Topic: Giving merit to people when you don't agree with them (Read 368 times)

Everyone has different points of views and different judgements. I think that it is right that he/she who posts in a thread that has a point deserves merit because if you have given other user a merit that posts low quality post it'll be unfair to others who tried so hard to think and did their best to give you a lend of a hand by creating high quality post.

I'm still a newbie but if i were to give merits, i would choose those people who work so hard that puts effort in their post. It doesn't matter if the post is long or short as long as it has point, i'll give them if i have something to give.

OP is not talking about quality posts etc. He is saying that if two people are discussing something and one does not agree to the other person point of view, will he ever give him merit ?

If i was in such discussion, i would not give the merit to the person who has different option and is not agreeing with me. but if he proofs himself right and can convince me that his point of view is right, then for sure i will give him Merits.

Agreeable or disagreeable posts, if the discussion is good, has excellent quality, those posts deserve to have merits.

---

The funny fact (and also shameful) about merit distribution is after a few years (3 ^1/2 years), there are more posts were given merit just because they like it. Nothing is bad with it if the senders don't abuse this shameful fact to build up their reputation, and abuse their sourced merits.

Another shameful fact, is after getting reputation from this behavior, such source comes back and say newbies are ass-licking.

I was struggling to earn my very first merits so I know how hard it is. Over time, it becomes easier for newbies and nobody cares how merit distribution was abused under the mask of likes.

If properly used, accounts meriting posts shouldn't care about agreeableness.

However, there is a natural bias towards threads you enjoy. Especially polarizing content might cause you to agree with an opposing opinion, but it's far more likely that you'll read five posts that you agree with before you read one post that changes your mind. It's a matter of where you draw the line at "quality".

And sure, users can claim to be objective when they grant merit, but that's under their subjective model of what it means to be objective. But if you spend your time in sections and threads that you frequent or that interest you, what are the odds that you'll find disagreeable information? Or rather, good information at all?

Even jokes, shitposts, thank yous and self-congratulations get merit. Who's to say that my picture of a clip art fart isn't deserving of 50 merit when analyzed in the correct context, framing, and cultural perspective?

---

I wonder whether how much the odds change from before and after the 'disagreeable' posts are given merit.

If the disagreement lead to a healthy and worthy discussion then probably you're going to be doing the right thing meriting them, think of it like a debate, you commend people when you know that they fought good and pointed valid arguments right? I think it's the same for this one.

I doubt the "anybody" part. I would certainly merit a well-made argument even if I don't agree with the opponent. I would not merit fake facts - whether lies or delusions - if I can detect that when I read the post but I won't go out of my way fact-checking either (nor should merit be considered as confirmation/support/approval/endorsement/etc but that's a whole other story).

If one can convince me good that I'm the one that's wrong, then he deserves merit, but then it's no longer what you asked since at the point of meriting I already agree with him/her.
On the other hand, if one cannot convince me, I am almost certain I won't merit. It's not worthy. And I think that this is what basically anybody would do.

I try to be objective when giving away the sMerits I have earned. If someone has a different opinion it is obviously hard to reward them for their post. However, being proven wrong or being corrected by another user is usually informative and in a lot of cases merit worthy.

An example of me giving out merit for someone correcting/disagreeing with me

I often merit users who prove me wrong or correct the mistakes I made in my posts. I never had any problems with that because it shows they are paying attention and they take action when they believe it's needed. I don't have problems with opposing views or if someone doesn't agree with me. Even opposing views can make sense and both sides can be right. 

If the opposite side has a better solution to a problem about Bitcoin or the forum, all the power to them. They might even get me to switch sides. But if the ultimate goal is a selfish one, I wont support that.   

Most of the merit fonts are gang members who long ago closed ranks and collectively agreed who to give or withold merits to.

If one gang member finds a reason to disagree with you (perceived or imaginary disagreements) you will notice some, then all gang member's merit sources will withhold merits.

Once you're ignored by them, you won't receive any further merits.  If you were to press one such gang member, they would either say they didn't see your post, or that it didn't warrent a merit.

The merit system is flawed due to its centralisation.

Imo, it is easier for me to merit someone of opposite view. This is because, at the course of stretching the debate, I would learn new things from my opposer than from someone who just said I agree with you. If you are agreeing with me, you agree by adding or spicing my thoughts.
Also it depends on the authenticity of my opposers view.
One cannot be debating blindly and I will award him merit because he is toeing the opposite lane.

In either way, it narrows down to what I achieved in your support or counter support.

I try to give merit to posts with a lot of effort put into them. Similarly, if someone either is helpful, or is asking a thought provoking question, I will also generally award them some merit for their post.

The purpose of merit is to give it to the types of posts there should be more of.

Giving merit can be subjective and objective it depends on the statement of the user how does it deliver to its reader its all about quality we have the freedom to share our experience, knowledge, and thoughts so we can discuss, some people giving merit those statement has a point and informative that contribute to the discussion. There is no reason holding your merits and having high standards before you give them merit.

Just like other have said, this has to be judge based on the context of discussion. It isn't right me meriting a user for disagreeing with me meanwhile what he said wasn't merit worthy same as it's wrong meriting a post just because it agrees with you. Although in any of the scenario above, if the post produced was merit worthy then excluding the fact you're out of smerit, nothing should hold you back from meriting such post.

Meriting basically means you're highlighting such post for other to see it as a post worth reading so if it's not worth reading don't merit. Again you should understand that we're all humans here and sometimes our emotions can get the best of us and make us do things that won't have done. If you encounter such post as you're reading you don't have to make a big scene out of it as others do since technically there's nothing that can be done about a merit sent unless theymos interval which is unlikely to happen.

I don't think that is quite what the op is talking about. Having opposite views does not mean one is right or wrong, and while time and effort are both commendable, but does not translate to quality.

The OP I believe is referring to a situation that is equivocal. If someone has an alternate view there, they are not necessarily wrong but have a different view from you, in such situation can you merit them?
My answer is Yes. Understanding that there are multiple perspectives is an important part of communication and allows one to learn and unlearn.

According to what I understood, the merit system is trying to give the authority to rank-up  from one person or several people to a group of individuals. Therefore, even if you do not award Merit for personal and non-objective reasons, others will.

Not all people will be impartial, especially when personal problems intervene in decisions that are emotional, but Merit sources must not be biased and this does not include the rest of the members.

As a merit source, I am neutral with my smerits. If the post or topic is constructive and helpful to the forum then doesn't matter either I agree or not. If the post deserves merit in my opinion then I just send it. Since we are enjoying the freedom of speech here, so arguments are a common part of forum life. It would call misunderstanding as well, sometimes we just involve useless arguments. But it hasn't been affecting sending merit for me. For example, I had arguments & misunderstandings with Royse777, but when I discover he has made constructive and useful posts then I sent merit to his post. Because I believe merit deserves the post, not the person. I am not sure about how others thought, I just express my opinion and I have been doing that.

It should be that way--at least for merit sources, who are the ones who ought to have more objectivity when it comes to meriting posts--but the reality is different.  And yes, even as a merit source I have a hard time meriting posts from members I consider to be, well, idiots.  And I'm sure as hell not going to merit a post with factually inaccurate information, no matter how much time and effort went into it.

Am I wrong for this approach?  Maybe.  But unless or until Theymos gives instructions as to how merits should be handed out, that's how I'm going to operate.  It's not like I'm being paid to be a merit source, and usually the members whose viewpoints I nearly always oppose are Legendaries, and I try to limit the number of merits I give to that rank.

For members who aren't merit sources, who cares?  If you've got sMerits to give out, it's your choice who to give them to, and you have no obligation to merit someone you don't like, regardless of the reason you don't like the person or what the disagreement is about. 

In short, I don't believe there's any ethics involved when it comes to the merit system (except for perhaps abuse by merit sources, e.g., selling merits).  The whole things is basically a "like" system akin to what Reddit and other sites have, except that merits mean a lot more on this forum.  Nobody has to follow any guidelines other than to not sell or trade merits.  Anything else is fair game IMO.

I think those quoted posts answer your question

• Quality is key here. If a post has a good quality, it deserves merit.
• Your disagreement with anyone, any post does not mean you are right and that post has zero value, low quality.

Forums used to support the meriting of only those posts that has added value. Each person's situation varies, though. There is no obligation to choose merit for any post regardless of its added value. The inside of you cannot be measured. Simply click on merit and give what you want.

As long as I support constructive arguments, I will click merit. We can give our best shot by remaining neutral and practicing positivity.