is earning merits really the determining factor of a quality poster?

[Revolution2025]

i came across a reply by nutildah about the reason why he issued a signature ban to a user and it was obvious that merit was used as a criterion to why he sigbanned the account. there were 109 merit sources initially before it was cut down to 84 merit sources that we have currently. a lot of these merit sources are not even active in merit distribution so how do nutildah assume that every good posts will be merited?

the dumbest criteria to use for a sigban is counting on "earned merits" because the merit system is very biased since most users circulate merits amongst themselves and their circles while those who do not belong to any gang and clique are left behind to either hunt, farm or fish merits in merit fishing threads.

If the main reason of my sign ban is due to lack of earned merits as shown in your tool, it is undeniable that it is hard to earn merits on the gambling board but I always try to post something as informative as possible there but rarely received merits.

This is a valid point but how is it possible to know if you've been making informative posts if you don't receive merits for them?

Do I really have to force myself trying to be like other people who have extensive knowledge about Bitcoin or are good at finding alt accounts/scammers to be considered as giving contribution to the forum?

No. There's plenty of ways to earn merits. Merits are ideally given for good posts, regardless of the section of the forum. So the best way to earn more merits would be to write better posts. According to TryNinja's Signature Ban dashboard, the average merits per post for all sigbanned users is 0.04, which is the equivalent of 1 merit every 25 posts. Since the introduction of the merit system, you are earning less than that, at 0.037 merits/post. The average merits/post for the Gambling board, where the majority of your posts are, is 0.10.

[BIT-BENDER]

- Unoriginal or low effort replies, including inappropriate use of AI content.
- Repetitive, previously-expressed or generic comments that don’t add value or encourage conversation.
- Consistent burst posting (regularly writing posts less than 10 minutes apart).
- Off‑topic posting or shallow engagement (doesn't provide insight, analysis or perspective).
- Posting in principle for signature campaign payment and not for the sake of contributing actual discussion.

These are the states criteria to getting signature banned, in it there is nothing written about earning merit, that aspect is just more like an opinion in addition to the person either being active in the states criteria.

And most times merit is raised up it's either for obvious reasons like a very large amount of post in addition to a long period of time without earning merit, basically it may not be a criteria but it raises eyebrows.

[Z_MBFM]

i came across a reply by nutildah about the reason why he issued a signature ban to a user and it was obvious that merit was used as a criterion to why he sigbanned the account. there were 109 merit sources initially before it was cut down to 84 merit sources that we have currently. a lot of these merit sources are not even active in merit distribution so how do nutildah assume that every good posts will be merited?

Earning Merit is not only one reason for signature ban. Nutildah tools match a few conditions to give an account health score. However, signatures are not banned based on the tools' scores alone. They must be checked manually before being banned.

- Unoriginal or low effort replies, including inappropriate use of AI content.
- Repetitive, previously-expressed or generic comments that don’t add value or encourage conversation.
- Consistent burst posting (regularly writing posts less than 10 minutes apart).
- Off‑topic posting or shallow engagement (doesn't provide insight, analysis or perspective).
- Posting in principle for signature campaign payment and not for the sake of contributing actual discussion.

the dumbest criteria to use for a sigban is counting on "earned merits" because the merit system is very biased since most users circulate merits amongst themselves and their circles while those who do not belong to any gang and clique are left behind to either hunt, farm or fish merits in merit fishing threads.

Yes, it is true that high ranked users get merits more easily than new users. But that does not mean that younger users will not get merits. Here the ratio of posts and merits is also seen. Now it is not like you cannot earn 20 merits by posting 200 posts. It is much easier if you can post quality.

Anyway, some users will get merit even by replaying this topic of yours. Isn't it easy?  

[Odohu]

Merit is not the only criteria for signature ban, I think it may  even come last among the reason used for issuing the ban. However, you will agree with me that if you are a good and active poster, your chances of earning merit will greatly increase and there is no way you will not earn some merits in 120 days. The merit system is not perfect just like every system we have but it does have some good sides which has kept this forum going.

[Joy- maker]

- Unoriginal or low effort replies, including inappropriate use of AI content.
- Repetitive, previously-expressed or generic comments that don’t add value or encourage conversation.
- Consistent burst posting (regularly writing posts less than 10 minutes apart).
- Off‑topic posting or shallow engagement (doesn't provide insight, analysis or perspective).
- Posting in principle for signature campaign payment and not for the sake of contributing actual discussion.

These are the states criteria to getting signature banned, in it there is nothing written about earning merit, that aspect is just more like an opinion in addition to the person either being active in the states criteria.

And most times merit is raised up it's either for obvious reasons like a very large amount of post in addition to a long period of time without earning merit, basically it may not be a criteria but it raises eyebrows.

No doubt, merit was not stated as an official criteria for getting a signature banned, but I was surprised to see the information below when I checked the tool to find out why @Bitinity was given a signature banned. If I'm misunderstanding anything here, someone should explain it to me so I can understand it better.