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.

If it made me "see the other side of the coin", I don't have problems dropping a merit or two. It's not like I agree to whatever the user is pointing out. I just understood what they meant.
If someone would tell me that apples are better than orange, I wouldn't drop a merit on that however if someone tells me that s/he dislikes oranges because of the texture unlike apple, I might merit and it will still depend on the quality of the user's points was.

It's going to completely depend on what the person said. If the topic is to a certain extent subjective (e.g. PoS vs PoW), then probably, depending on how good the thesis/reasoning is. On the other hand, something totally bad and/or totally nonfactual such as "Bitcoin is a scam", most likely not.

If the person put enough effort to his post, I can give him merits I don't have to agree with him. I tend to give merits to the posts that I agree with but it is not always the case.


This is the best way to counter trolls. I ignore them and voila, the world is just a better place from that moment on.

When the post contains something worth to read then there is no wrong with giving merit to it either you agree or not but no one can decide that who has to merit which posts,it all depends on the individual preferences.

Even theymos mentioned that you are not supposed to merit a post simply because you are agreeing the context, prefer the quality amd contribution will make better community.

Afaik, we all have different points of view on the quality of posts made by other users. Usually I will give merit to posts that are written objectively, very neatly and easily understood and useful for other users. Sometimes I also feel that there are standards that the user may not be able to achieve in the way I expected, but because he is willing to put in the effort, I can give merit for his efforts. 1 merit may not be valuable for users who can contribute through quality posts, but 1 merit will be very valuable for those who are trying to improve the quality and knowledge of their forum and it can give them more motivation.

When I give merits I always look at the quality of the post and how much the content of the post can help other members or contribute to the forum.
I don’t really remember ever finding myself in the dilemma the OP is talking about.
I don't know, it's probably normal to have a better relationship with some forum members and maybe no so good relationship with some other members, but that doesn't mean I'll give someone a merits just because I like him more.
Merits should not be a sign of attention to friends but a reward to members who have contributed something to the forum.

Depends on the context. If the argument points are valid, let's say vaccination vs anti-vaccination then I don't mind giving some Merit.

But if it involves anything that defies logic or some conspiracy shit like theymos is Satoshi in the flesh, definitely it's something not Merit-worthy.

I don't think giving Merit is base on agreement and if it's base on an agreement many people won't has ranked up today because they will be conflict between two user's, and if it's has done like what you stipulates it's absolutely abusing of Merit system because Merit will be regulated instead of circulation, we don't have to agree with anyone before giving out Merit, the aim of giving Merit  to users is for growth due to hardworking through quality post making.

There are some posts a user will prove you wrong with evidences, meriting such a post is not bad at all

If other experienced members also support a post only me against, I would have known I was wrong, meriting the post of the person that first corrected me is very good.

What should be gone for is quality.

Merit is not a matter of agree or disagree. Rather it's all about quality. If I find a post high quality from my point of view, I would merit that post regardless of whether I agree or don't. That should not be an issue while meriting I think. However, a lot of people share merit just because they agree.

Do you find it hard to merit people when you don't agree with what they are saying? I'm not talking about a small disagreement here, rather about completely opposite points of view.

Since I've been on the forum I've made sure to give people merit even if I don't agree with what they say but I recognize that it's not as easy as when you do agree with them.

Moreover, I think that many times merits are given simply because people agree with what the other is saying and not so much because the post is specially worked.

I think another thing that is also hard is, if you have had a heated argument with someone (and at that time you have not given them merit because you understand that those posts do not deserve it), to give them merit in other posts that you find in the forum later on. Again, that's another thing I've made sure to do, to give someone merit regardless of previous arguments, but I think it goes against our instincts.

I try to be objective, except when discussions lead to insults. If someone insults me, I put him on ignore and I won't give him any more merits.

What are your views and experiences about it?