Ranking up/down

[Doan9269]

One thing i still don't understand about the idea here is if the suggestion is made applicable to all ranks, secondly, regarding members, does the suggestion also applies only to the airdropped or inactive forum accounts or everyone of us, because from what i know, any member could go being inactive for a while and then feels like coming back to the forum as they pleases, deranking them may go way too far because of inactivities, except the approach is directed towards the airdropped merit members.

[Xiestar]

One thing i still don't understand about the idea here is if the suggestion is made applicable to all ranks, secondly, regarding members, does the suggestion also applies only to the airdropped or inactive forum accounts or everyone of us, because from what i know, any member could go being inactive for a while and then feels like coming back to the forum as they pleases, deranking them may go way too far because of inactivities, except the approach is directed towards the airdropped merit members.

The suggestion will not affect inactive members because it’s based on post to merit ratio. The OP is suggesting a de rank if user reach a certain post count that doesn’t get merit.

Affected user are those posting on board that has less merit distribution such as altcoin board, gambling board and other local board that has no merit source/low merit circulation.

We all know that Bitcoin technical, WO and few local board with huge number of merit source have the highest merit circulation. It will purge those user that is posting outside these board.

[stwenhao]

The idea here is that there's a new term called "carry" that will slowly de-rank you if you keep posting/doing things that nobody appreciates.

Users can be de-ranked in the current system, if their posts will be removed. So, maybe it is all about reporting more posts for deletion? I guess there are enough crawlers like https://ninjastic.space/ which will keep storing what was removed, so it will be still resistant to "censorship".

Or, if you don't want to "remove" anything, then "ignore" can be used. Which means, that if some user is ignored, or some posts, made by some user are on a "blacklist", then any "merit displaying sites" like BPIP, can simply count such cases, and display, that "you created 1000 posts, but 800 are ignored, so you really have something like 200".

[Cricktor]

Because merits likely don't circulate evenly accross the boards, I don't like and won't support a de-merit mechanism that's solely based on post count, like it's proposed here. I don't like the fact that posting is in some way punished. Sure, I understand that good posts with valuable content will likely receive their share of merit to compensate the punishing "carry". But I don't like that boards with low merit circulation for whatever reasons will be overly affected negatively, maybe shutting down lively discussions because of over-amplified "carry".

Spammers already can't rank up so easy because they'll hardly get merit for their shit-posts.

I'm also not so sure about off-loading all burden to moderation, stricter rules, more bans and whatnotelse. Good moderation is done by real people and real people can fail and more important need to have an incentive and time to execute good and fair moderation. How do we want to achieve this?

[adultcrypto]

One thing i still don't understand about the idea here is if the suggestion is made applicable to all ranks, secondly, regarding members, does the suggestion also applies only to the airdropped or inactive forum accounts or everyone of us, because from what i know, any member could go being inactive for a while and then feels like coming back to the forum as they pleases, deranking them may go way too far because of inactivities, except the approach is directed towards the airdropped merit members.

I think it is logical to implement this policy for those that received airdropped merits but that will still be problematic along the line but even if theymos wants to implement that, it will not only be a very complex job for them but will appear unnecessary or not really worth the energy and time. Therefore, keeping things as they are is definitely better to avoid causing chaos in the forum.

[nutildah]

I don't like the fact that posting is in some way punished.

When you put it that way, I kind of like this idea even more now. 

It will make shitposters think twice before pushing "Post" under some text they know is pointless garbage. Which, let's face it, is at least half the posts on the forum on any given day.

But I don't like that boards with low merit circulation for whatever reasons will be overly affected negatively, maybe shutting down lively discussions because of over-amplified "carry".

Sure, some boards are definitely under-represented in terms of merit. However, most forum members don't post solely on one board. And again, we're talking 1 earned merit for every 10 posts. This shouldn't be too hard for anyone to do. If it already is right now, someone can't earn 1 merit in 10 posts should seriously question what it is they are actually doing here.

Actually I can imagine who will it affect the most: bounty hunters. There are hundreds of accounts with less than 5 merits and thousands of posts. They will quickly go from Jr. Member to Newbie. Maybe some boards could be carry-exempt, like Bounties, Dev & Tech Discussion, and Serious Discussion.

Spammers already can't rank up so easy because they'll hardly get merit for their shit-posts.

Ah but they often have "friends" that give them merits for their shitposts, enough to rank up, anyway.

[Cricktor]

When you put it that way, I kind of like this idea even more now. 

Haha, that was sort of obvious.

I'm a bit torn between chairs. On one hand (aka chair) I find PowerGlove's idea quite compelling, on the other hand there're (not very strong) reasons for me to not like it and I don't think I'm trying to cling to the status quo. If there were an easy solution, we likely would've it here already.

Low ranked shitposters can still shitpost. I don't see serious limitations for them here, especially when there's no newbie jail. And theymos stated quite clearly there will be no newbie jail.

Is this only about trying to prevent that shitposters can rank up and be eligible for signature campaigns? There might be other, more suitable metrics to sieve out or prevent shitposters to enter paid campaigns, like merits earned in low, mid, long-term periods, merits-per-post ratio e.g. And campaign managers have a responsibility, too, who they accept into campaigns.

For me to decide if I want to put someone on my ignore list, I consider their content and merits-per-post ratio. Someone with a low ratio, say below 0.1, is way more likely to be ignored in the future than someone with a higher ratio who just happened to annoy me with their current crap in a particular forum spot.

However, most forum members don't post solely on one board. And again, we're talking 1 earned merit for every 10 posts. This shouldn't be too hard for anyone to do. If it already is right now, someone can't earn 1 merit in 10 posts should seriously question what it is they are actually doing here.

Actually I can imagine who will it affect the most: bounty hunters. There are hundreds of accounts with less than 5 merits and thousands of posts. They will quickly go from Jr. Member to Newbie. Maybe some boards could be carry-exempt, like Bounties, Dev & Tech Discussion, and Serious Discussion.

I get that and am actually quite on your side here, to be frank.

How about a new rank "Shitposter" that is skipped when ranking up, i.e. can't be reached by "normally" ranking up? But you can be de-ranked into it! This rank, once reached by enough shitposting with PowerGlove's proposal, would put severe limitations for those who become de-ranked into it. The details of such limitations are tbd.

Users with rank "Shitposter" will likely simply abandon their account? Not sure about that.

I would be fine with a month temporary ban for an account who gets de-ranked into "Shitposter". On second occasion, temporary ban of 3 months, increasing by 3 months every time.

Ah but they often have "friends" that give them merits for their shitposts, enough to rank up, anyway.

Mystery merits economy...

[vapourminer]

How about a new rank "Shitposter" that is skipped when ranking up, i.e. can't be reached by "normally" ranking up? But you can be de-ranked into it! This rank, once reached by enough shitposting with PowerGlove's proposal, would put severe limitations for those who become de-ranked into it. The details of such limitations are tbd.

Users with rank "Shitposter" will likely simply abandon their account? Not sure about that.

um.. challenge accepted?

[Sandra_hakeem]

I've gotta say, I'm slightly surprised (in a good way). I mean, I figured people would just point out flaws and "boo" this one into oblivion (and while that's mostly what is happening, it's not to the extent that I imagined it would be).

Especially since you were previously against any form of a De-merit function (not to mention a stern one). To what extent did you place your imaginary line Gloves?

(*) I think 0.1 is somewhere in the ballpark of a merit-to-post ratio that should be exceeded if someone's trying to grow their rank.

So, this isn't some generally-relative solution for problem solving against spam, but an active check on a user's merit-to-post ratio? Cause not everyone is trying to grow their ranks. You do know, just like I do that the forum has a different approach on meritocracy on the higher levels (I'm talking of the 1ks, 2ks and 3k score limits/gangs) right? If I've been fighting hard to rank up all the way to the top, why do I need to strain to retain the achievements?
I mean, this has nothing to do with post quality and impactfulness as there are a thousand and one prerequisites to earn merits, and at what level it can be the most essential; as an additional cherry on top of the ice, people are not supposed to be controlled/ given directions on how to spend their merits/ whom to merit Ffs!

I remember how I got into a very heated, but critical arguments (metaphorically) with Jay and Malek (and this is one of the reasons why I picked an interest on this) on the issues of long-standing members getting more attention than newbies, which I thought wasn't right at all; I still stand by that till my dying day.

If all I wanted was to drive up the forum's signal-to-noise ratio while not really considering where this might leave people who depend on the forum for some amount of their income, then I'd be tempted to set it much higher (like 1.5, which while 15 times greater than 0.1 and completely unrealistic-seeming to most, is still ~6 times lower than my own merit-to-post ratio).

Or maybe just ban signatures on the forum and leave the ranks in place?

As with everything Bitcoin(talk), I'm pro-freedom. As in, if you want to make 1000 posts that the community is effectively "telling you" (by not leaving you any merit) that they don't appreciate, then that's fine, and you should feel free to keep doing that.

So what happens in this case? Does the algorithm on the "carry" database understands this?

(*) It's natural for me to consider things in very abstract ways and to keep my mental "wavefunction" from collapsing around concrete details that aren't central to the "shape" of whatever it is that I'm thinking about. But, I know that that's not how everyone thinks, and some people prefer a style of thinking where concrete details dominate their analysis of something. In my experience, it's very frustrating trying to transmit ideas across an abstract-thinking vs. concrete-thinking "impedance mismatch".

Neil deGrasse Tyson's quote of unchecked uncertainty says thus; "One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong".
This is not about whether you're wrong or right; this is about accepting an open criticism as part of an undebatable protocol in cases where only a unanimous decision is made to function... But what do I know? I may be wrong..

Basically, what I'm saying is, I'm not very attached to any given detail in the OP, and I only really have a sense that something like what I've suggested could be made to work.

So what was your motivation at first Gloves? No, like seriously..

So, it's inevitable, IMO, that any rank-hardening adjustment made at this point, even one that manages to "thread the needle" just so and long-term improve the forum's signal-to-noise ratio without causing too many casualties in that pursuit, will, at the time of its proposal or implementation, be met with some amount of, wait for it... "Why change this? FFS, I liked how it was before!"

Don't get me wrong, I've always been in support of any form of adjustment-- even a yardstick against spam, but if Theymos had an intention of demoting users, the first set in his consideration plan would be users with airdropped merits (like one of those users that you brought up, who has earned only 36 organic merits or so)
[Was this supposed to be some kind of auto-moderation function?]

How about a new rank "Shitposter" that is skipped when ranking up, i.e. can't be reached by "normally" ranking up? But you can be de-ranked into it! This rank, once reached by enough shitposting with PowerGlove's proposal, would put severe limitations for those who become de-ranked into it. The details of such limitations are tbd.
Users with rank "Shitposter" will likely simply abandon their account? Not sure about that.

um.. challenge accepted?

Good sir, Challenge accepted!!!

[Satofan44]

I prefer with demerit idea.

I'd prefer a simpler solution such as this one, as it is less likely to create unintended consequences such as the mentioned deranking of valuable members in boards where merit distribution is limited. Further, local merit abusers such as the ones that helped this guy rank up would bypass merit distribution limitations easily.

Spammers already can't rank up so easy because they'll hardly get merit for their shit-posts.

Ah but they often have "friends" that give them merits for their shitposts, enough to rank up, anyway.

I mentioned the example above in another thread already. They have friends and merit sources on board, the ones that are connected have no issue getting merits to rank up new accounts.

That said, I'd take any solution over none. Now you gotta convince the boss man, but good topic nevertheless.  

[nutildah]

How about a new rank "Shitposter" that is skipped when ranking up, i.e. can't be reached by "normally" ranking up? But you can be de-ranked into it! This rank, once reached by enough shitposting with PowerGlove's proposal, would put severe limitations for those who become de-ranked into it. The details of such limitations are tbd.

I like it. Instead of saying the normal rank, it just says "Shitposter," after someone has written something like 100 meritless posts in a row. It would make it pretty hard to join a signature campaign. The special title could be removed after they receive at least 1 merit from 5 different accounts within their next 100 posts.

Quite honestly these all sound like April Fool's implementations, lol.

[Nightwalker(NW)]

@PowerGlove sorry to ask, did you by any means have issues with family at home or did your wife denied you of your bed duty?
Don't you think the restriction could be much on us? Currently the system is even more tougher for newbie like us to grow up and yet people are sourcing for me strict measures to make people suffer on the forum, so where is the freedom we are talking about were people wouldn't be able to grow as usual or have free mind to post without being scared of law that would hold them if they make any slightest mistake. Your proposal seems fine but I don't think that should be implemented rather I am more good this current restriction where one needs to put more effort to earn more merits and grow to their required rank, I think this is more of scaring newbies or people away from this forum since there are many laws that governs the forum.

[nutildah]

I think this is more of scaring newbies or people away from this forum since there are many laws that governs the forum.

OK but how many different accounts do you have on the forum? Going by your post history, its pretty obvious this isn't your first account. Your 2nd post is an in-depth critique of signature campaign managers, even though your account has never actually been in a sig campaign. Did it ever occur to you that if you concentrated on "growing" just one account you'd be more likely to get merits and rank up beyond the Member ranking?

[ertil]

Now you gotta convince the boss man

Or implement it as a browser plugin first, to see, how it will work.

Quite honestly these all sound like April Fool's implementations, lol.

Well, things like that were already done at previous 1st Aprils. I think merit poker was better.

[satscraper]

Code:

rank ≈ lesserOf($activity, $merit - $carry)

The idea here is that there's a new term called "carry" that will slowly de-rank you if you keep posting/doing things that nobody appreciates.

"Nobody appreciated" when? Some of my posts have received merits even after half a year or more, and I've even seen posts from other users that were merited after years. In my view, this expression should be time-normalized, but that raises the question again: normalized to what period?

It’s probably best to leave the existing scheme as is. As the saying goes, you may go farther and fare worse.'"

[Fiasem20]

I really don't have much to say concerning the new merit system which might be implemented in the future.In my own opinion,I don't think this demeriting system would affect newbies that are spamming the forum with garbage,rather it's going to affect high ranked members that doesn't earn merits consistently.
Merits are given based on a constructive post,but it's becoming very obvious that a user's constructive post may not be merited if it isn't presented in the giver's ideas/thoughts.So in such scenerio, what do you think should be done? Everyone has a primary goal why they're on this forum,so you think implementing this rule would stop newbies from hunting peanuts on airdrop token?
Op in your own perspective you think this system would reduce the rate of spam, though it might but it won't.In my own perspective the system/rule is unfair.

[ertil]

"Nobody appreciated" when?

I guess "now".

Some of my posts have received merits even after half a year or more

And then, the act of sending a merit, can potentially bump someone's rank.

but that raises the question again: normalized to what period?

I think we currently have quite good estimator, which is "activity/merit" ratio. If you have more merits than activity, then your posts are highly merited. If it is somewhat equal, then it means you can receive one merit per post on average, so you are just an average user. But if you have much more activity than merits, then it means, that you probably write too many things, which are left unmerited. So, by just calculating "activity/merit" ratio, and making a simple table, you can easily check, if that kind of system could work even in theory.

For example: by having 1204 posts/2128 merits, you have 0.565789473684 posts per merit. Congratulations! You are highly merited person!

[apogio]

Sorry I didn't have the time to read the whole thread, but I read the OP with great interest.

I like the idea and I 'd welcome it in the forum. However, there are 2 things I 'd like to see being considered:

1. The ratio of 1:10 (like LoyceV said) seems tight.
2. Does this "carry" feature essentially strengthen the "merit" feature even more? Could it work totally on the backend? Like running a stored procedure monthly or quarterly? I am thinking that since the received merit is publicly available for every user, we could apply a merit/post ratio for the past 120 days and if it's not met, the rank could drop. The question with this implementation is how the "rank up again" would happen.

[nutildah]

I really don't have much to say concerning the new merit system which might be implemented in the future.In my own opinion,I don't think this demeriting system would affect newbies that are spamming the forum with garbage,rather it's going to affect high ranked members that doesn't earn merits consistently.

You're right, newbies can't be affected because they don't have any merits. A lot of "high ranked members" are just bought or farmed accounts run by multi-accounters. These accounts will be affected more than people who only have 1 account because they're not used to spending the time necessary to construct good posts. If you can't get 1 merit for every 10 posts, I don't have sympathy for you.

so you think implementing this rule would stop newbies from hunting peanuts on airdrop token?

No, and that has nothing to do with anything. Its not aimed to discourage bounty hunters so much as shitposters who know they are doing nothing but posting shit.

[The Cryptovator]

The idea here is that there's a new term called "carry" that will slowly de-rank you if you keep posting/doing things that nobody appreciates. That is, you can't just apply yourself to the task of achieving a given rank, you also have to apply yourself to the task of maintaining it. Just like your "merit" is a >=0 balance based on logged events, your "carry" is also a >=0 balance based on logged events. There's a more general version of this idea where different forum actions attract different amounts of "carry", but, the simple version that I think should be experimented with initially is just one where there's a single type of system-generated "carry transaction": Whenever you make a new post, your balance goes up by 0.1. In effect, you'll need to earn at least 1 merit for every 10 posts you write (on average) if you wish to prevent your account from slowly drifting toward a lower rank. And you'll need to get beyond a 0.1 merit-to-post ratio if you're aiming to increase your rank.

Don't you feel this will encourage merit abuse? For those who achieved the ranks by earning merits, for them it's not a hard task to earn one merit for ten posts. But definitely spammers will exchange merits between them. So the idea still will benefits spammers. Real contributors don't have any issues at all. On the other hand, forcing merits for each ten posts really looks like a stupid idea. Sometimes even a good contributor doesn't receive merits in their ten posts. But maybe in the next post they will receive 10 merits. So forcing isn't an ideal idea at all.

The current merit system is working well. Still a lot of people struggling to achieve their ranks. Even some good posts have been underestimated and not receiving merits unless someone points it out. Because it doesn't possibly merit all the good posts by merit sources, they might miss a lot of things. However, the idea isn't much useful at all. Merit is a reward of your post, not a matter of force.