhD for the legendary membership.

The quality would go through the roof. All sig campers would be as wise as Gandalf the White.

**opens chat gpt**

-hey mf tell me how to write posts like gandalf the whitey would

[bitbollo]

@mindtrust
Since account farmers are always finding new way this means we had to stop to make proposal to avoid their bad / scam behaviour? Interesting theory let me say this.

Regarding the other part of your post, I don't know if you're serious or ironic, but no one asked or suggested going from one extreme to the other.
It's clear that certain accounts have accumulated a quantity of merits that reached the level "scam against the forum", scam against its users, and against the signature system.

If we consider any act of issuing merit as "at the sole discretion of a user who cannot be removed or judged"... (more feudalism system than a modern ones) it's clear that some "smart guys" have clearly taken advantage of this...

You can jokes as much as you want. However if you are going to trust a guy that rigged the merit system, you're trusting the same guy that has collected (doxx) of private users ...and so on... I don't know how much these users could be trusted or public defended but it is always funny to read certain messages

[nutildah]

I've come to peace with the reality that my request won't be put into practice, and that's fine. I just needed a place to park a post so I didn't have to open a new thread about it. Because its not that big of a deal. I just find some things annoying and in my own weird way I'm trying to potentially protect other forum members from dishonest people... I can't not call it out when I see it, or at least when I think I'm seeing it.

[ABCbits]

Another idea that I've been rolling around for a while now is to allow 0-merit sends. Sending someone "0" merits could be thought of as sending them a "like" (and, for example, instead of it displaying above a post as "LoyceV (0)", it could appear as "LoyceV (L)" or "LoyceV (+)", or something). I could see a "like system" based on 0-merit sends being very straightforward to implement (with maybe a one-click "+Like" button next to the "+Merit" button to make the whole thing feel more natural).

It's not bad idea. But it needs some limitation, since it could be misused as another form spam. Imagine a post receive "like" from 1000 different account or account created with username that contain their advertising keyword (for example, "EXAMPLE.COM (+)", "WWW.EXAMPLE.COM (+)", "EXAMPLE.COM 200% BITCOIN").

[Xiestar]

This is why I keep criticizing signature campaign manager that keep accepting user based on the merit count without considering what thread or board they get most of it.

There’s a lot of this user enrolled on Rollbit campaign that allow new bloods user that obviously farm merit through this board and other mega spam board that merit is flooded either from merit source or their merit circle. If no campaign manager accept this kind of user account farmer through merit will be eliminated because most of this user is low quality poster in gambling board mostly posting about football too obvious discussion based on sports article.

The previous signature campaign standard that only based on post quality and content instead of merit count sometimes much better rather than the current basis that is pro merit farmer.

Newbie posting immediately on thread that has high merit distribution and have a good knowledge is an obvious alt.

[mindrust]

@mindtrust
Since account farmers are always finding new way this means we had to stop to make proposal to avoid their bad / scam behaviour? Interesting theory let me say this.

Regarding the other part of your post, I don't know if you're serious or ironic, but no one asked or suggested going from one extreme to the other.
It's clear that certain accounts have accumulated a quantity of merits that reached the level "scam against the forum", scam against its users, and against the signature system.

If we consider any act of issuing merit as "at the sole discretion of a user who cannot be removed or judged"... (more feudalism system than a modern ones) it's clear that some "smart guys" have clearly taken advantage of this...

You can jokes as much as you want. However if you are going to trust a guy that rigged the merit system, you're trusting the same guy that has collected (doxx) of private users ...and so on... I don't know how much these users could be trusted or public defended but it is always funny to read certain messages

Merit system worked for a while until it didn't. I am all for ending the spam but let's face it, campaign managers can hire accounts with very low earned merits too if they wanted to and a person with low earned merits might be a person that produces better posts than the OG's of the forum.

They probably do that individual inspections on the accounts before they hire people for signature campaigns anyway. And If they don't, that's the problem we need to solve because this problem, actually has a real solution unlike the problem that is described in the title of this thread.

[JollyGood]

Apart from the issues related to the WO thread, the whole merit system system itself could do with some kind of overhaul. Exactly how some posts are merited will always be debatable but to have a two-tier system where some members are (and some are not) merit source, is not healthy as far as community cohesion is concerned.

[Satofan44]

Merit system worked for a while until it didn't.

I don't know the state of things before this system, but it is clear that it does not work at all. Almost all posts everywhere I go are junk, very few are non generic garbage. If a system like this was working, over time most posts would converge on the quality of d5000's posts. As people genuinely try to do research, learn and improve their content then the average post quality must continue to rise consistently.

I am all for ending the spam but let's face it, campaign managers can hire accounts with very low earned merits too if they wanted to and a person with low earned merits might be a person that produces better posts than the OG's of the forum.

While it is rare, it is possible and does occasionally happen.

They probably do that individual inspections on the accounts before they hire people for signature campaigns anyway. And If they don't, that's the problem we need to solve because this problem,

Who exactly do you refer to as we? I don't see how average members could do anything about the campaign manager's behavior. The administration or the default trust people could solve it easily.

actually has a real solution unlike the problem that is described in the title of this thread.

While I would not mind individual improvements such as the proposed in the OP, I agree with you. There is very bad merit farming and cycling in local sections that this would not do too much. Whenever I see an user with more merit than is warranted by his post quality, I quickly find that he has earned them in local sections for short or generic posts.  

[virasog]

While some people say that the merit system needs an change and there are others who complain that they don't get merits even on their useful posts. The biggest problem at WO is not that people get merit on worthless posts but the real concern is that there are few peoples who share merits among themselves and those people are only active on WO.

Recently, many new merit sources were introduced on the forum. I wonder if any of them focus on merits only at WO ?

[joker_josue]

Merit system worked for a while until it didn't.

I don't know the state of things before this system, but it is clear that it does not work at all. Almost all posts everywhere I go are junk, very few are non generic garbage. If a system like this was working, over time most posts would converge on the quality of d5000's posts. As people genuinely try to do research, learn and improve their content then the average post quality must continue to rise consistently.

Not really. To achieve this kind of scale, the cycle of new users would need to be non-constant, there would be no alt accounts, and some of the good posters would need to stay.

Like any system, it is infallible against abuse. Unfortunately, abuses do occur. But for me, the problem isn't who receives, but who gives. In turn, if someone is free to give merits to whomever they want, even if I don't agree with those choices, that's their right.

actually has a real solution unlike the problem that is described in the title of this thread.

While I would not mind individual improvements such as the proposed in the OP, I agree with you. There is very bad merit farming and cycling in local sections that this would not do too much. Whenever I see an user with more merit than is warranted by his post quality, I quickly find that he has earned them in local sections for short or generic posts.  

This is also very subjective. Someone can write a very good post and receive a lot of merits, and then write 30 weak posts and receive zero merits.



Anyway, I see this conversation as being more about creating rules for assigning merits than anything else. It seems people have forgotten that there's always been a lot of freedom on the forum, and they want to impose similar rules—unfairly—to those that exist offline.

[mindrust]

Merit system worked for a while until it didn't.

I don't know the state of things before this system, but it is clear that it does not work at all. Almost all posts everywhere I go are junk, very few are non generic garbage. If a system like this was working, over time most posts would converge on the quality of d5000's posts. As people genuinely try to do research, learn and improve their content then the average post quality must continue to rise consistently.

I am all for ending the spam but let's face it, campaign managers can hire accounts with very low earned merits too if they wanted to and a person with low earned merits might be a person that produces better posts than the OG's of the forum.

While it is rare, it is possible and does occasionally happen.

They probably do that individual inspections on the accounts before they hire people for signature campaigns anyway. And If they don't, that's the problem we need to solve because this problem,

Who exactly do you refer to as we? I don't see how average members could do anything about the campaign manager's behavior. The administration or the default trust people could solve it easily.

actually has a real solution unlike the problem that is described in the title of this thread.

While I would not mind individual improvements such as the proposed in the OP, I agree with you. There is very bad merit farming and cycling in local sections that this would not do too much. Whenever I see an user with more merit than is warranted by his post quality, I quickly find that he has earned them in local sections for short or generic posts.  

At the beginning when the merit system was new it stopped the account farmers for a while. I'd say the forum gained a couple of spam-free years because of it but since they figured out how to game it, yes that time is over.

By "We" I mean all of us. Everybody can express his opinion here so we can all do something about it by showing our concerns.

And those who farm their merits in local boards or mega threads, they don't get to join quality high paying sig camps so easily as far as I am aware. They do join sig camps with lower pays though and that's because managers need to hire people either way and there is a shortage of good poster supply.

Let's say for a moment campaign manager refused to hire low quality legendary accounts... then they'd have to hire good posters with lower ranks, but the problem is this time, their account rank isn't high enough to display more complicated signatures.

When enough number of good quality posters emerge and get their ranks, those low quality posters with legendary accounts will be driven out of business.

Merit&account rank is only a deciding factor at the moment because the forum lacks the supply of good posters. Maybe it is not the managers' fault too as I originally thought.

[JayJuanGee]

Apart from the issues related to the WO thread, the whole merit system system itself could do with some kind of overhaul. Exactly how some posts are merited will always be debatable but to have a two-tier system where some members are (and some are not) merit source, is not a healthy as far as community cohesion is concerned.

For sure, the merit system is not without tradeoffs, but you might need to be more specific in what you are suggesting, since it surely would be nice if theymos would increase the number or merit sources rather than reduce them, as seemed to have had happened in his last somewhat global changes.  He went from something like 130 merit sources down to 88.. so he seems to be working in the opposite direction of your suggestion.

Another thing is that overseeing the merit system is likely a lot of work that theymos does not really want to do, which seems to be more apparent from his actions rather than anything specific that he has said in recent times on the topic.

Perhaps he needs a merit czar, but the person would need to be someone he trusts to follow the spirit of what he wants, which seems to be mostly a hands off kind of a system (maybe a person who is already on the staff that he has already screened for the characteristics that he considers good for a person carrying out such oversight duties - to the extent that he has not already created such position without saying anything since it might not need to be publicly known who such person is - even though there is value in some level of openness too in regards to some kinds of things, even though I doubt it is known exactly how some of the administrative matters are decided).

In any case, I am having trouble getting away from your observation of a two-tiered system that is currently existing.. yet maybe there could be a way to expand the merit source members and to cut back on the quantity of smerit sources per member.. so maybe no member has more than 210 smerits per 30 days, for example (that would be on average of 7 per day - those seem like reasonable top end numbers).. but then there might be members with various lower levels of smerits in their monthly source.. maybe starting out at 15 per 30 days)... but if there were too many merit source members, such as more than 2,100 (work up from 88 to 210 and maybe see how that goes before trying to add another 100 or 200 and then see how that goes - so yeah my random number of 2,100 might be too many), then that would likely lead to abuse of too many smerits, and take us back to pre-merit spamming days... which would keep the merit czar overly busy in the kinds of work that theymos would likely prefer to avoid drama and work and perhaps avoid too much change.

I would not claim to have enough information to know any kind of possibly balanced solution that would be clearly better than the sttus qo, even though my sense is that it is difficult to get completely out of two tiered, even if there could be some attempts at leveling out the matter, but that tends to take work. and maybe theymos has to learn to trust some one with such oversight  duties... There's gotta be someone who is somewhat compatible with his views on the topic, yet at the same time capable of helping in the oversight of such merit system matter (while being more help than hinderance)..    

I get the sense that theymos is viewing the matter more closely to a kind of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" kind of a view, even though surely there are some members who are somewhat reasonably discontented by the current way merit systems are... and yeah, I agree overall witht he idea that the number is too high. I doubt that a two-tiered elimination and/or meaningul reduction is going to be possible, even though there probably could be some possible ways to expand the merit source members to a level that might be a goal of reaching a few hundred rather than the current less than 100 count.