Request: Disable JayJuanGee in the Wall Observer thread

[BobLawblaw]

Merit farming in the WO thread has gotten way out of hand.

Its been a problem for years now but really ramped up this year. Although I can't prove it, I strongly suspect we're now seeing merit farmers creating alt accounts which they use to send merits back to their main accounts, with the end goal being to enroll as many alts in signature campaigns as they can.

The typical merit farmer post is a copy/pasted tweet from a large bitcoin-focused Twitter account, complete with picture and (often in smaller text) the word "source" with a link to the tweet. These accounts are literally just taking popular tweets and pasting them in WO for no other reason than to get merits. You'll see them on just about every single page of the thread this year.

This type of post is bad for a few reasons:

 - It is a distraction that dilutes honest conversation between good faith participants.
 - It is lazy, dishonest, and often wholly unnecessary.
 - It lends to promotion of a culture of cheating.

The meriting of these posts is creating a positive feedback system where merit farmers are encouraged to continue this behavior... as a result the only skill they're actually developing is how to extract merits from senior WO posters.

The simple solution to the problem is to disable JayJuanGee

[1714900870]

1714900870

[1714900870]

1714900870

[1714900870]

1714900870

[1714900870]

1714900870

[1714900870]

1714900870

[_act_]

Where are your evidences? You are not new on this forum.

I do not know many of you from wall observer, but no one on this forum that will not know JayJuanGee. He is still one of the best from you people. He dedicate time to read the posts from other boards and merit the good ones.

[sheenshane]

IMO, name it and we have a reputation board to investigate it.
There's a punishment for sure for those proven that they are account farming.

The simple solution to the problem is to disable JayJuanGee

Not a perfect solution, or ask JayJuanGee to increase his/her way of giving merit on that board.

[Nwada001]

Is this post a recreation of the one created a day ago? As I can recall commenting and voting on a similar thread that has a different title, maybe this is just an answer to your (Op's) answer and solution to the raised issue. I have come across JayJuanGee on a few threads, and he is a good merit distributor, and at the same time, he knows how to identify a good post when he sees one, no matter the page where the post is located on a particular thread. If the issue of merit farming is to be addressed and a permanent solution provided, then I don't think disabling just one member is the best option, as he is not the only one given merit there.

It should be better to disable the entire merit system on that board than just disable one person, as other merit-source and non-merit-source members will still send merit to those merit farmers unknowingly.

[JeromeTash]

I doubt if this will ever happen under theymos' watch.

I am not a wall observer regular, but JayJuanGee seems to be the kind of merit source who tries as much as possible to distribute merit across different boards and not just wall observer. I say this because I have received some merits from him a couple of times, yet I am a low merit earn because of the boards I post in at times.

In fact, he and vapourminer seem to read through different threads and merit whenever they can, and I don't even remember ever directly interacting with them. I have seen some users abuse the merit system so bad with their reorganized alt accounts and have gone unpunished.

I think we shouldn't discourage such good, unbiased merit sources. Maybe try to talk to him rather than just disable (censor) him.

[Little Mouse]

Are you questioning merit sharing capability of JJG? JJG isn't of course a part of the gang. He is sharing merit based on his perception. I don't think you should be much worried about this and as a result, requesting to disable JJG. Come on.
If the users are generating such low level spam, report them. Disabling JJG isn't the solution. Instead, maybe you can request for disabling certain rank users. Maybe, only Hero+ can post. Or maybe Sr+. That is how you can prevent the merit farming there. If JJG is disabled in WO, someone else may do the same. The problem will be there forever.

[SamReomo]

I would strongly disagree to disable JJG or any other member of the WO from distribution of merits or from posting there. We all know that JJG has been doing great on the forum and he has been meriting posts outside of the WO thread. There are so many good members of the WO thread on this forum and they aren't doing anything wrong by meriting the posts. I don't think that disabling a member or merit system from that thread could be any helpful for the forum because I have personally seen many members who aren't contributing good information to the forum and still they are getting so many merits from their local boards. If someone wants to take proper action against merit fishing then they should also consider the merit distribution of those local boards.

I don't know why but I think these type of posts are a type of attack on the WO thread and its members because we all know that most of the members of that thread are quite mature and they have more knowledge than most of us and if those members are meriting a post then they have their valid reasons behind that. As far as I know the merit distribution is someone's own right and as far as they are doing it in a fair way then no one should pose fingers on them. If we all continue to oppose the merit sources then most of the merits will only go to members who have already established themselves on this forum and the new members may not get the merits they deserve to get.

I have personally noticed that JJG has been doing really great on the forum and he has been meriting many posts outside of the WO thread. I mostly give time to read JJG's posts on WO thread because most of his posts are full of information and someone like him deserves to be part of WO thread forever. The WO thread is known for its merit distribution levels and if someone gets merited because of posting something valuable on that thread then there's nothing wrong with that. I request everyone to give a second thought before creating such threads because it can hurt the feelings of the ones who have been doing fairly on this forum for a long time.

[SmartGold01]

JayJuanGee is a 1 on merit giver he hardly gives out merits in bulk like to say 50 merits at a go or even 20 merits, correct me if I am wrong JayJuanGee is not the problem neither did he have anything to do with merits farming. You can look elsewhere but not him or her. I have just visited there once thereabout and i noticed there are people who are farming merits, i was even thinking you wanna talk about those that are giving out merits in 10 or 50 merits.
Please leave JJ out of this whole drama and or maybe, you can list how he is farming merits probably had he given out 100  merits at a go?

[LoyceMobile]

Be careful here, there's a very thin line between a parody and plagiarism. Since it's you, and not a random signature spammer, I hope you'll get the benefit of the doubt.

[Hueristic]

Is it Thursday already?

[nutildah]

Be careful here, there's a very thin line between a parody and plagiarism. Since it's you, and not a random signature spammer, I hope you'll get the benefit of the doubt.

In this instance I'm condoning it... It is also meant in part as parody, thus I think it falls into some special category of exemption.

Most of the post quoted below is the shameless ass-kissing we've come to expect from JJG's flock of merit pigeons but there is one part of it worth addressing:

I have personally noticed that JJG has been doing really great on the forum and he has been meriting many posts outside of the WO thread.

That's great. He should continue to do that anywhere except the WO thread which is basically unmoderated and thus littered with the droppings of merit pigeons.

[Poker Player]

Although the OP is written in an ironic tone, I have to say that, to my mind, there is a lot of merit in the time JJG spends reading through the forum and distributing his merits, many times outside the WO thread as has been commented, and most of them one at a time. Although from time to time he gives two for one post.

There have been quite a few times that when I have logged in the forum I have seen that I have been given a merit, I have gone to see who and it turns out that it was JJG for a post I wrote months ago on page 3 of a thread. When I go to the thread I see that he has distributed other merits along the thread, so I can see that he has read the thread from cover to cover distributing merits to the posts that he considers worthy.

And the thread is maybe 8 pages long, being 3 months old. I think that level of dedication to distribute merits is unrivaled.

[Findingnemo]

Okay, now I am thinking about creating a thread regarding disabling every merit source from the meritting posts in WO thread.

So there will be no merit farming and the problem will be solved, simple!

JJG is known for his wall of texts even I wondered how it is possible for him to write such long, not one or two every post he made is such long, and reading can be a pain in the ass eyes, probably he is another AI or he spends all his time in the reading of bitcointalk posts not just from WO all around the forum you can see his merit distribution.

[dzungmobile]

I see JayJuanGee has a merit distributing habit with 1 for each merit distribution. It's hard to abuse by begging a merit source like JayJuanGee and it's my point here.

About merit distribution of JayJuanGee in Wall Observer, I did not check but I believe he is a good merit source by what I saw him distributing merit beyond Wall Observer thread.

Why do we need the special solution on JayJuanGee, rather than all members in Wall Observer thread including other merit sources?

Honestly I think it is unnecessary and unfair too. Posts, if are good in quality, should be awarded merit no matter where they are, in WO or beyond WO.

Meriting poor quality posts exists in other boards, other threads too, not only restricted in WO. So if it is special restriction on WO or JJG, something is unfair and totally wrong.

theymos can revert merit transactions, if you have yet known about it. Even revert past merit transactions is not a perfect fair solution for everyone.

[KingsDen]

I have also seen a similar thread here in the meta asking for deactivation of merit in the Wall Observer thread. This one is specifically mentioning name but to the best of my knowledge, the person mentioned is known for fair distribution of merits, though always in one's.
I do not visit the Wall Observer thread but for people to start complaining, it means something that needs attention is calling in the thread.
I do not wish that meta should become another drama thread apart from the reputation board. Let the drama be restricted in one board.

[eXPHorizon]

Why is this Crackhead making a Voting poll against JJG?

[EarnOnVictor]

As much as I see good sense in what you constructed up there, calling out JayJuanGee in your title and conclusion is uncalled for. I fully understand your plight but it's something you can call his attention to, not canvasing for his merit cycling power to be disabled. JayJuanGee is one of the best merit cyclers I know, and I don't think he sends it to those who don't share value, and it's regularly 1 merit per post. How then is it hard for anyone to overlook that?

I share your view, and here is my response that almost totally supports your view in a similar post. But it would have been fair had it been you directed it towards another person as there are countless there abusing this merit. If not more, I've seen someone sending 32 merits to a very simple and unqualified post. Why leave such people and point an accusing finger at one of the best merit cyclers who mostly gives 1 merit per post?

I think there is more to this.

[BobLawblaw]

Why is this Crackhead making a Voting poll against JJG?

Never touched crack.

Pot, on the other hand...

HFSP.

[eXPHorizon]

Never touched crack.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I don't agree with disabling anyone from the WO thread, just as I didn't support disabling merit-giving in there.  I think it's good you sparked this discussion and named names, OP.  Hopefully the problem can be worked out without resorting to appeals to Theymos to lay down new restrictions (which he probably wouldn't do anyhow).

Didn't realize there was a prime offender, either, however I don't suspect JJG is colluding with shitposters in order to rank them up.  He hands out a ton of merits, and I just think he's generous in that respect (though I could be completely wrong; I've been fooled before).  However, I don't doubt that the idiots who are posting all of that Twitter shit have caught on to what gets merited and are taking full advantage of the WO thread.

On a related note, I've gotten criticism for my offer to review post histories--not much, and it's been via PM, but nevertheless I'm aware that I'm being watched.  And that's good.  But what outsiders don't see is how many PMs I send to members saying that their posts don't meet my standards for merit, and believe me there have been many--especially after I received some honest feedback from a member I respect.  Maybe that's what JJG needs, and maybe this thread and the comments in it will serve the same function.  Maybe, perhaps?

As much as I see good sense in what you constructed up there, calling out JayJuanGee in your title and conclusion is uncalled for.

I don't have a grasp on the magnitude of the problem, though I have seen that JJG usually gives 1 merit when a post is mediocre, but I disagree that he shouldn't be called out if he's a big part of the problem (and if it's a big problem to begin with).  He could hand out 1 merit/post, but that thread has how many posts in it?  It's a lot last I checked, so those merits could add up quickly.

And just saying, if I was doing something the community thought was inappropriate I'd hope I'd be called out on it either in a thread or, as already happened, by PM.  Then again, that's just me.  Some folks would react to a thread like this with extreme defensiveness and it could end up being counterproductive.  At least it gives everyone a chance to voice their opinion, though.

[LoyceV]

This seems relevant:

Aside from that, if people complain about whether things deserve merit at all, then that's something to perhaps think about, but if you conclude that they're wrong, then that's that. You don't need to stress about it or defend yourself constantly. It's conceivable that someday you and I will end up disagreeing too much about this stuff and I'll remove your source status, but it's really not a big deal.

The topsendban list is just a first indication of abuse, and many excellent people are on it. Your place on there acts as a sort of benchmark: eg. chandra12 has a similar score there, but whereas you are an extremely active merit-giver with a diverse selection of posts merited (most of which anyone would agree with), chandra12 only has two large merit sends. His behavior in comparison to yours while having a similar topsendban score is what creates a strong abuse impression.

I appreciate the work of you and other sources who take it seriously!

See Top senders to permabanned users, last 180 days, here's the top 10:

59: fillippone
31: JayJuanGee
28: Julien_Olynpic
26: ETFbitcoin
24: NotATether
24: o_e_l_e_o
24: The Sceptical Chymist
20: CryptopreneurBrainboss
18: irhact
17: DdmrDdmr

Should I update How many banned users have you merited??

[philipma1957]

I see JayJuanGee has a merit distributing habit with 1 for each merit distribution. It's hard to abuse by begging a merit source like JayJuanGee and it's my point here.

About merit distribution of JayJuanGee in Wall Observer, I did not check but I believe he is a good merit source by what I saw him distributing merit beyond Wall Observer thread.

Why do we need the special solution on JayJuanGee, rather than all members in Wall Observer thread including other merit sources?

Honestly I think it is unnecessary and unfair too. Posts, if are good in quality, should be awarded merit no matter where they are, in WO or beyond WO.

Meriting poor quality posts exists in other boards, other threads too, not only restricted in WO. So if it is special restriction on WO or JJG, something is unfair and totally wrong.

theymos can revert merit transactions, if you have yet known about it. Even revert past merit transactions is not a perfect fair solution for everyone.

Please the alt posts 50 times in a month and JJG can give 50 one merit awards.

Actually A simple request is not to shut JJG off on the wo forever.

Just shut him off for 1 month on the wo.  No merits from JJG on the wo for a month.

The have loyce do some thread showing the difference on the WO.

Heck I would be willing to say JJG would do it on his own just to show up bob.
 

[Synchronice]

I don't know why you guys are offensive towards him, Wall Observer is a real honeypot for spammer merit seekers. Personally, what I see is that people post memes or writes some learnt sentence about how bitcoin will go to the moon, posts it and that's enough to experience the rainfall of merits and I don't get it, why? Why does that happen? This is like a loophole, there are users who post spammy posts on Bitcoin Discussion and some other boards, then return back to Wall Observer to get some merits, then they repeat it and that's all.
Merit problem really exists on WO thread and local boards.

The meriting of these posts is creating a positive feedback system where merit farmers are encouraged to continue this behavior... as a result the only skill they're actually developing is how to extract merits from senior WO posters.

The simple solution to the problem is to disable JayJuanGee

When it comes to merits, JayJuanGee is very generous from my experience. I don't usually follow who does what outside the threads where I post, but I think you are way overreacting, have you tried to PM him? Overall, it's not like only JayJuanGee does that, there is a merit rainfall trend in WO thread.

See Top senders to permabanned users, last 180 days, here's the top 10:

59: fillippone
31: JayJuanGee
28: Julien_Olynpic
26: ETFbitcoin
24: NotATether
24: o_e_l_e_o
24: The Sceptical Chymist
20: CryptopreneurBrainboss
18: irhact
17: DdmrDdmr

Should I update How many banned users have you merited??

That means nothing because spammers aren't banned on this forum. And anyone can scam, including intellectual and dumb.

[nutildah]

See Top senders to permabanned users, last 180 days, here's the top 10:

59: fillippone
31: JayJuanGee
28: Julien_Olynpic
26: ETFbitcoin
24: NotATether
24: o_e_l_e_o
24: The Sceptical Chymist
20: CryptopreneurBrainboss
18: irhact
17: DdmrDdmr

Should I update How many banned users have you merited??

Yes please, that'd be great. Then we could do a comparison of that data with Most generous merit senders, all time to discover who the statistical outliers for meriting banned users are.

I don't know why you guys are offensive towards him, Wall Observer is a real honeypot for spammer merit seekers.
...
Merit problem really exists on WO thread and local boards.

Seems like you answered your own question.

That means nothing because spammers aren't banned on this forum. And anyone can scam, including intellectual and dumb.

Being banned is a strong indication of being a cheater of some sort, whether its from plagiarism or ban evasion.

Perhaps a more informative metric would be seeing who has sent the most merits to red trusted accounts (doesn't matter whether the merit was sent before or after the red trust was given).

[DaveF]

Better solution. Remove the Wall Observer thread and the speculation section.
Would clean up so much junk / spam.

Although I do rarely post speculative things I fully realize that any opinions there are like assholes everyone has one and most of them stink.

Some posts are fun to read, but do they really contribute to the forum in general or help the BTC / crypto world.

-Dave

[fillippone]

59: fillippone
31: JayJuanGee

Should I update How many banned users have you merited??

Please do. It is certainly interesting, and I think my merit thread could be the “culript” for this.
I didn't expect to top this chart, and by such an amount of merits.
I definitely need to implement the BIP extension on the various devices I use to interact with the forum.

[Lucius]

Better solution. Remove the Wall Observer thread and the speculation section.
Would clean up so much junk / spam.
~snip~

If the forum administration would go in that direction, then they could also remove the Bitcoin discussion, in which realistically at least 70% of the content is completely useless and meaningless - and what about the Altcoins boards that spammers took over a long time ago, or maybe Gambling boards?

What we need are quality solutions that will prevent the creation of alt farms, but we certainly won't achieve that by closing one board at a time, because as long as there is financial motivation for ranking accounts on this forum, there will be those who will in all possible ways try to use it.

Although the OP is written in an ironic tone, I have to say that, to my mind, there is a lot of merit in the time JJG spends reading through the forum and distributing his merits, many times outside the WO thread as has been commented, and most of them one at a time. Although from time to time he gives two for one post.

There have been quite a few times that when I have logged in the forum I have seen that I have been given a merit, I have gone to see who and it turns out that it was JJG for a post I wrote months ago on page 3 of a thread. When I go to the thread I see that he has distributed other merits along the thread, so I can see that he has read the thread from cover to cover distributing merits to the posts that he considers worthy.

And the thread is maybe 8 pages long, being 3 months old. I think that level of dedication to distribute merits is unrivaled.

I noticed that too, and I can say that it is almost a unique phenomenon on the forum - to get merit for a post that was created even several years ago and is in some megathread is sometimes quite surprising. Of course, it would be unfair not to mention another excellent merit source (@DdmrDdmr) that is known for large distributions of merits, and very often for posts that it has already awarded in the past.

[xhomerx10]

Before I cast my vote, I need to clearly understand your use of the word "disable" wrt JayJuanGee.  I wouldn't like to see Jay's typing fingers (and toes as I'm sure he must use those as well) broken or have him end up as a quadriplegic and/or rusty-piped into compliance.   I just want to be sure that no physical harm will come to JJG during the disabling process.

[LoyceV]

Perhaps a more informative metric would be seeing who has sent the most merits to red trusted accounts (doesn't matter whether the merit was sent before or after the red trust was given).

Maybe. But both banned and red trusted users can have good posts.

I didn't expect to top this chart, and by such an amount of merits.

You've sent a lot of sMerit. And even if they get banned, it doesn't necessarily mean their posts were bad. It's tricky if you Merit plagiarism though.

[Who is John Galt?]

While this openly ironic topic turned into a stream of panegyrics to JayJuanGee, it was even grotesquely beautiful in its own way.

But then hints began that there are quite a few who distribute their merits completely incorrectly, that there are abuses, etc. And others distribute correctly, but to the wrong people. And everything is terrible!

In general, it looks like everyone just has a very different attitude towards merits, for which they can or should be given. All people are different, and it is hardly possible to achieve a single standard, and is it necessary?

In the end, both this discussion and the previous one come down to the fact that there are a number of violators who are trying to use the system in their favor. There will always be violators, and they will always try to pick up the master key to the system. Is it worth it to blame each other for anything and radically change yourself because of these few violators? And after all, it is the violators who are clearly to blame, and not those people about whom many are ready to say a lot of kind words, right?

If the violators are doing something wrong for some purpose, it might be possible to prevent them from getting what they want on the other side, right? Maybe there is a solution on the other side?

[Hueristic]

This seems relevant:

Aside from that, if people complain about whether things deserve merit at all, then that's something to perhaps think about, but if you conclude that they're wrong, then that's that. You don't need to stress about it or defend yourself constantly. It's conceivable that someday you and I will end up disagreeing too much about this stuff and I'll remove your source status, but it's really not a big deal.

The topsendban list is just a first indication of abuse, and many excellent people are on it. Your place on there acts as a sort of benchmark: eg. chandra12 has a similar score there, but whereas you are an extremely active merit-giver with a diverse selection of posts merited (most of which anyone would agree with), chandra12 only has two large merit sends. His behavior in comparison to yours while having a similar topsendban score is what creates a strong abuse impression.

I appreciate the work of you and other sources who take it seriously!

See Top senders to permabanned users, last 180 days, here's the top 10:

59: fillippone
31: JayJuanGee
28: Julien_Olynpic
26: ETFbitcoin
24: NotATether
24: o_e_l_e_o
24: The Sceptical Chymist
20: CryptopreneurBrainboss
18: irhact
17: DdmrDdmr

Should I update How many banned users have you merited??

Nice list I need to get out of WO more often.

I'd like to see that list updated, I'd be interested to see how many I've fucked up on.
I have a notoriously fast ignore trigger so...

Also I think you should order that list (in the thread) by percentage rather than absolute which seems to me to be a much better metric as it can be incorrectly interpreted as displayed. Obviously those who distribute larger amounts will hit the scum more often then those that don't distribute at all.

Now if I wanted to start a witchunt, I'd start at those with the highest percentage.

[fillippone]

I am voting against it.
To me JJG is part of the very essence of the WO.
In my very first interaction with the WO, JJG immediately was called:

JJG³: The Italian Job

Wait actually that is unfair, they don't compare. fillippone's English is very good, and his content too.

JJG³: #rekt in Italy

Dear Lord, there’s an inside Joke and a 22k pages thread. I think I’m lost.

So I vote NO.
The WO will heal itself from those spammers, merit whores and abuser.

[Shamm]

Although the OP is written in an ironic tone, I have to say that, to my mind, there is a lot of merit in the time JJG spends reading through the forum and distributing his merits, many times outside the WO thread as has been commented, and most of them one at a time. Although from time to time he gives two for one post.

There have been quite a few times that when I have logged in the forum I have seen that I have been given a merit, I have gone to see who and it turns out that it was JJG for a post I wrote months ago on page 3 of a thread. When I go to the thread I see that he has distributed other merits along the thread, so I can see that he has read the thread from cover to cover distributing merits to the posts that he considers worthy.

And the thread is maybe 8 pages long, being 3 months old. I think that level of dedication to distribute merits is unrivaled.

Absolutely mate JayJuanGee is matured enough here in our forum which means he already knew what he does or what he want to do. Like for example as a merit source he has his own way to distribute his merits he has the decision how many merits he want to spent everyday everywhere inside the WO thread or not. So why should we keep mind on that thing JJG is one of the merit source that give merits to those post he think worthy to be given also not just only he spent his sMerits on WO thread also he gives some of his merits in other threads.

[Hueristic]

I think The WO should have its own Ban power (within WO thread) and then we can just lose those twatter spammers permanently.

The Fact Twatter does not even allow the reading of a thread without signing in make that cesspool not worth the effort to click the link anymore so I'd love to see all links to it blocked ala imgur.

*separated this from previous post as its a completely separate discussion.

[shahzadafzal]

The simple solution to the problem is to disable JayJuanGee

Disbale JJG how?

I mean you can turn on or off someone but disbale how exactly?

I don’t know how to turn on JJG but turn off is easy just say “crypto” and boom 🤯….

[nutildah]

I think The WO should have its own Ban power (within WO thread) and then we can just lose those twatter spammers permanently.

This is a good idea and I can conceptualize it in my head. Instead of there being a "bump" button on the thread, there is a "vote to ban" button under each post by a member under Sr. Member. It would be visible to pre-ordained members of a Council of WO, maybe 20 of the most active WO posters (ideally limited to Hero Members and Legendaries). If a shitposter receives "vote to ban" clicks from 5 or more council members, they are automatically banned from posting in the WO for a month.

However, it would go against theymos' libertarian principles as the Council of WO that could decide to restrict the "freedoms" of certain accounts. It would still probably be helpful.


For example, if this post was in the WO (and I was less than a Sr. Member) it would look like this:

[vapourminer]

I think The WO should have its own Ban power (within WO thread) and then we can just lose those twatter spammers permanently.

This is a good idea and I can conceptualize it in my head. Instead of there being a "bump" button on the thread, there is a "vote to ban" button under each post by a member under Sr. Member. It would be visible to pre-ordained members of a Council of WO, maybe 20 of the most active WO posters (ideally limited to Hero Members and Legendaries). If a shitposter receives "vote to ban" clicks from 5 or more council members, they are automatically banned from posting in the WO for a month.

i kinda like it (the vote thing), but instead of a thread ban how about that persons posts are automatically hidden to everyone, but with a "unhide" button so that suckers peeps can still see it if they want to.

basically it would be a community ignore thing that individuals can override.

[xhomerx10]

What if they could implement an "intention to merit" with a 48 hour recall on it so when everyone got on you for meriting a merit farmer, you could take it back... or not but at least we'd know where you stand and maybe the rusty pipe treatment would be in order .  After 48 hours if not recalled, it would turn into a merit.  This could also be useful for those times when you've used your last merit and something better comes along causing you to regret using your last merit on an inferior post.

[LoyceV]

What if they could implement an "intention to merit" with a 48 hour recall on it

That reminds me of LoyceV's deMerit source application.

[eXPHorizon]

So i guess WO is filled with WHINGING folks who can not handle diversity in posts and Merits. Sad how childish it makes the members look, seems like they can and nobody else cant.

[stompix]

Better solution. Remove the Wall Observer thread and the speculation section.

Careful, the WO gang is the largest left alive, seeing they will come after you and bun you!!!
It's still a nice place for shitposting memes, much like some Reddit subs, besides, signatures don't show there so if you count ut the merit begging/fishing it's just a simple topic where still a lot try to feel like in the old days, closing it down probably would mean the end of forum life for a lot.

Before I cast my vote, I need to clearly understand your use of the word "disable" wrt JayJuanGee.  I wouldn't like to see Jay's typing fingers (and toes as I'm sure he must use those as well) broken or have him end up as a quadriplegic and/or rusty-piped into compliance.  

Why a rusty pipe or a crowbar, if you want to disable JJG all you need is to change the max length of a post on this forum to something under 10 000 characters, but if I think twice about it now, it's probably going to be more traumatic than the old style disabling.

[tranthidung]

Wall Observer is an important, iconic thread of Bitcointalk but I believe if we do some changes with merit distributions, it should be applied globally on the forum. Wall Observer should not be an exceptional place to apply special rule of merit distributions. Then other threads will need the same and it will lead to endless story.

• Wall Observer new ownership?
• What to do with the wall observer thread?
• Consequently, ownership changed, signature was disabled in WO. What's next? Merit disabled, avatar disabled or newbie jail?

Is it time to consider about demerit?

There is currently no such thing as a "demerit". I'm hoping that the positive merits alone will be fine. I could add demerits pretty easily later on if necessary, though.

If hopium does not work, demerit feature should be deployed. I guess demerit can be done with not too big difference than flags.

[Hueristic]

...I believe if we do some changes with merit distributions, it should be applied globally on the forum. Wall Observer should not be an exceptional place to apply special rule of merit distributions. Then other threads will need the same and it will lead to endless story.....

Nope, people say reddit is the front page of the internet but As far as I'm concerned the WO is.

I check that thread first and foremost before anything else including my voicemail on a daily if not hourly basis.

Much news gets correlated there hidden in the mess and disseminated for those able to discern its meaning.

If its news and it didn't hit the WO then its not news in my book.

[Stalker22]

...I believe if we do some changes with merit distributions, it should be applied globally on the forum. Wall Observer should not be an exceptional place to apply special rule of merit distributions. Then other threads will need the same and it will lead to endless story.....

Nope, people say reddit is the front page of the internet but As far as I'm concerned the WO is.

I check that thread first and foremost before anything else including my voicemail on a daily if not hourly basis.

Much news gets correlated there hidden in the mess and disseminated for those able to discern its meaning.

If its news and it didn't hit the WO then its not news in my book.

Interesting perspective. It never crossed my mind to view the WO thread in that light. I tried to keep up with it for a bit, but I eventually gave up due to the overwhelming spam that I had to wade through to find anything valuable.

I could give it another shot, but it feels like I would need to do a lot of filtering and ignoring to make it worthwhile.

[PowerGlove]

I think The WO should have its own Ban power (within WO thread) and then we can just lose those twatter spammers permanently.

This is a good idea and I can conceptualize it in my head. Instead of there being a "bump" button on the thread, there is a "vote to ban" button under each post by a member under Sr. Member. It would be visible to pre-ordained members of a Council of WO, maybe 20 of the most active WO posters (ideally limited to Hero Members and Legendaries). If a shitposter receives "vote to ban" clicks from 5 or more council members, they are automatically banned from posting in the WO for a month.

i kinda like it (the vote thing), but instead of a thread ban how about that persons posts are automatically hidden to everyone, but with a "unhide" button so that suckers peeps can still see it if they want to.

basically it would be a community ignore thing that individuals can override.

I think the three of you (Hueristic, nutildah, vapourminer) just hit on something important.

Having some way for the community to flag/hide shitty posts other than by reporting them to the mods (and hoping that they see things the same way) is an idea worth fleshing out.

I'm gonna call this proposal Project NOPE™ for Non-Organic Post in my Estimation.

Basically, there'll be a little NOPE button on each post, and if you click it, it'll hide that post for you and also for anyone that has added you to their NOPE list, kind of like a reverse-curation system with trust list vibes. If you don't trust someone's judgment with flagging shitty posts (and they're on the NOPE list of someone that you do trust with that) then you would exclude them from your list with a ~ (or tweak your depth setting).

I could see a feature like that cleaning up the forum real good. (Don't add me to your NOPE lists, because I'd wear that fuggin' button out.)

Edit: I suppose it's not super obvious how the above idea relates to WO being a known "soft spot" for merit fishing. I think the idea is probably more valuable to the forum as a whole than it is to WO specifically (but it would still help there, IMHO). Basically, you'd trust other people (of your own choosing, though there is a version of this idea with DT1/DT2 analogs: DN1/DN2) to hide posts from you that aren't worth reading. You can't merit posts that you don't see, so if the people on your NOPE list do a thorough enough job of hiding posts before they can be merited, then the people making those posts will keep coming up empty and eventually give up (I appreciate how silly it sounds to make other people responsible for hiding posts from you that you would have merited if only you had seen them, but I'm specifically addressing the way accounts try to take advantage of the willy-nilly way merit is handed out on WO and not talking about how this feature is intended to be used on the rest of the forum). Any gripes about this feature have equivalent gripes in terms of the trust system; if you say "Okay, but who gets to decide what makes a post worth reading?" then the equivalent gripe would be "Okay, but who gets to decide what constitutes active trust feedback?". One interesting elaboration would be to allow people on "DN1" to NOPE an entire profile instead of just individual posts.

[LoyceV]

Should I update How many banned users have you merited??

Please do.

I'd like to see that list updated, I'd be interested to see how many I've fucked up on.
I have a notoriously fast ignore trigger so...

Also I think you should order that list (in the thread) by percentage rather than absolute which seems to me to be a much better metric as it can be incorrectly interpreted as displayed. Obviously those who distribute larger amounts will hit the scum more often then those that don't distribute at all.

Now if I wanted to start a witchunt, I'd start at those with the highest percentage.

Here's the update: How many banned users have you merited?

(click for the full version)
    1. 231 (8.66%) banned users merited by OgNasty (details)
    2. 125 (4.66%) banned users merited by JayJuanGee (details)
    3. 115 (5.33%) banned users merited by Ratimov (details)
    4. 112 (4.51%) banned users merited by DdmrDdmr (details)
    5. 108 (5.14%) banned users merited by hugeblack (details)
    6. 99 (3.39%) banned users merited by vapourminer (details)
    7. 94 (6.15%) banned users merited by klarki (details)
    8. 93 (3.23%) banned users merited by suchmoon (details)
    9. 92 (7.60%) banned users merited by dbshck (details)
   10. 90 (7.21%) banned users merited by paxmao (details)
   11. 85 (7.90%) banned users merited by CryptopreneurBrainboss (details)
   12. 82 (2.78%) banned users merited by LoyceV (details)
   13. 77 (3.41%) banned users merited by xandry (details)
   14. 76 (7.58%) banned users merited by EFS (details)
   15. 72 (9.51%) banned users merited by chimk (details)
   16. 71 (2.37%) banned users merited by ETFbitcoin (details)
   17. 69 (12.36%) banned users merited by TimeTeller (details)
   18. 67 (4.88%) banned users merited by LFC_Bitcoin (details)
   19. 66 (63.46%) banned users merited by foserfox Banned! (details)
   20. 65 (6.29%) banned users merited by bones261 (details)
   21. 62 (2.56%) banned users merited by o_e_l_e_o (details)
   22. 60 (6.30%) banned users merited by theymos (details)
   23. 60 (3.70%) banned users merited by Halab (details)
   24. 57 (9.16%) banned users merited by tk808 (details)
   25. 56 (8.34%) banned users merited by Jet Cash (details)
(click for the full version)

I don't think sorting by percentage is useful: thousands of users who sent only a few Merits have a 100% score to banned users.
Many users with a very high percentage have already been banned.

Disclaimer

banned users can still have good posts. Meriting them isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Rizzrack]

Like Cyndi Lauper said in one of her songs: "bitcoiners just want to have fun"  

As people with "enough" money can give away for any cause they see fit, the same can be said about merit.

Let's be hones: some boards are harder to get merits than others, like Technical Discussions vs Meta. It is what it is...

We either accept it or talk about changing the rules with complicated scenarios that theymos might never implement: like doing for merit something similar to flags. Users can merit a post and their smerit decreases but the merited user actually receives the merit when at least 3 users merit the same post.

It may be a good idea, it may be stupid... but one thing is for sure: it's damn hard to come up with a fair algorithm that changes the game for everyone from that point on without any retroactive impact.

One of the last banned account I merited was for warning users that a certain ann thread had a wallet with malware. The irony is that the same user was banned for posting a malware infected wallet himself a few days later. It can happen to anyone. Doesn't seem fair to judge someone solely on this metric imho.

[Hueristic]

Should I update How many banned users have you merited??

Please do.

I'd like to see that list updated, I'd be interested to see how many I've fucked up on.
I have a notoriously fast ignore trigger so...

Also I think you should order that list (in the thread) by percentage rather than absolute which seems to me to be a much better metric as it can be incorrectly interpreted as displayed. Obviously those who distribute larger amounts will hit the scum more often then those that don't distribute at all.

Now if I wanted to start a witchunt, I'd start at those with the highest percentage.

Here's the update: How many banned users have you merited?

(click for the full version)
    1. 231 (8.66%) banned users merited by OgNasty (details)
    2. 125 (4.66%) banned users merited by JayJuanGee (details)
    3. 115 (5.33%) banned users merited by Ratimov (details)
    4. 112 (4.51%) banned users merited by DdmrDdmr (details)
    5. 108 (5.14%) banned users merited by hugeblack (details)
...
(click for the full version)

I don't think sorting by percentage is useful: thousands of users who sent only a few Merits have a 100% score to banned users.
Many users with a very high percentage have already been banned.

Disclaimer

banned users can still have good posts. Meriting them isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Of course it is, outliers are easily identified and culled from the dataset.

Looking at the data as a percentage rather than an absolute is a much better way to get an accurate picture of trends over a long period of time and the longer the trend line the more accurate that metric becomes.

The issue with sorting in absolute order is the fact that not all users are dealt an even amount of cards to begin with.

Also highlighting sources in that list would be meaningful as well.

[nutildah]

Of course it is, outliers are easily identified and culled from the dataset.

For those who are interested, the average for the top 256 (9 or more banned merited users) is a whopping 16.3%, which seems crazy high, but that's what it is. One standard deviation is 18.5%, so that means "abnormally high" would be above 34.8%.

Interestingly, 24/45 users that fall into the "abnormally high" category are banned. It seems most of these were accounts purchased to advertise an ICO or worse, and then they distributed the merits that came with it to a bunch of sockpuppets for the sake of bumping their thread.

I would have posted this in LoyceV's thread with the data but its locked.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Be careful here, there's a very thin line between a parody and plagiarism. Since it's you, and not a random signature spammer, I hope you'll get the benefit of the doubt.

I will suggest to put the whole thing in quote except the last line. There will be someone always who will find a wrong here and will want to accuse BobLawblaw for plagiarism or even want to make him low for it. Haven't we seen it not very long ago?

@BobLawblaw hope you are reading brother.

[LoyceV]

Of course it is, outliers are easily identified and culled from the dataset.

Looking at the data as a percentage rather than an absolute is a much better way to get an accurate picture of trends over a long period of time and the longer the trend line the more accurate that metric becomes.

The issue with sorting in absolute order is the fact that not all users are dealt an even amount of cards to begin with.

How's this:

Sorted by percentage
This is the same list as yesterday, but sorted by percentage (and limited to users who sent at least 10 sMerit).

(click for the full version)
    1. 100.00% (7) banned users merited by Artemsv Banned! (details)
    2. 100.00% (5) banned users merited by alexvilis Banned! (details)
    3. 100.00% (5) banned users merited by Jekwizor Banned! (details)
    4. 100.00% (5) banned users merited by upline (details)
    5. 100.00% (5) banned users merited by masstahcoiner Banned! (details)
    6. 100.00% (4) banned users merited by hrbt Banned! (details)
    7. 100.00% (4) banned users merited by identifyuser Banned! (details)
    8. 100.00% (4) banned users merited by cryptojaani (details)
    9. 100.00% (4) banned users merited by alexberezov Banned! (details)
   10. 100.00% (4) banned users merited by senin Banned! (details)
   11. 100.00% (4) banned users merited by shezu007 Banned! (details)
   12. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by Pump N Dead (details)
   13. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by Lesya2015 Banned! (details)
   14. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by Guardsman Banned! (details)
   15. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by Bdstar Banned! (details)
   16. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by crocozino Banned! (details)
   17. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by kovaa Banned! (details)
   18. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by USScrypto Banned! (details)
   19. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by yeyz20171031 Banned! (details)
   20. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by romandos86 (details)
   21. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by geoneojapan Banned! (details)
   22. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by xiao2017 Banned! (details)
   23. 100.00% (2) banned users merited by cercitolga4545 Banned! (details)
   24. 100.00% (2) banned users merited by NoNetwork (details)
   25. 100.00% (2) banned users merited by thunderbitz2717 Banned! (details)

In this list, JayJuanGee is at a respectable 2560^th place, slightly better (if there is such a thing) than theymos:

 2281. 6.30% (60) banned users merited by theymos (details)

 2560. 4.66% (125) banned users merited by JayJuanGee (details)

Also highlighting sources in that list would be meaningful as well.

I can't really do that: I don't have an exact list of Merit sources, and they've changed over the years.

I would have posted this in LoyceV's thread with the data but its locked.

The data dump topic is locked, but belongs to this post in How many banned users have you merited?. Discussion can happen In that topic. I've clarified this in the data dump topic now.

[Rikafip]

I will suggest to put the whole thing in quote except the last line. There will be someone always who will find a wrong here and will want to accuse BobLawblaw for plagiarism or even want to make him low for it. Haven't we seen it not very long ago?

Those are two different cases imho as this thread is obviously  written in a ironic/parody tone (well not obvious enough based on some of the comments here) and even if someone reports it, I don't think that there's any danger for OP and if there is then this forum became a sad place.

[Y3shot]

I think The WO should have its own Ban power (within WO thread) and then we can just lose those twatter spammers permanently.

The Fact Twatter does not even allow the reading of a thread without signing in make that cesspool not worth the effort to click the link anymore so I'd love to see all links to it blocked ala imgur.

*separated this from previous post as its a completely separate discussion.

I don't see any reason why the wall observer section should be shutdown,  their are things that can be done for wall observer section to be clean and put in order which is by Implementing rules that members must stick to, it will help reduce the rate at which members abuse it, and if the section is being monitored it will surely help to be at the standard which the forum wants it to be.

Members do whatever they want in the board because the rules are not followed by actions. Their are still members in wall observer that are genuine with meaningful discussion.  Strick rules will make fake ones to stay away.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I will suggest to put the whole thing in quote except the last line. There will be someone always who will find a wrong here and will want to accuse BobLawblaw for plagiarism or even want to make him low for it. Haven't we seen it not very long ago?

Those are two different cases imho as this thread is obviously  written in a ironic/parody tone (well not obvious enough based on some of the comments here) and even if someone reports it, I don't think that there's any danger for OP and if there is then this forum became a sad place.

Moderators are not the concerns. Concerns are the forum users. They will use anything against you without considering a background of a mistake or parody [if you want to call it]. If moderators were the concerns then I would edit those posts after noticing it and since I did not do it, you would see my account was banned for plagiarism so far. None happened.

[Rikafip]

Moderators are not the concerns. Concerns are the forum users.

Well, moderators are those who decide who gets banned, not users and I'm pretty sure they will see what's going on here if someone who takes this forum way too seriously decides to report it.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Quite an ironic topic, talking about the person who is next to you in the third person. JJG never responded if I'm not mistaken. Why decide what can be done to solve the problem when the person himself, who, as it seems to someone, creates a problem, is undoubtedly reading this? Have you tried asking him for his opinion? Do you think that JJG is a robot, and you can just deprive the robot of one of its abilities?
The Wall Observer branch is considered anarchic on the forum; if plagiarism and low-quality posts are allowed there, then the spread of merit is completely legal. I think that the merits are exchanged by the alternative accounts themselves within this thread. A few examples can be shown, and JJG is just the icing on the cake; using merit in this thread is tantamount to getting likes on Facebook.
The problem is those people who use the forum dishonestly.

[Gladitorcomeback]

Oh probably second or third thread here in Meta against wall observer or we can say limited Jay from sending Merit. I visited many times there but didn't made any post yet. I agree that most the posts are spam and just copied Bitcoin news from twitter with images.I think removing full thread or disabling anyone to send merit is not the right solution. Other threads can be created and infact everyone has own mindset of giving merit. Jay is giving only one Merit for each post he like and i think it will not be more profitable spammer to grow quick. I think the better way is to give neutral to those member who continuesly making spam there and that's all.

Have you tried asking him for his opinion?

I remembered that once Nutildah requested him to stop helping spammers and below us the answer given by Jay

Yes.. propose to theymos that merits are "turned off" in the WO thread and see what happens.

Maybe, also (or as a potential back-up plan.... PlanB so to speak), you should propose that he (or anyone else who might "care") removes me (aka yours truly, aka this here cat) as a source (of problemas), since I don't seem to "know how" to exercise the discretion of my own wee widdo selfie verry goodie? 
or alternatively, you may well want to proclaim that I am not able to sufficiently/adequately identify which post(s) in these here parts MOAR deserve(s) dddddeeeeeeeee wwwwuuuuuvvvvvvvssssss (#nohomo) in accordance with your own views upon these kinds of wuvie duvie matters.

Or alternatively, even to that last alternative, you might consider showing the powers that be within this here forum that this place, WO and otherwise, needs a "merit czar," and you happen to know just the right peep who is ready, willing and able to take on such duties. 

[SamReomo]

I have personally noticed that JJG has been doing really great on the forum and he has been meriting many posts outside of the WO thread.

That's great. He should continue to do that anywhere except the WO thread which is basically unmoderated and thus littered with the droppings of merit pigeons.

I would personally keep quiet in such matter because if someone like JJG is meriting the posts in WO then he maybe doing that because some of those memes maybe related Bitcoin and its price. I know that sometimes it's a little bit annoying when we see a user getting merited just by posting memes, but the members of the WO thread like memes that are related to Bitcoin and their love for Bitcoin makes them to merit those meme containing posts without any discrimination. I think they have been doing that kind of post meriting for a long time and no body has ever opposed their actions, and I also think that theymos is also aware of the activity in WO and he also hasn't taken any action to suppress the activity of that thread. I know that the ones who are posting those memes without proper referencing should be reported, but the ones who're properly referencing their posts may not be suppressed for the activity.

You maybe right in your approach because you don't want those members to be merited who aren't contributing to the forum like other contributing members. Well, in that case I also agree with your thinking, but such kind of activity is also taking place outside of WO thread and every member of the forum is aware of that. If we look at the local boards or local board threads then there are many such users who are taking advantage of the members and are getting merited for their posts. I'm not favoring JJG or any other member of the WO thread and I'm also not against the ones who created this thread, but I don't think that disabling someone like JJG from that thread would be any good to the forum because he has been a long time member of the forum and has contributed a lot to the forum. I hope that any decision taken will be in favor of the forum and we all will support those decisions.

[Ryu_Ar1]

I actually don't really follow the Wall Observer thread discussions but I still like to see some funny things and random chatter that even though some people might consider it spam, it is one of the entertainments that I always see because apart from memes or news that are just copied from some social media but I think it is still very worth discussing and seeing because some still provide clear sources where it was taken from.

Speaking of JayJuanGee he is one whose posts are very tiring for the eyes because of reading them but it's actually very useful and I learnt a lot from him with knowledge especially about bitcoin which is very good indeed. As for his involvement in giving merit too I think he knows that those he gives merit to are worthy especially I like the way he is consistent in giving 1 although sometimes 2 but very rarely to give 2 in one post which actually reflects consistency and he always reads seriously about what he does both on Wall Observer and in other threads.
Banning him I think is not authority because it will only limit someone's activities even though it is undeniable that there will be people who take advantage of it to farm but I think banning JayGuanGee is like limiting someone's actions on the forum.

[Hueristic]

I actually don't really follow the Wall Observer thread discussions but I still like to see some funny things and random chatter that even though some people might consider it spam, it is one of the entertainments that I always see because apart from memes or news that are just copied from some social media but I think it is still very worth discussing and seeing because some still provide clear sources where it was taken from.

Speaking of JayJuanGee he is one whose posts are very tiring for the eyes because of reading them but it's actually very useful and I learnt a lot from him with knowledge especially about bitcoin which is very good indeed. As for his involvement in giving merit too I think he knows that those he gives merit to are worthy especially I like the way he is consistent in giving 1 although sometimes 2 but very rarely to give 2 in one post which actually reflects consistency and he always reads seriously about what he does both on Wall Observer and in other threads.
Banning him I think is not authority because it will only limit someone's activities even though it is undeniable that there will be people who take advantage of it to farm but I think banning JayGuanGee is like limiting someone's actions on the forum.

Yeah baby, Ban the Heretic!



Jesus Christ have you ever heard of the saying

"Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt"?


You need to heed that phrase.

[philipma1957]

Should I update How many banned users have you merited??

Please do.

I'd like to see that list updated, I'd be interested to see how many I've fucked up on.
I have a notoriously fast ignore trigger so...

Also I think you should order that list (in the thread) by percentage rather than absolute which seems to me to be a much better metric as it can be incorrectly interpreted as displayed. Obviously those who distribute larger amounts will hit the scum more often then those that don't distribute at all.

Now if I wanted to start a witchunt, I'd start at those with the highest percentage.

Here's the update: How many banned users have you merited?

(click for the full version)
    1. 231 (8.66%) banned users merited by OgNasty (details)
    2. 125 (4.66%) banned users merited by JayJuanGee (details)
    3. 115 (5.33%) banned users merited by Ratimov (details)
    4. 112 (4.51%) banned users merited by DdmrDdmr (details)
    5. 108 (5.14%) banned users merited by hugeblack (details)
...
(click for the full version)

I don't think sorting by percentage is useful: thousands of users who sent only a few Merits have a 100% score to banned users.
Many users with a very high percentage have already been banned.

Disclaimer

banned users can still have good posts. Meriting them isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Of course it is, outliers are easily identified and culled from the dataset.

Looking at the data as a percentage rather than an absolute is a much better way to get an accurate picture of trends over a long period of time and the longer the trend line the more accurate that metric becomes.

The issue with sorting in absolute order is the fact that not all users are dealt an even amount of cards to begin with.

Also highlighting sources in that list would be meaningful as well.

If you look at that list one guy or girl was over 60% and is now banned.

and the next worst is at 12%

hell theymos is over 6% lets ban him he does not make the cut. please note that is a joke.

I am not on the list because I am slower with my merits and really take time to not give merits easily to a newbie.

Why is that because back in 2019 5 or more people I merited were banned so I decided to be very deliberate with merits to anyone under 400 merits.

I reall never give to a guy with 100 posts and 110 merits as I suspect them as a merit alt being feed by a few legends.

Thus I give a lot to heros and legends.

[Hueristic]

Should I update How many banned users have you merited??

Please do.

I'd like to see that list updated, I'd be interested to see how many I've fucked up on.
I have a notoriously fast ignore trigger so...

Also I think you should order that list (in the thread) by percentage rather than absolute which seems to me to be a much better metric as it can be incorrectly interpreted as displayed. Obviously those who distribute larger amounts will hit the scum more often then those that don't distribute at all.

Now if I wanted to start a witchunt, I'd start at those with the highest percentage.

Here's the update: How many banned users have you merited?

(click for the full version)
    1. 231 (8.66%) banned users merited by OgNasty (details)
    2. 125 (4.66%) banned users merited by JayJuanGee (details)
    3. 115 (5.33%) banned users merited by Ratimov (details)
    4. 112 (4.51%) banned users merited by DdmrDdmr (details)
    5. 108 (5.14%) banned users merited by hugeblack (details)
...
(click for the full version)

I don't think sorting by percentage is useful: thousands of users who sent only a few Merits have a 100% score to banned users.
Many users with a very high percentage have already been banned.

Disclaimer

banned users can still have good posts. Meriting them isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Of course it is, outliers are easily identified and culled from the dataset.

Looking at the data as a percentage rather than an absolute is a much better way to get an accurate picture of trends over a long period of time and the longer the trend line the more accurate that metric becomes.

The issue with sorting in absolute order is the fact that not all users are dealt an even amount of cards to begin with.

Also highlighting sources in that list would be meaningful as well.

If you look at that list one guy or girl was over 60% and is now banned.

and the next worst is at 12%

hell theymos is over 6% lets ban him he does not make the cut. please note that is a joke.

I am not on the list because I am slower with my merits and really take time to not give merits easily to a newbie.

Why is that because back in 2019 5 or more people I merited were banned so I decided to be very deliberate with merits to anyone under 400 merits.

I reall never give to a guy with 100 posts and 110 merits as I suspect them as a merit alt being feed by a few legends.

Thus I give a lot to heros and legends.

By absolute:

33. 38 (3.42%) banned users merited by philipma1957 (details)

132. 13 (2.68%) banned users merited by Hueristic (details)


By percentage:

2794. 3.42% (38) banned users merited by philipma1957 (details)
2965. 2.68% (13) banned users merited by Hueristic (details)

You can easily see how it looks way worse by absolute for those that disseminate large volumes.




Funny I was surprised to see Noic was banned when checking my list.

I think I remember his account getting hacked but couldn't find out anything on that after a search.

Good guy really liked him.

[philipma1957]

I fucked all this up I will correct error.

Should I update How many banned users have you merited??

Please do.

I'd like to see that list updated, I'd be interested to see how many I've fucked up on.
I have a notoriously fast ignore trigger so...

Also I think you should order that list (in the thread) by percentage rather than absolute which seems to me to be a much better metric as it can be incorrectly interpreted as displayed. Obviously those who distribute larger amounts will hit the scum more often then those that don't distribute at all.

Now if I wanted to start a witchunt, I'd start at those with the highest percentage.

Here's the update: How many banned users have you merited?

(click for the full version)
    1. 231 (8.66%) banned users merited by OgNasty (details)
    2. 125 (4.66%) banned users merited by JayJuanGee (details)
    3. 115 (5.33%) banned users merited by Ratimov (details)
    4. 112 (4.51%) banned users merited by DdmrDdmr (details)
    5. 108 (5.14%) banned users merited by hugeblack (details)
...
(click for the full version)

I don't think sorting by percentage is useful: thousands of users who sent only a few Merits have a 100% score to banned users.
Many users with a very high percentage have already been banned.

Disclaimer

banned users can still have good posts. Meriting them isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Of course it is, outliers are easily identified and culled from the dataset.

Looking at the data as a percentage rather than an absolute is a much better way to get an accurate picture of trends over a long period of time and the longer the trend line the more accurate that metric becomes.

The issue with sorting in absolute order is the fact that not all users are dealt an even amount of cards to begin with.

Also highlighting sources in that list would be meaningful as well.

If you look at that list one guy or girl was over 60% and is now banned.

and the next worst is at 12%

hell theymos is over 6% lets ban him he does not make the cut. please note that is a joke.

I am not on the list because I am slower with my merits and really take time to not give merits easily to a newbie.

Why is that because back in 2019 5 or more people I merited were banned so I decided to be very deliberate with merits to anyone under 400 merits.

I reall never give to a guy with 100 posts and 110 merits as I suspect them as a merit alt being feed by a few legends.

Thus I give a lot to heros and legends.

By absolute:

33. 38 (3.42%) banned users merited by philipma1957 (details)

132. 13 (2.68%) banned users merited by Hueristic (details)


By percentage:

2794. 3.42% (38) banned users merited by philipma1957 (details)
2965. 2.68% (13) banned users merited by Hueristic (details)

You can easily see how it looks way worse by absolute for those that disseminate large volumes.




Funny I was surprised to see Noic was banned when checking my list.

I think I remember his account getting hacked but couldn't find out anything on that after a search.

Good guy really liked him.

we gave out 5769 merits between us and 51 banned users which is 51/5769 = 0.88 percent and does not match the 3.42% or the 2.68%

because in my case a very rarely give a 5 merit to a newbie I give a 1 merit.

this means my % is very likely to be higher due to lots of 1 merit posts to a newbie

2794 and 38 is 38/2794 = 1.36% not 3.42%. so it is not absolute number it is the % most likely found by different people merited .


that would mean I merited 1111 different people  a total of 2794 merits and 3.42% were banned giving 38 losers

is this the correct stat for me



and hueristic merited 485 different people a total of  2965 merits  and 2.68% were banned giving  13 losers


what number is correct for us.

38 banned vs 13 banned
1111 merited vs 485 merited
 2794 merits vs 2965 merits.
rank of 33  vs rank of 132  total people banned


this part was good:


BTW we both would be okay by my standards percent of non banned vs banned.

but for 38 out of 1111 different people merited does look better .  than my 33rd place for people banned

[BobLawblaw]

@BobLawblaw hope you are reading brother.

I am reading this. If you think this is a serious thread, you need to go fuck yourself.

[Poker Player]

Lol.

I can see that as there are several WO regulars in this thread, it is becoming a WO-style one and not a typical Meta thread, because of the overquotes for example.

I am the only one who misses JJG writing a couple of short paragraphs as is usual for him on the topic here? He hasn't even written in the other one, of which this one is a parody, I understand.

[eXPHorizon]

@BobLawblaw hope you are reading brother.

I am reading this. If you think this is a serious thread, you need to go fuck yourself.

Only now that it failed miserably it is not a serious thread/poll 😆

[philipma1957]

@BobLawblaw hope you are reading brother.

I am reading this. If you think this is a serious thread, you need to go fuck yourself.

thanks for a morning laugh.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

@BobLawblaw hope you are reading brother.

I am reading this. If you think this is a serious thread, you need to go fuck yourself.

thanks for a morning laugh.

The green dildos are market out at the moment.

[Igebotz]

Lol.

I can see that as there are several WO regulars in this thread, it is becoming a WO-style one and not a typical Meta thread, because of the overquotes for example.

I am the only one who misses JJG writing a couple of short paragraphs as is usual for him on the topic here? He hasn't even written in the other one, of which this one is a parody, I understand.

Long quote and meme are two ways the WO regulars communicates. The funny meme are begining to role in too.

BobLawblaw last comment cracked me a little 

JJG is busy - he will join the party soon trust me. He will appear when the thread is half -dead and bring it back alive

[JayJuanGee]

@BobLawblaw hope you are reading brother.

I am reading this. If you think this is a serious thread, you need to go fuck yourself.

Anyone should be able to recognize and/or appreciate a certain level of parody and fun, but I doubt that the parody and fun is quite as obvious as Bob is suggesting it to be - when there is a certain kind of tinge to his own inabilities to control his own emotions and sending a kind of spiteful message while at the same time saying.. "I am only joking; I am only joking."  

Surely trolls do that and it can be quite annoying even though sometimes even the trolls end up either making decently good points or the responses to the trolls end up contributing valuable substantive information..

.....
I remembered that once Nutildah requested him to stop helping spammers and below us the answer given by Jay

Yes.. propose to theymos that merits are "turned off" in the WO thread and see what happens.

Maybe, also (or as a potential back-up plan.... PlanB so to speak), you should propose that he (or anyone else who might "care") removes me (aka yours truly, aka this here cat) as a source (of problemas), since I don't seem to "know how" to exercise the discretion of my own wee widdo selfie verry goodie?  
or alternatively, you may well want to proclaim that I am not able to sufficiently/adequately identify which post(s) in these here parts MOAR deserve(s) dddddeeeeeeeee wwwwuuuuuvvvvvvvssssss (#nohomo) in accordance with your own views upon these kinds of wuvie duvie matters.

Or alternatively, even to that last alternative, you might consider showing the powers that be within this here forum that this place, WO and otherwise, needs a "merit czar," and you happen to know just the right peep who is ready, willing and able to take on such duties.  

It's likely that I had nearly 10 posts responding to these kinds of questions of smerit sending in the WO thread, and the above response remains largely representative of my thoughts on the topic, for anyone who might be able to interpret what I am saying through the attempt at poking fun at the seeming nonsense positions in which some forum members seem to be overly concerned about the smerit sending and/or merit receiving practices in the WO thread.

Lol.

I can see that as there are several WO regulars in this thread, it is becoming a WO-style one and not a typical Meta thread, because of the overquotes for example.

I am the only one who misses JJG writing a couple of short paragraphs as is usual for him on the topic here? He hasn't even written in the other one, of which this one is a parody, I understand.

Even you might realize, Poker Player, that I am not quite capable of ONLY writing a couple of paragraphs... even though surely this topic (including the related thread that you link) may well ONLY be worthy of a couple of paragraphs, at most.

Initially, when I saw this thread and the other one, I thought that maybe I should just let them play out for a while before chiming in or even before sending any smerits regarding points that were being made in the thread(s) - especially, since several times I had already given my opinions regarding the topic, and so this particular "parody" thread likely made the topic more targeted towards me, and probably ended up saying what Nutildah was wanting to say, but a bit more directly..  hahahahaha....  and in the end, to really show how dumb both of the threads are.. even though each thread has gotten quite a few responses (even some decent and informative responses) and even quite a few votes (relatively speaking) in terms of actually showing that members are willing to entertain and support such dumb, ill-thought out and even spiteful ideas/proposals (even though they are framed as if they were "valid concerns" that deserve something less than a bat slappening).

There actually were some decently good posts in each of these two threads, especially when LoyceV attempted to put some numbers on the matter, and I recall that earlier on, I was pretty low on those charts showing the meriting of banned members, and it seems that recently my numbers had gone up quite a bit.. and perhaps some of my practices did change in the last year or so in regards to my thinking that it is a good idea to attempt to send more smerits to newbies and/or low ranking members.

I do recall some places/instances where I would send smerits to seemingly disingenuine posts (posters) who had brought up good points on whatever topic was the thread (whether WO thread and/or other forum threads).. for example, in the art thread, the pumpkin carving thread and the pizza thread, I sent smerits to almost any member who made a submission in those contests that seemed to be their own original work (or the work of their family member), even if it might have been a pizza made with noodles and corn or some other ridiculous idea of what would be considered a pizza.

So yeah, it may be the case that I had increased some of my sending smerits to banned members through my more recent practices of attempting to send more smerits to newbie accounts (or relatively newbie accounts), and even identifying AI submissions is not always easy to accomplish, even though it might seem apparent after the fact.

For example, I recall sending two or three smerits to a member who ended up being an AI, and I was starting to get my suspicions after the second or third merit that I sent, but then once a member pointed out the AI angle of that particular member (who likely ended up getting banned), then it became more apparent.. and the same could end up being true for the identification of plagiarized content, and beyond maybe common-sensical practices, so far there have been no requirements that merit source members need to be able to identify plagiarized content (or employ advanced plagiarism/Ai detection tools to figure out what is plagiarized or what is AI generated) when sometimes, it is might not be very obvious.


Even though in the other thread, LoyceV pointed out a few of theymos's guidances in regards to smerit sending, including that he would like to see that there are attempts by merit sources to merit objectively better quality posts, yet many of us likely realize that there are a lot of subjective aspects involved in regards to putting smerit sending into practice, and rules about supposed objective quality of posts are not as high as members seem to want to assert them as being or should that the rules should be turning smerit senders into objective standard robots.. which really would not be very practical..

And at the same time, theymos has the ability to remove any merit source member or to reduce or to increase the quantity of their source merits at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all.

Surely, there is quite a bit of discretion in terms of whether to send any smerits or how much due diligence that any merit source member exercises prior to sending smerits, and many times, I had suggested that there might be some benefits to the forum to rotate merit sources and/or to retain more merit source members - yet many folks likely realize that if such an increase in merit source management tactics were to be carried out, either theymos is going to have to do a lot more work or he is going to have to find a member who he believes would be a good fit in terms of carrying out some kind of merit czar type duties - which surely has its own trade-offs and even potential for drama... but not necessarily something that would not end up working out in the end, after members got used to some of the changes and theymos and such merit czar to come were to work out their own merit czar performance expectations.


Maybe this part of my response should go in the other thread, but with regards to the WO thread specifically, we have already known that since the beginning of the merit source system (in early 2018), the WO thread disproportionately spread the most smerits in comparison to any other forum thread, so nutildah's assertion that the WO thread has gone downhill in the last year seems to NOT be supported by actual reality, even though it is quite likely that the word has gotten out that there are a bunch of softies (or potential softies) (perhaps including but not limited to yours truly) in the WO thread who will send smerits to almost any crap bitcoin-related post that is submitted therein.  

By the way, prior to early 2018, I rarely ventured outside of the WO thread, but I have not really stopped reading many of the WO thread posts - even though sometimes I may or may not understand them prior to determining whether to send an Smerit.. which is similar to other threads in which I send smerits.  

I do not claim to understand or even agree with everything that I send smerits to whether in the WO thread or in other forum threads, so the extent to which I engage in any due diligence beyond searching my memory banks about the poster (which may or may not be good) may well vary depending on a variety of factors including how much time I feel that I have available to research into any matter or other physical things that might be going on in the real world of my lil selfie or other things that I might be attempting to do at the time that I decide whether to send an smerit and whether to look further into the matter before hitting the "send" button.

JJG is busy - he will join the party soon trust me. He will appear when the thread is half -dead and bring it back alive

There may be some truth in that.  I did feel that I needed to read this whole thread first, and then that I also needed to read that other thread too..., but I am not going to claim that I understood anything that was posted in this thread or in that other thread.

Edit:  Whether regarding this thread or the other one, I forgot to mention there seem to be various elitism aspects in regards to the raising of these "concerns," but also several of the proposed solutions have similar elitism angles.. and sure, LoyceV's bringing up theymos's posts in the other thread on the topic of theymos's regrets about his earlier implementation of newbie jail goes to the same sentiment in respects to how ideas about the supposed problem and the various proposed solutions are out of touch with the right and with the better ways of going forward with concerns that might exist or develop in respect to alleged abuses on the forum (perhaps related to merit abuses and perhaps related to the WO thread and perhaps not as much as these abuses are described as "problems")...

Again at least, these seem to be proposed remedies in search of a problem, but likely worse these seem to be proposed remedies that would end up creating more problems than they resolve.

[Hamza2424]

Although the OP is written in an ironic tone.

Hmm, It happened many times with me as well even in the last week I got merit from him on the post done on 10th August and so on. Haha, another topic on the WO merit farming is disabling someone from distributing merit who engages with the discussions hmm I don't think so it's appropriate. Well on the WO I did start my journey on the forum with the support of JayJuanGee.

$27K 'max pain' Bitcoin price is ultimate buy-the-dip opportunity, says research
It may not happen, but a crash to $27,000 would be the chance for many investors to "go all in" on BTC.

Personally 27k looks like a dream to buy i can't see market going more in dip from 32k or 35k. Reason strong buying Order on these spots. Still its crypto we can say anything can happen.


Source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/27k-max-pain-bitcoin-price-is-ultimate-buy-the-dip-opportunity-says-research

Well, that is not a bad take on matters, Hamza2424.  

You realize that currently the 100-week moving average is at about $34.5k, and the 200-week moving average is at about $21,5k, so there could be dreamers to be expecting breaking below the 100-week moving average when we had not even broken below it last May/June when the BTC price had gotten down to $28.6k.. so it seems that if the BTC price did actually get below $28.6k, then it probably would not stop at $27k, but hey like you said, who knows?

__SNIP___

I will send you an smerit anyhow for pointing out a decent grain of skepticism about the Cointelegraph article, even though it does appear that you are spending a lot of your own forum efforts engaged in chasing bounties.. so a lot of guys do not like to send smerits to bounty chasers, which you seem to be engaged in such practices.

I was a newbie he even engaged me in a discussion and merited me, the very first merit from where I started exploring the forum and started my Bitcoin / Crypto journey forum learned a lot, made mistakes, and on the way to being a good student. I just want to mention that sometimes it brings really good outcomes  as me. I know how JJG reads the posts, how he comments, and how much time he spends and i really like that.

This can not be a solution for WO as in the other created topic by the nutildah I have seen some suggestions like SR+ standard and more actions like that. So merit farming it can be controlled by other ways beside restricting the sources.

[BobLawblaw]

when there is a certain kind of tinge to his own inabilities to control his own emotions and sending a kind of spiteful message while at the same time saying.. "I am only joking; I am only joking."  

Bro. I've had a shit 6-7 years since my best friend died. My meds went bad on me and I re-balanced over the last few months. I'm a completely different person, now, as far as my emotions, empathy, and intuition are concerned.

I wrote about this in detail in a WO post, about my recovery and sobriety.

But yeah, go ahead and take some more snipes, you colossal, wordy bellend.

[JayJuanGee]

when there is a certain kind of tinge to his own inabilities to control his own emotions and sending a kind of spiteful message while at the same time saying.. "I am only joking; I am only joking."  

Bro. I've had a shit 6-7 years since my best friend died. My meds went bad on me and I re-balanced over the last few months. I'm a completely different person, now, as far as my emotions, empathy, and intuition are concerned.

Fair enough.  I surely would not begrudge anyone for the employment of various self-improvement methods, including that sometimes they might or might not completely succeed.. but if you are finding progress then surely that would likely be a better place to be.

Another thing, I don't claim to be holier than thou or even holier than any other forum member, but sometimes I come accross certain kinds of behaviors that I consider problematic (including these two threads) then I may well choose to identify them as such (from my opinion/perspective) and make some kind of comment and/or analysis about such, rather than not saying anything..

By the way, aren't you asking me to respond, when you put my name in the title of the thread?  or even naming me in the OP?

In the end, it remains a discretionary matter whether to respond and/or how to respond, so in that regard, it seems that my earlier post largely speaks for itself.. and even with my writing of that post, I did go back through the post again (about a couple of hours after I first posted it, and I made some clarification edits), since I realized that I was juggling together a lot of ideas, and some of those ideas (meaning more than one) might be controversial, perhaps?

I wrote about this in detail in a WO post, about my recovery and sobriety.

Just because you posted about it, you should not impute knowledge upon anyone in the WO thread to have had read it, understood it, or even to have had remembered it... but I do recall you making a similar point to me about that post that coming out of the closet post that you made when I was engaged in some other kind of previous "Bob bashing," if we might label my conduct as such.

But yeah, go ahead and take some more snipes, you colossal, wordy bellend.

I doubt that I am purposefully attacking you in any way that is beyond what you deserve, yet surely I understand that opinions likely vary in regards to word-choice and/or tone that anyone (including but not limited to yours truly) might employ in their forum posts...  YMMV^{tm-toxic-moxic}

Another point that many of us frequently make, and should realize is that on the interwebs, none of us can really expect anyone to be nice, fair or even without malice towards us, and I doubt that any of my "attacks" on you are beyond anything that might be expected.. especially when you seem to be asking for it by naming me in supposed parody not parody thread.. .. even though I really doubt that I am deliberately attempting to be purposefully mean to you or anything like that (beyond somewhat "reasonable" levels of mean), but you likely realize that anyone has the rights and abilities to get in their little digs at any time of their own choosing. and it remains in your own boundaries regarding how to deal with those kinds of interactions with other forum members or even whether you choose to interact at all, whether the snipes/digs were warranted, purposeful, intentional or not, and I am not even saying that they were intentional beyond the extent that they were warranted in my perception to attempt to call a spade a spade..

I am not even claiming that the various assertions in my earlier post are objectively more valid than the assertions of other forum members, even though I suggested that the seeming motivations behind the substance of the posts/threads of both you and Nutildah were likely dumb, spiteful and perhaps even elitist in nature, and I implied that either of you (or both of you) getting others to take your nonsense seriously and/or to agree with the contents that the two of you were spewing likely shows that some some other forum members to be dummies, spiteful and/or elitist (or predisposed towards such) as well (which is my opinion, whether objectively true (provable) or not)..

Finally for this lil rant..  I am not even necessarily saying that sometimes it might not come in handy for peeps to engage in conduct that is dumb, spiteful and/or elitist (or to have relapses into those kinds of behaviors).. if that might have had been what you, nutildah and/or some other forum members were doing.  Perhaps? perhaps?




We're not bots, right?









right?









rrrriiiiiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhtttttt?

[UmerIdrees]

Oh probably second or third thread here in Meta against wall observer or we can say limited Jay from sending Merit. I visited many times there but didn't made any post yet. I agree that most the posts are spam and just copied Bitcoin news from twitter with images.I think removing full thread or disabling anyone to send merit is not the right solution. Other threads can be created and infact everyone has own mindset of giving merit. Jay is giving only one Merit for each post he like and i think it will not be more profitable spammer to grow quick. I think the better way is to give neutral to those member who continuesly making spam there and that's all.

I would disagree with giving neutral to the one spamming in the WO thread for merits. Those who are doing it on a regular basis, they needs to be spotted very carefully and given Neutral but you cannot open a door where people will start giving neutral to others because he is posting in WO.


Secondly, i would also like to identify what is actually meant by SPAM in the WO ?

Is it only that if someone posts news or a tweet with images and sources be considered as spam?

[BobLawblaw]

By the way, aren't you asking me to respond, when you put my name in the title of the thread?  or even naming me in the OP?

I've had you on Ignore for years, now.

[Antisthenes]

The simple solution to the problem is to disable JayJuanGee

Huh, disable? You mean remove its access to the web?
Shut down is more appropriate, go go, you can do it girl!

Better even, smash it for good:




Is it only me, or does anyone else see a connection between Bob and Jay?
I mean, if Bob and Rick created an AI, hey, JJG would be it. #sohomo

[Z_MBFM]

Earlier merit farming was not done on WO topics. JayJuanGee was giving only 1 merit most of the time who was posting good information with source. But now some shitposters have started posting bitcoin related tweets only available on twitter and JayJuanGee has given merit to those posts and seeing these more shitposters who have got merits are constantly posting such tweets with source link. And JayJuanGee keeps giving merit to those posts.

- https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine?t=1DU0pnZwlu-_-kfVRyrtPw&s=09
- https://twitter.com/elonmusk?t=KW1K5LJ4PO-gbzUibg2mkQ&s=09
- https://twitter.com/cz_binance?t=rPNh2rZtuUQg9igkrH2rLQ&s=09
- https://twitter.com/bitcoinlfgo?t=wuGazsVpShTQBh6K1KkeLw&s=09
- https://cointelegraph.com

Most of the posts are taken from here.  This is very easy to do. Because by following the Twitter accounts and keeping the bell button on, it is available as soon as the tweet is posted. And that's how faking merit is so easily earned, so why wouldn't shit posters take advantage of it?

Another merit farming topic is - El Salvador has become the first country to make #Bitcoin legal tender! 🇸🇻

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

By the way, aren't you asking me to respond, when you put my name in the title of the thread?  or even naming me in the OP?

I've had you on Ignore for years, now.

We never will have enough.

[Frankolala]

JJG is a kind of person that have some topics that he loves discussing on daily and what I have observed about him is that,any topic that he partake in daily discussions,as a merit source,he always merits posts are he believes are worthy of his merits to keep the topic active.

He is someone that loves teaching forum members on the knowledge of what he has and when you contribute to his idea or you have good point on the discussion,he will merit you. It is not only on the WO thread alone. I don't see this as what should warrant his merits being disable. He is a generous guy that love to keep the fun going. JJG is always discussing daily on these topics.
 El Salvador has become the first country to make #Bitcoin legal tender! 🇸🇻
 Buy the DIP,and HODL!

Recently,he loves posting on this topic
 HOW DO WE TRANSFER BITCOIN WEALTH TO HEIRS AND THE NEXT GENERATION

[JayJuanGee]

Secondly, i would also like to identify what is actually meant by SPAM in the WO ?

Is it only that if someone posts news or a tweet with images and sources be considered as spam

I have my doubts that the "spam" term really applies very well, except to the extent there is concern for those members who are posting twitter links, without any of their own comments or analysis... and the accusation is that they are engaged in those kinds of postings and receiving merits for largely non-substantive posts from members like me (and I suppose in the subject matter of this thread, I am considered to be the main problem for rewarding those little merit begging twats... hahahahaha).. which admittedly, I do send smerits to some of them sometimes, even though I would prefer some comments and/or analysis, but sometimes the post raise a good substantive issue or points out some bitcoin related matter (or maybe even some other kind of a matter) from a decently-good angle (even if the poster has largely, if not exclusively lifted it from twitter or some other place).

But there are even senior forum members who contribute something close to the same level of lack of substantive contribution and/or lack of comment garbage and receive merits mostly for their longevity and the fact that they have made previous good substantive and contributory posts. It seems to me that we used to have a lot of members posting information that they lifted from somewhere else without links (and I am not referring to mere non-substantive images), and these days many times members are at least putting links to show where the got the information, so it is easier to look at whether they have used any of their own words.. .

Another thing that bothers me (whether coming from lower ranked members or even from higher ranked members, is that they quote something, but they do not put quotes around it or otherwise make it clear that they are quoting rather than using their own words... and yeah, up until now, it remains discretionary the extent to which anyone, whether a merit source member or not sends smerits to these various low quality posts - and of course, there is a bit more concerns about source members being abusive in this direction, especially if there might be some kind of a quid pro quo claim that might be raised based on the ways that they are sending out smerts.

By the way, aren't you asking me to respond, when you put my name in the title of the thread?  or even naming me in the OP?

I've had you on Ignore for years, now.

Yes.  You are doing such a "great job" with suppressing your desires to keep me out of your head.

 

[DVlog]

Lol.

I can see that as there are several WO regulars in this thread, it is becoming a WO-style one and not a typical Meta thread, because of the overquotes for example.

I am the only one who misses JJG writing a couple of short paragraphs as is usual for him on the topic here? He hasn't even written in the other one, of which this one is a parody, I understand.

They are arguing with each other. Maybe it will be better to do that in WO as well.

I do like how JJG is super active in WO but I do not like his long neck post. His post is usually way too large to concentrate though I always got interested in reading those. Sometimes i enjoy watching some of the merit farmer's dedication to get JJG's attention in case he got a merit from him. I think it's the only board where serious people stop being serious and enjoy with each other. I am against disabling JJG's in the WO.

[BobLawblaw]

JJG must be destroyed.

A. D. C. court has ruled in favour of Grayscale

[JayJuanGee]

JJG must be destroyed.

A. D. C. court has ruled in favour of Grayscale

It would actually be a funny comment if you were to be merely joking... but you are not.

 

[Sandra_hakeem]

JJG must be destroyed.

Buhh, wait a sec...why are you so eager about disabling Jay from the WO thread? ..like, why did you decide to make more specificities to an already emphasized topic but this time, with just one person? I mean he's not the only one involved in whatever instigations you may think  of.
I personally think 'em shit posters have only improvised overtime to have the WO thread as a liverage on merit HODLing and account development... IF YOU WANNA CAMPAIGN FOR A USER TO GET A MERIT BAN... WHATSOEVER, DOES THAT FULFILL THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE CREATION?? _{or atleast, does it serve the rule that says the forum MUST be made as free as possible?}

Sandra 🧑‍🦰

[BobLawblaw]

why are you so eager about disabling Jay from the WO thread?

He's gayer than I am.

It's a jealously thing.

[franky1]

Merit farming ... has gotten way out of hand.

so i gave you 50 merit.

[BobLawblaw]

Merit farming ... has gotten way out of hand.

so i gave you 50 merit.

Neato. I guess I'll spend them on hats.

[DYING_S0UL]

JJG must be destroyed.

I don't think disabling JJG or WO is a solution. I agree WO is filled with merit farmers & shitposters. But destroying JJG? Nope. I only think this topic had to be bought up to the world. & now that you have & got the attention. The ones who previously gave out merits shouldn't give out any without any valid posts. If one deserves merit he/she should get them. But if anyone is a copy paste shitposters he/she shouldn't. Now that everyone is aware of this situation. I hope they would consider twice before meriting someone. That's how merit farming will be less & less. Look what happened after the posts. The merit farmers are less and less in WO.  

[SamReomo]

why are you so eager about disabling Jay from the WO thread?

He's gayer than I am.

It's a jealously thing.

Now that comment make some sense because jealousy is something that can be easily shown by someone's actions. However, I must say that your actions depict more or less a fun-loving person who's considering the whole situation as a way of entertainment, but I must tell you that it isn't that much funny if you see the whole picture. The first thread was a valid concern raised by @Nutillldah and I must say that thread was a serious one while this one is more or less like a way to make fun of someone which isn't really good by any means. But, I still think that the members of WO thread and the merit sources at that thread know well that what they are doing.

Both you and JJG are among the most senior members of the forum and that's why someone with so much seniority level should not really make things in this way. JJG and other reputed members of the WO thread have replied in that thread because they were sure that they weren't doing anything that would be in any way against the rules of the forum and I'm more than sure that the rules are for every merit source not for the ones on WO thread.

Let's wind things up and lock this thread because any more discussion on this thread would hurt JJG's feelings and I don't think that attacking a reputed member like JJG just for the sake of some entertainment is good at all. It's a request to lock this thread because allowing more comments on it won't make the situation better and there is no need to continue it any further because out of 47 total votes the 42 are in favor of JJG, and that's more than enough to for us to believe that all those members want JJG to stay at WO and they all voted in favor of him.

[Antisthenes]

For the record, I want to clarify my grudge with JJG.
It is not the constant repetition of its thesis, nor its extra salty cunt whilst doing so, let alone its gheyness.

It is because it pretends to be of human nature - which it absolutely is not.
Unless I’ve missed something of course - like a formal declaration of its silicon nature.

That said, of course I’m pro to its dismantle, no matter how pro Bitcoin it is or not.

[Marykeller]

I have been reading replies made on this post, to check where someone would point out where JayJuanGee is farming an account through a WO thread or merits a particular set of people. But in all of the post replies I have read so far here, no one has given a bad remark about JayJuanGee, but rather a good remark that he merits different boards and gives out merits to the post he finds to be quality not minding the rank of the user.

[Who is John Galt?]

I have been reading replies made on this post, to check where someone would point out where JayJuanGee is farming an account through a WO thread

Every joke has boundaries beyond which it would become not only unfunny, but simply ridiculous. So far, it seems that no one in this thread has come up with the idea to break out of these boundaries so much.

[Russlenat]

Respectfully, OP, I have to disagree with you on this one. That thread's been around even before the merit system got introduced. And if you're concerned about people using merit farming to snag a spot in a signature campaign, well, I think it's up to the campaign manager to figure out if someone truly deserves it.

Now, I don't have a ton of merits either, so sometimes when I apply for a campaign, I get that feeling that users with loads of merits are getting the nod. But I don't let it bother me, really. I just keep posting on the boards I love without any expectations of merits. If they come, they come.

The whole idea behind merit farming is to rank up or earn more merits to look appealing to campaign managers. But if you take a closer look, we don't even have to spend time investigating which accounts are legit because the moment they join a campaign, their post quality tends to shoot up. So, personally, I trust the judgment of those campaign managers – they're popular for a reason around here.

Lastly, I don't think Theymos would be on board with disabling that thread either. It's one of the biggest threads around, and we all love to gather there when the bull run hits.

[nutildah]

Lastly, I don't think Theymos would be on board with disabling that thread either.

That's... That's not how any of this works.

I have been reading replies made on this post, to check where someone would point out where JayJuanGee is farming an account through a WO thread

Every joke has boundaries beyond which it would become not only unfunny, but simply ridiculous. So far, it seems that no one in this thread has come up with the idea to break out of these boundaries so much.

Since this thread was recently bumped, I thought I would write a limerick about this conspiracy theory:

There once was a man named JJG
Oft he curiously did merit pee
The craftiest of scammers, he ranked up some spammers
For 20% of their campaign BTC

[shahzadafzal]

Since this thread was recently bumped, I thought I would write a limerick about this conspiracy theory:

There once was a man named JJG
Oft he curiously did merit pee
The craftiest of scammers, he ranked up some spammers
For 20% of their campaign BTC

and i sang it in the same Wellerman's tune

In addition to the conspiracy theory I mean why JJG is being targeted... because he merit's every deserving posts?

This is the beauty of his meriting spree, it's call an "equal opportunity" meriting. Irrespective of whether you are a spammer or a merit farmer or somewhat established legendary member "1" merit is for everyone who and that's all nothing more nothing less.

On Bitcointalk, he'd roam fancy-free.
No matter your gender,
Rank, or seniority tender,
One merit from JJG, you'd agree!

[Who is John Galt?]

Respectfully, OP, I have to disagree with you on this one.

Indeed, on the fifth page of the thread, after the discussion has died down for more than a month, it’s the rightest time to disagree with the OP.

Since this thread was initially conducive to this, and now it has become the most relevant, OP, I haven’t figured out why yet, but I’ll also get in line to disagree with you!

I have been reading replies made on this post, to check where someone would point out where JayJuanGee is farming an account through a WO thread

Every joke has boundaries beyond which it would become not only unfunny, but simply ridiculous. So far, it seems that no one in this thread has come up with the idea to break out of these boundaries so much.

Since this thread was recently bumped, I thought I would write a limerick about this conspiracy theory:

There once was a man named JJG
Oft he curiously did merit pee
The craftiest of scammers, he ranked up some spammers
For 20% of their campaign BTC

There was yer one on Bitcointalk forum
Who came to create this topic quorum,
He wrote a poem
Which close to the bone,
We'll see how it's stirring up the forum.

[Russlenat]

Respectfully, OP, I have to disagree with you on this one.

Indeed, on the fifth page of the thread, after the discussion has died down for more than a month, it’s the rightest time to disagree with the OP.

My bad, I didn't even check the date of the last reply. I got caught up in my feelings because it seemed like you guys were trying to hurt JJG's feelings  , and he's one of my favorite members on the forum. 

By the way, since I was the one who bumped it, maybe let me have the last word, and we can wrap it up here.

[JayJuanGee]

Lastly, I don't think Theymos would be on board with disabling that thread either.

That's... That's not how any of this works.

I have been reading replies made on this post, to check where someone would point out where JayJuanGee is farming an account through a WO thread

Every joke has boundaries beyond which it would become not only unfunny, but simply ridiculous. So far, it seems that no one in this thread has come up with the idea to break out of these boundaries so much.

Since this thread was recently bumped, I thought I would write a limerick about this conspiracy theory:

There once was a man named JJG
Oft he curiously did merit pee
The craftiest of scammers, he ranked up some spammers
For 20% of their campaign BTC

It looks legit and even unbiased when you put it like that.

And, I Love the font.     #nohomo

Respectfully, OP, I have to disagree with you on this one.

Indeed, on the fifth page of the thread, after the discussion has died down for more than a month, it’s the rightest time to disagree with the OP.

My bad, I didn't even check the date of the last reply. I got caught up in my feelings because it seemed like you guys were trying to hurt JJG's feelings  , and he's one of my favorite members on the forum. 

By the way, since I was the one who bumped it, maybe let me have the last word, and we can wrap it up here.

Don't worry.

I cannot see Bob closing this thread... and probably even moderators don't give too many shits whether it stays open or not... even though the substance of the thread is a bit childish and whiny.. but maybe it ends up playing out as a bit of somewhat innocent humor too.... that likely reflects more on the pettiness of the authors rather than any substantively important topic that they believe that they may have raised.. . just like the nutildah thread of a similar theme.. if you had not seen that one....

and. .my feelings had not really gotten hurt from these kinds of topics.. let it aire out.. even if 100% ^confirmed dumb...

 

[Poker Player]

I cannot see Bob closing this thread... and probably even moderators don't give too many shits whether it stays open or not... even though the substance of the thread is a bit childish and whiny.. but maybe it ends up playing out as a bit of somewhat innocent humor too....
 

I believe that the WO regulars theymos, and consequently the moderators, have a special consideration for you. Otherwise this thread would have been moved to off-topic or something a long time ago, because I don't remember in meta which is a serious section a thread with so many jokes, starting with the title, overquotes and things that make this thread look like a split of the WO that has fallen here.

[philipma1957]

Respectfully, OP, I have to disagree with you on this one. That thread's been around even before the merit system got introduced. And if you're concerned about people using merit farming to snag a spot in a signature campaign, well, I think it's up to the campaign manager to figure out if someone truly deserves it.

Now, I don't have a ton of merits either, so sometimes when I apply for a campaign, I get that feeling that users with loads of merits are getting the nod. But I don't let it bother me, really. I just keep posting on the boards I love without any expectations of merits. If they come, they come.

The whole idea behind merit farming is to rank up or earn more merits to look appealing to campaign managers. But if you take a closer look, we don't even have to spend time investigating which accounts are legit because the moment they join a campaign, their post quality tends to shoot up. So, personally, I trust the judgment of those campaign managers – they're popular for a reason around here.

Lastly, I don't think Theymos would be on board with disabling that thread either. It's one of the biggest threads around, and we all love to gather there when the bull run hits.

Here is a shit ton of merits. I just spent a half hour reading your posts they are pretty good and you have beed around a while.

Lastly, I don't think Theymos would be on board with disabling that thread either.

That's... That's not how any of this works.

I have been reading replies made on this post, to check where someone would point out where JayJuanGee is farming an account through a WO thread

Every joke has boundaries beyond which it would become not only unfunny, but simply ridiculous. So far, it seems that no one in this thread has come up with the idea to break out of these boundaries so much.

Since this thread was recently bumped, I thought I would write a limerick about this conspiracy theory:

There once was a man named JJG
Oft he curiously did merit pee
The craftiest of scammers, he ranked up some spammers
For 20% of their campaign BTC

Do you think that is true? or are we just kidding.

[JayJuanGee]

Respectfully, OP, I have to disagree with you on this one. That thread's been around even before the merit system got introduced. And if you're concerned about people using merit farming to snag a spot in a signature campaign, well, I think it's up to the campaign manager to figure out if someone truly deserves it.

Now, I don't have a ton of merits either, so sometimes when I apply for a campaign, I get that feeling that users with loads of merits are getting the nod. But I don't let it bother me, really. I just keep posting on the boards I love without any expectations of merits. If they come, they come.

The whole idea behind merit farming is to rank up or earn more merits to look appealing to campaign managers. But if you take a closer look, we don't even have to spend time investigating which accounts are legit because the moment they join a campaign, their post quality tends to shoot up. So, personally, I trust the judgment of those campaign managers – they're popular for a reason around here.

Lastly, I don't think Theymos would be on board with disabling that thread either. It's one of the biggest threads around, and we all love to gather there when the bull run hits.

Here is a shit ton of merits. I just spent a half hour reading your posts they are pretty good and you have beed around a while.

I will review his posts later too..

Lastly, I don't think Theymos would be on board with disabling that thread either.

That's... That's not how any of this works.

I have been reading replies made on this post, to check where someone would point out where JayJuanGee is farming an account through a WO thread

Every joke has boundaries beyond which it would become not only unfunny, but simply ridiculous. So far, it seems that no one in this thread has come up with the idea to break out of these boundaries so much.

Since this thread was recently bumped, I thought I would write a limerick about this conspiracy theory:
There once was a man named JJG
Oft he curiously did merit pee
The craftiest of scammers, he ranked up some spammers
For 20% of their campaign BTC

Do you think that is true? or are we just kidding.

Oh..? I had not even noticed the part that I would supposedly be getting a kick back from some of the forum members (spammers in nutildah-speak).. so the little riddle seems to go a bit far in terms of making that kind of an allegation (making shit up)... it is a pretty BIG allegation (and mud-slinging that could get forum members into trouble for doing things like that) to accuse another forum member of getting a kick back, even if it is just a funzies joke... and I doubt that he either has evidence and he probably does not even have any "reasonable" inferences of evidence that might exist beyond what's in his fantasy pea-brain self-righteous paranoid accusing others without evidence little noggen. (too many adjectives in a row?  I think NOT)

[nutildah]

Do you think that is true? or are we just kidding.

[philipma1957]

Well between nutildah, JJG and myself we have amassed more than 23,000 merits and handed

out more than 25,000 merits. With those volumes  some merits are going to bad actors some of the time.

The 8000 or so merits I have handed out have gone to more than 1000 different member. And maybe 20+ were banned. you just can't always be correct about a person .

I would like to thin JJG does not get paid feedback money for merits. I don't and I think others are like me. I would prefer to think this of JJG.

Hoping that nutildah is wrong and its just a joke.

[JayJuanGee]

Well between nutildah, JJG and myself we have amassed more than 23,000 merits and handed

out more than 25,000 merits. With those volumes  some merits are going to bad actors some of the time.

The 8000 or so merits I have handed out have gone to more than 1000 different member. And maybe 20+ were banned. you just can't always be correct about a person .

I would like to thin JJG does not get paid feedback money for merits. I don't and I think others are like me. I would prefer to think this of JJG.

Hoping that nutildah is wrong and its just a joke.

It seems to me that you, philip, are giving too much benefit of the doubt to nutildah to even go along with the possibility that something like what he had said might be true without him having had shown any facts and/or actual logic - besides putting the assertion within a cute little poem.  

Since some members are not going to know these kinds of things, probably Nutildah has a bit of duty to clarify that he is full of shit, retract his statement, probably apologize and say that he will never do it again (even though that might not be true with the arrogant lil twat) and/or if he happens to have facts and/or logic to back up his bullshit likely to be disingenuine little assertion, then maybe he should set forth such facts and/or logic.. and maybe this here thread would be as good of a place as any.. or maybe starting another thread could be started.. There tends to be flexibility in these kinds of mud-slinging matters...

As sometimes "we" like to say around here (just like your mom used to say to you when a kid), "it is all fun and games until someone's eye gets poked out".. OUCH!!!!

[Who is John Galt?]

Hoping that nutildah is wrong and its just a joke.

If this is an example of some kind of post-irony, then I’m pretty bad at understanding such deeply veiled jokes. But now I will definitely look ridiculous and funny, regardless of who was joking in this situation and who was serious. Because explaining any jokes is definitely not what's fun.

nutildah was definitely joking.

I also hope that you were just joking as part of some post-irony, because the discussion of trading likes is somewhere beyond my understanding. This cannot be discussed in all seriousness! But it looks so convincing that if this is complex humor, where the reader must believe that it is serious, then you guys have succeeded!

[JayJuanGee]

Hoping that nutildah is wrong and its just a joke.

If this is an example of some kind of post-irony, then I’m pretty bad at understanding such deeply veiled jokes. But now I will definitely look ridiculous and funny, regardless of who was joking in this situation and who was serious. Because explaining any jokes is definitely not what's fun.

nutildah was definitely joking.

I also hope that you were just joking as part of some post-irony, because the discussion of trading likes is somewhere beyond my understanding. This cannot be discussed in all seriousness! But it looks so convincing that if this is complex humor, where the reader must believe that it is serious, then you guys have succeeded!

That's part of the problem, especially if you are telling jokes about other forum members rather than some other possibly more neutral topic (even potentially controversial).

For example, if you are telling jokes about some kind of a system, or politics, religion, sex or even bitcoin versus shitcoins, you might not even need to show whether you are joking or not because of the subject matter of the joke. 

Actually, in recent times, I have been doing this quite frequently with certain topics, including telling someone to buy a shitcoin (usually by agreeing with their seeming pumping of a shitcoin).. which surely is the opposite of what I think, and sometimes I might even feel badly about going that far with my joke.. or at least torn about if some members are going to take me seriously and buy the shitcoin.. but that does not cause me to necessarily explain the joke... just leave it and let whatever readers of the post decide what they will do... I already suggested what I think daddy dildah should do...

[philipma1957]

Well between nutildah, JJG and myself we have amassed more than 23,000 merits and handed

out more than 25,000 merits. With those volumes  some merits are going to bad actors some of the time.

The 8000 or so merits I have handed out have gone to more than 1000 different member. And maybe 20+ were banned. you just can't always be correct about a person .

I would like to thin JJG does not get paid feedback money for merits. I don't and I think others are like me. I would prefer to think this of JJG.

Hoping that nutildah is wrong and its just a joke.

It seems to me that you, philip, are giving too much benefit of the doubt to nutildah to even go along with the possibility that something like what he had said might be true without him having had shown any facts and/or actual logic - besides putting the assertion within a cute little poem.  

Since some members are not going to know these kinds of things, probably Nutildah has a bit of duty to clarify that he is full of shit, retract his statement, probably apologize and say that he will never do it again (even though that might not be true with the arrogant lil twat) and/or if he happens to have facts and/or logic to back up his bullshit likely to be disingenuine little assertion, then maybe he should set forth such facts and/or logic.. and maybe this here thread would be as good of a place as any.. or maybe starting another thread could be started.. There tends to be flexibility in these kinds of mud-slinging matters...

As sometimes "we" like to say around here (just like your mom used to say to you when a kid), "it is all fun and games until someone's eye gets poked out".. OUCH!!!!

But I like him in general so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. Much as I like you in general and want to give you the benefit the doubt.

One of the issues all three of us have along with dude any loyce maybe 15 of us total is we have tons of merits given out.

I don't want to think that of the 15 top merit givers 2 or 3 or 4 of those people are dropping merits for profit in a back door deal.

@ who is John Galt I think it is tongue in cheek but that anyone does know merit farming has

occurred time and time again. I guess this thread will be some what funny and ironic while vaguely disturbing which knowing the op is what he was looking for.

[Who is John Galt?]

@ who is John Galt I think it is tongue in cheek but that anyone does know merit farming has

occurred time and time again. I guess this thread will be some what funny and ironic while vaguely disturbing which knowing the op is what he was looking for.

Someone brings a match, but whether we allow ourselves to flare up largely depends on us too.

just leave it and let whatever readers of the post decide what they will do...

Reasonable. It's time for me to retire from this topic for a while.

[Hamza2424]

The whole idea behind merit farming is to rank up or earn more merits to look appealing to campaign managers. But if you take a closer look, we don't even have to spend time investigating which accounts are legit because the moment they join a campaign, their post quality tends to shoot up. So, personally, I trust the judgment of those campaign managers – they're popular for a reason around here.

Right on Track...

[Smartvirus]

I think @OP, your proposed solution is no solution at all. Disabling someone that gives just about a single merit at a time on a single post doesn’t make any good to the issue you’re making an elephant out of on the forum.

JayJuanGee remains one popular guy on the forum and that’s not solely because of his patterns to giving merits but also due to the volume of his posts too. He’s no shit poster and you can always find him making constructive arguments, openly expressing his opinions, he stays open to contrary views and ready to agree when he’s in the wrong.

Some old habits die hard and if OP or anybody else would try to link, JJG to any of the shit posting account on the forum, I’ll be in shock, iced in my core. I don’t see how such a quality poster would be reduced to reposting tweets and laying out just few words to a post, nope that ain’t JJG.

[nutildah]

nutildah was definitely joking.

[nutildah]

I was gonna re-open my thread on the subject but remembered this one exists & is more fitting anyway.

Like, I can't believe the shamelessness of some people.

Some basic stats about the WO thread to highlight the problem

Posts in the last 30 days: 2,410
Posts excluding ChartBuddy: 1,682
Posts written by 4 BitVest sig campaigners: 169 (10% of all non-bot posts in the last month... 1 out of every 10 posts is from a BV campaigner trying to coax merits out of JJG)

BV campaigner #1:




BV campaigner #2:




The other 2 of the 4 don't post nearly as much. They, along with everyone else, seem to have gotten the memo. But not these 2. Whatever I guess.

[JayJuanGee]

I was gonna re-open my thread on the subject but remembered this one exists & is more fitting anyway.

Like, I can't believe the shamelessness of some people.

Some basic stats about the WO thread to highlight the problem

Posts in the last 30 days: 2,410
Posts excluding ChartBuddy: 1,682
Posts written by 4 BitVest sig campaigners: 169 (10% of all non-bot posts in the last month... 1 out of every 10 posts is from a BV campaigner trying to coax merits out of JJG)

BV campaigner #1:


BV campaigner #2:


The other 2 of the 4 don't post nearly as much. They, along with everyone else, seem to have gotten the memo. But not these 2. Whatever I guess.

Sounds a bit vague in terms of the 4 supposed members who supposedly do not deserve merits for some or all of their posts. Maybe you can name the names of these merit recipients who supposedly did not deserve merits for their posts.... to the extent that your ongoing whining on such topic even matters?

[nutildah]

Sounds a bit vague in terms of the 4 supposed members who supposedly do not deserve merits for some or all of their posts. Maybe you can name the names of these merit recipients who supposedly did not deserve merits for their posts.... to the extent that your ongoing whining on such topic even matters?

I took you off ignore to do you the courtesy of at least replying to your question and was relieved to see you hadn't written a novel.

I didn't want to mention them by name. After all, I'm not a cruel or tacky person at heart, even if shitcoining is my main game.

But something I discovered today left me flabbergasted: BitVest sig campaigners are getting paid to post in the WO.

They are, AFAIK, the only campaign that pays for such posts, in that they have no clause that says posts in places where the signature isn't displayed won't be counted.

So they aren't just posting in the WO to collect merits from you, knowing you are by far the forum's loosest merit source. They are also getting paid for it!

Also I just want to point out that this clause doesn't seem to be enforced, whatsoever:

2. Signature Spamming that is detrimental to the discussions in threads will not count as payment. If you're reported or caught for spamming you'll be removed from this campaign after 2 strike.

Several campaign members have been tagged as spammers already and their posts deleted.

Just dumb AF. Stop incentivizing them with merits. If you insist on doing that, do it elsewhere.

[JayJuanGee]

Sounds a bit vague in terms of the 4 supposed members who supposedly do not deserve merits for some or all of their posts. Maybe you can name the names of these merit recipients who supposedly did not deserve merits for their posts.... to the extent that your ongoing whining on such topic even matters?

I took you off ignore to do you the courtesy of at least replying to your question and was relieved to see you hadn't written a novel.

I didn't want to mention them by name. After all, I'm not a cruel or tacky person at heart, even if shitcoining is my main game.

You are already cruel and tacky by making vague accusations, so I suppose it is just a matter of which direction you choose to be vague and tacky.

But something I discovered today left me flabbergasted: BitVest sig campaigners are getting paid to post in the WO.

They are, AFAIK, the only campaign that pays for such posts, in that they have no clause that says posts in places where the signature isn't displayed won't be counted.

I give few shits.

So they aren't just posting in the WO to collect merits from you, knowing you are by far the forum's loosest merit source. They are also getting paid for it!

Hopefully you have reported me to theymos in order that he can consider doing something about me being the supposed problem, as perceived by you.

Also I just want to point out that this clause doesn't seem to be enforced, whatsoever:

2. Signature Spamming that is detrimental to the discussions in threads will not count as payment. If you're reported or caught for spamming you'll be removed from this campaign after 2 strike.

Several campaign members have been tagged as spammers already and their posts deleted.

Hopefully you are reporting campaign managers who you believe to be too loosey goosey with the posting requirements of their members.

Just dumb AF. Stop incentivizing them with merits. If you insist on doing that, do it elsewhere.

Fuck off with your dumb AF making up of rules in regards to some supposed standard of smerit distribution for merit source members that you believe that I need to follow or any other merit source member who might feel that they have to follow some kind of fantasy smerit sending standard that you wish were to exist.

If you have some more specifics in regards to forum members or posts that I have been meriting that you disagree with then list them here or otherwise, yet I doubt that your mere listing them is going to make too much of a difference, even though it could be possible that I could agree with you and perhaps (at my complete discretion) decide to not send smerits to that member (or those members) any more or some of the kinds of posts that you are concerned about "undeservedly" receiving merits from me and/or from other merit source members.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

So they aren't just posting in the WO to collect merits from you, knowing you are by far the forum's loosest merit source. They are also getting paid for it!

Hopefully you have reported me to theymos in order that he can consider doing something about me being the supposed problem, as perceived by you.

Also I just want to point out that this clause doesn't seem to be enforced, whatsoever:

2. Signature Spamming that is detrimental to the discussions in threads will not count as payment. If you're reported or caught for spamming you'll be removed from this campaign after 2 strike.

Several campaign members have been tagged as spammers already and their posts deleted.

Hopefully you are reporting campaign managers who you believe to be too loosey goosey with the posting requirements of their members.

Some members are writing more than 60 posts for their requirements for the campaign weekly such members don't get their spams counted on this threads while some members their irrelevant replies on the thread are been ignored. I'm actively watching all account and anyone that get tagged for their spamming are getting removed. Just tagged and I'll do the needful. I have warned my participants and anybody spamming the forum won't be part of my campaigns anymore. Tagged (neutral is eligible to get removed, I don't have to wait for negative).

[nutildah]

Hopefully you have reported me to theymos in order that he can consider doing something about me being the supposed problem, as perceived by you.

Only you can fix the problem. But you obviously don't care... You will rank up the most useless multi-accounting scammers here if they kiss the center of your b-hole just right, because that is what matters to you most in your forum experience.

Hopefully you are reporting campaign managers who you believe to be too loosey goosey with the posting requirements of their members.

"Reporting campaign managers?" You really don't have the first clue about how any of this works. There's no point in wasting any more time on you, so back on ignore you go. None of this is for you anyway, because as you've established, you don't care to change. Its for everyone else to see what's going on and why they shouldn't emulate your behavior.

Some members are writing more than 60 posts for their requirements for the campaign weekly such members don't get their spams counted on this threads while some members their irrelevant replies on the thread are been ignored. I'm actively watching all account and anyone that get tagged for their spamming are getting removed. Just tagged and I'll do the needful. I have warned my participants and anybody spamming the forum won't be part of my campaigns anymore. Tagged (neutral is eligible to get removed, I don't have to wait for negative).

OK. Is there any chance you could consider not paying participants for posting the WO thread? Their signature isn't being displayed there anyway, after all... I really can't understand what BitVest would get out of it.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

OK. Is there any chance you could consider not paying participants for posting the WO thread? Their signature isn't being displayed there anyway, after all... I really can't understand what BitVest would get out of it.

I don't usually count pictures been sent there as they're indicated on spreadsheet as denied post but to make things easier if the campaign continues all members will be requested not to engage on the thread.

[nutildah]

I don't usually count pictures been sent there as they're indicated on spreadsheet as denied post but to make things easier if the campaign continues all members will be requested not to engage on the thread.

Well, I don't want to tell people where they can or can't post. I just don't understand the purpose of counting their posts in places where their signature isn't shown. I realize their avatar is still shown. You don't have announce or change anything, but the whole purpose of disabling signatures in that thread is to deter spam posts there.

[JayJuanGee]

Hopefully you have reported me to theymos in order that he can consider doing something about me being the supposed problem, as perceived by you.

Only you can fix the problem. But you obviously don't care... You will rank up the most useless multi-accounting scammers here if they kiss the center of your b-hole just right, because that is what matters to you most in your forum experience.

Again.. Your supposed perception of a problem, your supposed perception of what criteria needs to be followed to send smerits and your supposed perception of supposed ONLY solutions.   You did not even point out the four members nor any of the supposed problematic posts, so how would any adjustments be made if some others, including yours truly don't even know the specifics?  To me, you seem to be just trying to create work for others so that some of us might have to kowtow to some semblance of your smerit sending criteria.. when no such thing actually exists at the moment.. You cannot get theymos to do anything about it in terms of adjusting the smerit sending rules, so then you continue to just throw out vague accusations in regards to your own vision of smerit sending criteria.  

Hopefully you are reporting campaign managers who you believe to be too loosey goosey with the posting requirements of their members.

"Reporting campaign managers?" You really don't have the first clue about how any of this works. There's no point in wasting any more time on you, so back on ignore you go. None of this is for you anyway, because as you've established, you don't care to change. Its for everyone else to see what's going on and why they shouldn't emulate your behavior.

Since you are proclaiming that you are not really even wanting to interact with me, then perhaps your goal is just to harass other members such as me, and then send messages to other members that you are going to harass them too.. so you are seeming to want to bully members into your criteria, and by the way, it does seems that some members do adjust some of their smerit sending criteria from time to time, including yours truly, but doing so merely because another member is whining about it and appealing to the public about it with such spin that he is not even pointing out specific posts and/or specific forum members engaged in the spamming seems problematic to me.. but no of course, I am somehow creating all of this problem because I am so supposedly "generous" with my smerit sending to the undeserving (and you are a party-pooping merit scrooge), and you are even suggesting that I have some kind of supposed bad intentions because I am either not cooperating with your whiny-ass requests or that I am failing/refusing to do as much due diligence as what you believe needs to be done prior to sending smerits.  

Seems like a lot of assumptions, vague finger pointing coming from your end and attempts to impose your own subjective criteria to smerit sending.

And, also one members definition of spam is quite different from another's and did the member provide any helpful information, even if the member might not have provided any of his own words or his own analysis.. but merely provided an image or a link or maybe an image, link and words from the source (that might not even be clear if the words or his own words or coming from the source).  There are newbie spammer, smerit seekers and even more senior forum members who provide these kinds of superficial short posts that hardly have any substance, and sometimes the supposed newbie spammers smerit seekers are providing better posts than some of the more senior members who are on your (nutildah's) not a problem list.   

As any of us likely realize, there frequently can be bits of dilemmas in the sending of smerits, yet I am not going to give any ground to you or to agree that there is a need to follow nutildah's vague-ass checklist, but maybe if you would like to try to contribute something productive to any forum source members who you believe are "overly" generous, you might want to consider providing a checklist of nutildah's smerit sending criteria (wish-list), and maybe at least some of us could get some positive (rather than whining) feedback from uie-pooie about potential positive actionable ways forward... instead of having your dumb ass second-guessing members who are likely already spending quite a bit of time in their own ways of contributing to the forum that just happens to differ from your own wishful preferences of how the world/forum should be.

I don't usually count pictures been sent there as they're indicated on spreadsheet as denied post but to make things easier if the campaign continues all members will be requested not to engage on the thread.

Well, I don't want to tell people where they can or can't post.

Good!  At least you are not that fucking stupid, and you realize that there are circumstances in which negative ramifications might end up resulting from your ongoing whining and harassing of mostly well-intended forum members.

I just don't understand the purpose of counting their posts in places where their signature isn't shown. I realize their avatar is still shown. You don't have announce or change anything, but the whole purpose of disabling signatures in that thread is to deter spam posts there.

Yes, and we know that you would like to disable the sending of smerits in the WO thread too.. but instead, you decide to post about your issue in this particular thread that has my name in it.. which this thread was kind-of, but not really, an exaggeration of your earlier thread that was more supposedly focusing on smerit sending and bullying of smerit sending in the WO thread..

As you can see from your below post, you claimed victory in that earlier thread since you were able to conjure up 38 yes votes and you were also able to get one merit source member (El Duderino in the case of your claimed victory) to agree to try to move in the direction of kowtowing towards your whining about supposed problems.

Poll has finally ended. 38 for Yes and 59 No. Not completely surprising, but for the 38 people who voted Yes, well let me just say I am proud of you.

There's been a considerable dropoff in merit farming in the WO since I opened this thread (although it still exists to a certain degree). I reckon I will re-open and bump it if it picks back up again.

At least Duderino seems like he's considering being more selective with merits, so that's good.

Just a reminder to all merit sources, you don't need to give away all your source merits! Ideally you are giving them out for good posts that demonstrate the slightest inkling of original thought, and not just for copy/pasted tweets about number going up, or because somebody expresses admiration for you or agrees with you. I dunno, I guess the takeaway is don't let yourself be so easily fooled and manipulated. Its happened to me a few times, nobody's perfect, but let's not consistently reward low effort copy/paste posts. It just leads to a multiplication of such posts in what is arguably the best thread on the forum.

[Troytech]

With all due respect this is a seniors argument and I'm don't think I have much experience to be talking here, but i think think the best way to solve this problem is to find people posting such and giving them a temporary ban for doing so instead of giving balme to anyone or pointing fingers.

Only you can fix the problem. But you obviously don't care... You will rank up the most useless multi-accounting scammers here if they kiss the center of your b-hole just right, because that is what matters to you most in your forum experience.

I've been following on up on this thread for a while and none of you seem to have prove that users are using multiple accounts even if we know its true and neither do you know if JayJuanGee has a hand in this too. Its all assumptions cause you have no prove to back it up. And going as far as reporting him or calling him out, isnt that a bit too far.

[BobLawblaw]

I think @OP, your proposed solution is no solution at all. Disabling someone that gives just about a single merit at a time on a single post doesn’t make any good to the issue you’re making an elephant out of on the forum.

@BobLawblaw hope you are reading brother.

I am reading this. If you think this is a serious thread, you need to go fuck yourself.

[philipma1957]

I think @OP, your proposed solution is no solution at all. Disabling someone that gives just about a single merit at a time on a single post doesn’t make any good to the issue you’re making an elephant out of on the forum.

@BobLawblaw hope you are reading brother.

I am reading this. If you think this is a serious thread, you need to go fuck yourself.

go get them bob.

[SamReomo]

Man, this thread is still active I thought it was inactive and OP might have locked it up. OP just lock this thread and allow JayJuanGee to rest, by the way he's heart of WO thread and we all know that. Whatever he says or does is direct and there's nothing behind the scenes.