Topic: Before you give merit to a newly-demoted newbie... - page 2. (Read 1316 times)

I got made a merit source this morning, which was a bit of a surprise since I hadn't ever applied to be one and have stated multiple times that I didn't want to be one.  However, since Theymos has seen fit to saddle me with the responsibility, I'll accept it and take it seriously.

(...)

...please make sure their post history is not filled with 1-2 line replies in spam megathreads (or bounty reports, of course).

You're posts aren't perfect, but it's pretty clear you're a real account with a long post history of on-topic comments.

...I've personally found new gems in threads such as "which altcoin is the best buy right now", so I'm probably more lenient than most towards these large, generic threads. I've also posted there myself. Their posts seemed "personal" to me, not a generic bot attempting to gain more posts.
...

And hey, if I'm wrong then he probably won't ever make it past Jr. Member.

I gave him my last source Merit (for the first time since I became a source, I finally managed to spend them all). On top of your reasoning: he's also a Copper Member, so he doesn't need to be Jr. Member for the perks. And he made only 3 posts since June, which isn't the typical spammer. Basically new users who aren't spammers make me very happy, as that is what this forum needs.

I'll have to disagree with your reasoning here. Making someone happy isn't a good reason to merit a post. I can just as well get them banned if they break the rules, knowing damn well it can seriously impact someone's income in a poor country. I won't merit them to make them happy, and I won't stop reporting bad posts because it could make them sad.

Thanks for dropping in and engaging the discussion in a reasonable manner. I wasn't picking on you, per se, when I used your awarding crocus a merit as an example, it was just convenient and poignant.

However, let me explain my rationale for the warning in this thread: just consider the mindset of a person who mainly posts in spam megathreads - that is, those threads that drone on for dozens to hundreds of pages on subjects which themselves aren't even original. Such a person is not really interested in having a discussion (like this one) rather, they are merely trying to increase their post count, and likely for a signature or bounty campaign.

I don't have a problem with sig campaigns. In fact, I checked out chip mixer specifically because of the quality of people involved in its campaign. But that sword cuts both ways, and I will never consider ingotcoin or eloncity or privcy because of the massive number of shitposts their campaign participants generate.

Oh, and hardly any of my posts are on bitcoin: my primary interest is altcoin mining.

I'll have to disagree with your reasoning here. Making someone happy isn't a good reason to merit a post. I can just as well get them banned if they break the rules, knowing damn well it can seriously impact someone's income in a poor country. I won't merit them to make them happy, and I won't stop reporting bad posts because it could make them sad.

This makes no sense whatsoever, but since you exercised the poor judgment to wander into this thread in the first place despite a post history that even a mother couldn't love...

Post #349 in "Germany recognized the bitcoin" [sic]:


Post #898 in "Factors that affect the value of bitcoin":


Etc.

Good point. But doesn't that remove the liberty of the merit sources (which the admins chosen) to give merits base from their own judgement or criteria?
...

Germany recognizing bitcoin would give a big impact. The country is known to produce good quality of products that is recognized in the world market and a a market player recognizing bitcoin would be big.

Hope there's a link or source for this claim though.

FUD's plays a big factor. These could scare away possible investors and the current ones tend to sell their coins/tokens to "avoid further loss", thus making overflowing amount of supply in the market.

...please make sure their post history is not filled with 1-2 line replies in spam megathreads (or bounty reports, of course).

For example, Delphinus awarded crocus a merit point to get him out of newbie hell after reviewing his post history:


While crocus can string together words into an intelligible sentence or two, most, if not all, of his/her replies are merely rehashing what a thousand other people (or bots) have said on the hundreds of other pages in these spam megathreads.

I explained my rationale for giving him a merit here, and I stand by it.  It was for that post which was a short but well-written post by a noob who I thought deserved it.

~ I have made 5 people very happy today. That gives me plenty of offline merit to be able to do something like that for someone 

I dunno. Requiring one or even ten merit is hardly drastic, but it probably would have been better doing it now at the same time rather than at some other point down the line. I think it would be better to make certain changes all together rather than having to deal with fresh amounts of complaints every time we change something minor. This is a small baby-step in the right direction but we've still got a long way to go before we make this forum fit for purpose. I don't think any amount of changes here other than the outright removal of signatures will scare people off either. Children will throw their tantrums for a few days or weeks then get over it and deal with it because this forum is far too valuable to them so believe me when I say they're going nowhere, but they're certainly going to cry about it for a bit until they calm down.

I feel that I should probably make an appearance here, since I'm mentioned in the first post.

Let me start off by saying I respect everyone's opinion and understand their reasoning for not agreeing with me. Based on the reactions I'm getting, my view of Bitcointalk is potentially not even aligned with Theymos. However, I am not a merit source so I do feel I can grant my (limited) merits based on my own values.

My opinion is that quality is important, but that the merit sources are to strict for some non-native speakers. Most expect lengthy posts in fluent English, related to Bitcoin. In my view, this leaves an important group of non-native, less eloquent, visitors who will never be able to gather any merits. These members do not deserve to become Legendary members, but I don't think that jr. membership is overrating their contributions. They are ensuring I have new posts to read when I come online, trying to contribute to the best of their abilities.

Of course I excluded posters specifically farming for merit, only participating in bounty campaigns etc. What we're talking about are the users that write 2-4 sentence replies in non-fluent English, under relevant posts on a regular basis. My feeling is that these members do deserve jr. membership after making hundreds of relevant, non-eloquent, posts.

As a result of the previous discussions, people seem to think I'm devaluing merits by doing so. The good news is I only had 5 to give away. I don't think the merit system will collapse because of me but I have made 5 people very happy today. That gives me plenty of offline merit to be able to do something like that for someone  

I agree that Juniors should also be prohibited from using signatures and personal texts. And I`m sure theymos also understands this. But I guess he didn`t want to establish such drastic changes all at once, as this could "scare off" users of lower ranks and have a bad effect on traffic. Theymos gives Juniors a chance to improve the quality of their posts. Establishing new rules for Newbies is a kind of warning for Juniors. If they correctly understand it, the need to establish more stringent rules in order to become a member, will disappear. And if spam from Juniors still continues, theymos will always have time to introduce new restrictions.

I agree with one merit to become Junior but we should also remove Junior's signatures. Requiring ten merit to become a Member and get a sig would really sort the wheat from the chaff here. Far too easy to beg, buy or trade one merit and this will become rife. Ten is a much different ball game and becomes exponentially more difficult the more accounts you have.

...
My opinion is that quality is important, but that the merit sources are to strict for some non-native speakers. Most expect lengthy posts in fluent English, related to Bitcoin. In my view, this leaves an important group of non-native, less eloquent, visitors who will never be able to gather any merits. These members do not deserve to become Legendary members, but I don't think that jr. membership is overrating their contributions. They are ensuring I have new posts to read when I come online, trying to contribute to the best of their abilities.
...

I got made a merit source this morning, which was a bit of a surprise since I hadn't ever applied to be one and have stated multiple times that I didn't want to be one.  However, since Theymos has seen fit to saddle me with the responsibility, I'll accept it and take it seriously.

However, I don't plan to give merits to any old Newbie just for a typical crappy post, i.e., I don't plan to lower the standards that I've always had.  What I do plan on doing is finding low-ranked members who actually deserve merits, and I'll pay more attention to noob posts when I see them.

Theymos wants these noobs merited even if their posts are just "good".  Fortunately we all have different definitions of the word "good" and in my opinion that's the standard I've always tried to uphold.  I just happen to have high standards when it comes to what's good.  I'll be on the lookout for good posts, as I'm sure all the new and old merit sources will be.  We've got more sMerits to play with, so I don't think this is going to be as bad as it looks in the first 24 hours of the change.

I like that.  I think I'm going to use that in the future.