Pages:
Author

Topic: DE-MERIT? - page 2. (Read 551 times)

copper member
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1874
Goodbye, Z.
January 26, 2018, 02:29:00 PM
#9
Personally, I'm against a publicly available demerit option. I think, as mentioned several times already, the abuse potential is just way too high.
People currently are worried about possible abuse with the positive merit system, add negative merits, there are many more angles for abuse and malicious actors.
This is however just my opinion and expectation.



What I could get behind on the other hand is giving a few people the ability to terminate single merited posts.
We could call this group "merit patrollers" (the quickest way would be giving sources the option, but there could be an independent selection forming another group with different users).
This should be a limited ability both in availability (users allowed to do so) and volume (every patroller gets X terminations per month).
Terminations carry more weight than regular merit, and should thus be further limited (the average source size is ~200 sMerit per month, so termination could go at 10% of that, 20 on average).

What do I mean with "terminate"?
Right now, when I come across a post that is obviously spammy and was merited, I cannot do anything about it. I might spot someone farming merit with their alt account, or just giving it to spam posts to troll.
I can report that, I can investigate that, but I cannot do anything against the action itself, directly.
I might give the people involved negative trust for abusing the merit system, but that is only an indirect option and shouldn't be utilized, imo.
The merit is given, the result stays the same. I'm powerless there.

This is a huge difference to the trust system (I dont like that comparison, but it seems near), where I can counter positive ratings with a negative one and the other way around.
So what if I could counter merit? I don't mean giving demerit directly, but rather reversing a given merit rating from other people.

The way I could see this work is that when we have a spam post merited by one or more people, merit patroller have the option to terminate this post.
The merit received (and the sMerit) would at this point be taken away from the user that wrote the post, but not given back to the sender (as a punishment).
A termination would be shown right after the list of merits collected (example "Merited by TMAN (5), SFR10 (2), asu (2), TryNinja (2); Terminated by theymos (-11").
A termination would also mean that the post can no longer be merited.
However, termination are specific to posts, you decide that one post shouldn't have merit, not that one user shouldn't have it
sr. member
Activity: 1274
Merit: 263
January 26, 2018, 02:04:23 PM
#8
I don’t think being able to De-Merit would be a good idea, people who have certain rifts would just ruin it by adding loads of De-Merit points to each other. The system would be a joke & would likely be abused by alt accounts even more than the new Merit system might/probably is being abused.



Plus scammers can De-Merit all of their haters using it,
(scammer has a lot of account to bump and shill their thread)
we do not have many people who care about other people on altcoin board.
and when someone trying to expose them,
De-Merit will come after him,and guess what will happen to him ?
he won't bother with it anymore because it's totally pointless exposing them while in return he get a lot of De-Merits from them.
i am completely disagree it.
It's flawed system in my opinion
legendary
Activity: 3556
Merit: 9709
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
January 26, 2018, 01:30:24 PM
#7
I don’t think being able to De-Merit would be a good idea, people who have certain rifts would just ruin it by adding loads of De-Merit points to each other. The system would be a joke & would likely be abused by alt accounts even more than the new Merit system might/probably is being abused.

full member
Activity: 1442
Merit: 108
January 26, 2018, 11:05:03 AM
#6
You far more elaborated place would have the same importance in the first thread.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Please stay on topic. If you have anything to say concerning the actual content I'm all ears.

Sorry I meant " You far more elaborated post would have the same importance in the first thread."
full member
Activity: 139
Merit: 107
January 26, 2018, 10:56:19 AM
#5
You far more elaborated place would have the same importance in the first thread.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Please stay on topic. If you have anything to say concerning the actual content I'm all ears.
full member
Activity: 1442
Merit: 108
January 26, 2018, 10:51:09 AM
#4
However my post is far more elaborated than the one linked (imo). So what's your opinion on this matter?

You far more elaborated place would have the same importance in the first thread.

full member
Activity: 139
Merit: 107
January 26, 2018, 10:44:17 AM
#3

krishnaverma, thanks for letting me know. No need to quote my entire post.

However my post is far more elaborated than the one linked (imo). So what's your opinion on this matter?
full member
Activity: 1442
Merit: 108
January 26, 2018, 10:38:55 AM
#2
Just got to understand this new system and I like it, new winds blowing on Bitcointalk. Thanks to theymos for trying out new innovative things. But I see one issue and perhaps you can tell me where or why my thinking is wrong.

With copycat scamcoins like DeepOnion that have a relatively large "community presence" on Bitcointalk, a lot of merit points arrive at those very people's accounts who're widely considered scammers or not trustworthy. Simply because those communities are designed to shill the creators and high ranking accounts of the respective scams. If there were some sort of demerit points, the very same user's merit would likely even be negative, rather than high on merit points. Often times, the merit would probably become as negative or similarly negative as the already existing trust ratings. Now, though, you may even see users -16 trust rated, yet with a lot of merit.

I think there is a need for demerit points because of this reason. I see theymos said he can implement this easily later on.
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

Now I don't want more fights on Bitcointalk and of course demerit points can cause issues in the same way, for instance rivaling communities demeriting each other. So this would be a similar issue as well, perhaps even worse. I really don't know what's the solution. Do you have any innovative ideas?

Thanks for reading

We already have a thread for this :

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/antimerit-2821510
full member
Activity: 139
Merit: 107
January 26, 2018, 10:23:39 AM
#1
Just got to understand this new system and I like it, new winds blowing on Bitcointalk. Thanks to theymos for trying out new innovative things. But I see one issue and perhaps you can tell me where or why my thinking is wrong.

With copycat scamcoins like DeepOnion that have a relatively large "community presence" on Bitcointalk, a lot of merit points arrive at those very people's accounts who're widely considered scammers or not trustworthy. Simply because those communities are designed to shill the creators and high ranking accounts of the respective scams. If there were some sort of demerit points, the very same user's merit would likely even be negative, rather than high on merit points. Often times, the merit would probably become as negative or similarly negative as the already existing trust ratings. Now, though, you may even see users -16 trust rated, yet with a lot of merit.

I think there is a need for demerit points because of this reason. I see theymos said he can implement this easily later on.
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

Now I don't want more fights on Bitcointalk and of course demerit points can cause issues in the same way, for instance rivaling communities demeriting each other. So this would be a similar issue as well, perhaps even worse. I really don't know what's the solution. Do you have any innovative ideas?

Thanks for reading
Pages:
Jump to: