Unfortunately merit is often given to posts that the sender of merit agrees with. This is a problem system wide and the merit system is closer to “proof of agreeing with those in power” than “proof of good posts”.
Here is one example of this.
I wholeheartedly agree with you; It very realistically may be the single biggest flaw currently manifesting within the merit system. Since we're on the topic of nullius within this thread, would you say this would be a better explanation of their meteoric rise in merit than technical expertise and careful writing? It seems, to me, those that are significantly (enough to rank up) and consistently merited are those that go beyond agreeing with those in power.
While it may be the biggest problem of the merit system, it might not be significant enough a problem to characterize the entire system as “proof of agreeing with those in power”. The trust system is victim to this problem, too, in my opinion. Additionally, with more merit sources being added regularly, merit being decentralized, it would seem this problem is already being solved, to some degree.
I like that you used one of your posts as an example, but you're not necessarily someone in power (unless I've misunderstood what definition we're operating with), so wouldn't that be a flimsy example? I've certainly seen examples of this, but I just am wondering if you do consider this an example of “proof of agreeing with those in power”.
I wonder if Quickseller wants actmyname to get tagged for giving him a merit?
Don't get too excited now!
No, actmyname should not get tagged for sending that merit. That’s ridiculous.
The example I gave was in which I made a post that someone in a position of power agrees with.
If you and I were in a dispute, someone who agrees with your position might give merit to someone who makes a post that strengthens your case, regardless of the effort put into the post.
This results in those with an abundance of sMerit, especially in groups, to have an outsized amount of power in disputes. digaran is a troll and should not be taken seriously, however he is at a disadvantage in any dispute because he has little sMerit and he often is in disputes with those with a lot of sMerit. There will be more people supporting the opposing end of his argument in the hopes of receiving merit (I am not 100% sure this is happening currently however it will happen as more people realize this behavior by those with sMerit).
On the subject of nullius he did have a lot of technical insight and as such deserved much of the merit he received. However he also aligned his positions with those in power and as such would probably would not have received much of his merit if he took opposite positions with equally well crafted arguments. One might even speculate that he might have received less merit for his technical posts if he was often making well crafted arguments against those in power.
Another point I would make is that those in power tend to be the ones who receive the most merit. Some of this may be in the hopes of staying in the good graces of those in power, and some of this may be in hopes of obtaining power themselves. A good number of those with the most merit are not especially good posters, some are very high profile so they might receive merit for every good post they make (theymos) while “normal” users might receive merit for 1% of the high effort posts of good quality.
I personally think this will ultimately lead to the exclusion of those who do not agree with those in power.