Topic: Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? - page 2. (Read 881 times)
Short personal answer, probably no and the amount of merit required for Jr should be increased to 3-5
After 5+ years I'm still not sure why people care so much about ranks and other badges. If it's for money-making purposes (e.g. sig campaigns) - the forum doesn't control that. If the ranks would be easier to attain then there would be more users competing for the same campaigns and then it's up to each manager how they deal with that. Some managers already have merit requirements.
I think it's fairly obvious that people only care about ranks and therefor merit for signature space. The higher rank you are the bigger signature you have and the easier it is to get onto a signature campaign therefor more money you can potentially earn. It's probably like wondering why do people care about more qualifications or being a higher position in a company. More money and respect is the answer. I do have to agree with op however that the rank requirements are probably excessive.... or maybe not excessive but due to the little merit people send to others because of its scarcity it's very hard to achieve high ranking. Personally I don't really care about merit as I'm lucky enough to have been early in the game to get airdropped the required amount to become Hero which is a level many new users will likely struggle to achieve, but I rarely receive merit from people and I don't believe it's because my posts are bad.... far from it. In the past 120 days I've received 11 merit. Because I receive little merit I can send little on to others so I'm limited in that respect and I think that's the same case with everyone else. I've sent my only two remaining merit to two users in this thread but personally I think there's many others in this thread that also deserve it (some moreso) and that I would have merited had I been able to. Maybe there are other factors involved in sending merit however. Maybe it's because I don't really need it that people are less likely to send it to me and save it for those that need it more, but on the flipside I wonder how I would get on if I made a new account from scratch but made the same sort of posts. How long would it take me to achieve Hero then?? I think I would struggle personally but that's something I'm not willing or care enough to try find out
. The merit system doesn't seem to be set in stone so I'm sure the limits could be ajusted in the future if they're clearly too difficult to achieve.Nope. I don't think so. I think the merit requirements per rank is already is in their sort of "sweet spot" whereas it isn't excessively high, and at the same time, not too easy. Ignore those people who are complaining. They aren't receiving merits? Simple. It's highly likely simply because they don't deserve it. It's pretty much like janitors complaining why they aren't being promoted to a manager position in a company even if they know little to nothing.
Yes, 1000 is definitely A LOT of merits for a certain rank(legendary). But it isn't called "legendary" for no reason. It should be very hard to attain in the first place. It isn't even excessively difficult to attain to be honest, it's just going to take a while.
Yes, 1000 is definitely A LOT of merits for a certain rank(legendary). But it isn't called "legendary" for no reason. It should be very hard to attain in the first place. It isn't even excessively difficult to attain to be honest, it's just going to take a while.
I don't think it's as simple as that. There are sure a a lot of people who don't deserve much merit complaining about it but I also think there's a lot of users that also go overlooked and even active users who contribute a lot will maybe nebver achieve Legednary or take many years to do it.
There are two kind of people on this forum, one who can't get merits and cry about this merit system and second are those who are doing fine job even after merit system implementation — these people are fine with merit system.
I don't think there is going to be anymore changes in merit system. Adapt or leave.
I don't think there is going to be anymore changes in merit system. Adapt or leave.
I think there's a third too: The ones who were here before the merit system and achieved rank without achieving merit and therefor have nothing to complain about. Some people will have deserved their rank from prior posts but others certainly haven't and it was just the luck of being an early adopter for them. I don't think the merit system is perfect and it's healthy to constructively criticize it's positives and negatives and suggest improvements. A sweet spot should try to be found if it hasn't already but that is certainly open for debate).
There are two kind of people on this forum, one who can't get merits and cry about this merit system and second are those who are doing fine job even after merit system implementation — these people are fine with merit system.
I don't think there is going to be anymore changes in merit system. Adapt or leave.
Definitely we need some tweaks because not all the good posts are going to get merits so if someone posting meritable posts but on the wrong boards (where merit sources are not available) then how he is going to rank up?I don't think there is going to be anymore changes in merit system. Adapt or leave.
He should have to change his posting habits for to rankup?
I agree with you. Some boards obviously recieve more merit than others and its potluck as to whether you receive any at all.
There are two kind of people on this forum, one who can't get merits and cry about this merit system and second are those who are doing fine job even after merit system implementation — these people are fine with merit system.
I don't think there is going to be anymore changes in merit system. Adapt or leave.
Definitely we need some tweaks because not all the good posts are going to get merits so if someone posting meritable posts but on the wrong boards (where merit sources are not available) then how he is going to rank up?I don't think there is going to be anymore changes in merit system. Adapt or leave.
He should have to change his posting habits for to rankup?
I think one solution could be that some percentage of merit required for ranking upto Jr. Member and Member should come from a Verified Merit Source. Verified Merit source should fulfill the following requirements:
1.) Belong to the set of people comprising DT1 member and people who have shown enough commitment towards the forum by earning, say, 250 merits.
1.) Be randomly selected from this group
2.) Anonymous in Merit History
3.) Change cyclically
A thread could be started where these members simply grant merit to new accounts. That source shouldn't show up in the merit history to ensure that people don't get bugged or start getting bribe offers.
Its fairly complicated but so is the problem. Maybe i should think of a more elegant solution..Hmm..Thinking Hat on..
1.) Belong to the set of people comprising DT1 member and people who have shown enough commitment towards the forum by earning, say, 250 merits.
1.) Be randomly selected from this group
2.) Anonymous in Merit History
3.) Change cyclically
A thread could be started where these members simply grant merit to new accounts. That source shouldn't show up in the merit history to ensure that people don't get bugged or start getting bribe offers.
Its fairly complicated but so is the problem. Maybe i should think of a more elegant solution..Hmm..Thinking Hat on..
As one of the people who would currently qualify to be a "verified merit source," I'm not sure that I want the added responsibility of only meriting newbies. However, I believe that my current allocation of source merit allocation is probably in the top 10, if not top 5, so it would be much more work for me than many other merit sources. I could end up giving a handful of newbie posts an insane amount of merit; however, people tend to notice when the amount of merits given is a two digit number, and I am sure the "merit abuse" allegations would crop up (although only the administrators would know who the merit source is, people could figure it out by noticng that such and so merit source isn't giving out any merits anymore.) When you say "anonymous" do you mean the merit score goes up with no other record or do you mean it will have a label like "anonymous" or "Verified Merit Source?"
You're right bones that it could be quite a load. That is why responsibility should be cycled between those people. 10-15 members every week would be enough to merit ongoing good posts. Considering there are 200+ people with 250 earned merits, the responsibility would cycle to you approximately every 28 weeks. That should be doable imo. As far as allegations are concerned, they will crop up no matter how fair everyone tries to be. This shouldn't be a reason for policy paralysis.
By anonymous, i meant it should appear in the merit history but the name shouldn't. Like you said, it could be something like "Verified Merit Source" or some cool acronym with an LOTR reference maybe. Maybe it could appear as "Wizard Council finds you worthy" or something..
If the ranks are not so important or shouldn't be cared about then why there is a ranking system in the forum, what is the use of activity?
Ranking systems are generally meant to be hierarchical so that there is an objective way to decide how much importance you give to people's opinions here. Merit was an evolution in this and it is now part of that ranking system and hierarchy. You can be sure that "activity" alone doesn't count for anything much now.Then wouldn't you want your "certificate" to be more valuable and rare and indicative of your contribution, not merely handed out to everyone who registered on the forum and made a few hundred posts?
I was expecting at least a reply of this kind.Not really, I'm not a special one nor anyone here. Every legitimate person should be weighted equally.
If it is the thing to "merely handed out" then something unique I would demand if I have an option to ask theymos.
This is sort of an ideological issue. You say that "I'm not special nor anyone here". In reality, there are subject-experts and then there are noobs. The subject-experts ARE special, whether we like it or not. All men are born equal only when it comes to Liberty and Justice. This cannot be the case when it is a particular subject matter. For example, I don't think my physics teacher was an equal of Stephen Hawking just because they were both physicists. If you strongly feel that merit is about equality/ equal opportunity, I request that you please do read this once:
Harrison Bergeron
There are two kind of people on this forum, one who can't get merits and cry about this merit system and second are those who are doing fine job even after merit system implementation — these people are fine with merit system.
I don't think there is going to be anymore changes in merit system. Adapt or leave.
I don't think there is going to be anymore changes in merit system. Adapt or leave.
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 4265
eXch.cx - Automatic crypto Swap Exchange.
The less easier it's to rank up the more the forum ranks status are appreciated. The less easier it's to build up an alt account to abuse signature and other forum system. For a start we don't need more legendary members, that rank should come with some respect and only deserving member should achieve that status that'll motivate Aspiring members to improve in their contribution to the forum if they want to be identify with that status. Personally I don't see any difference between the legendary rank & hero rank. If the system can produce lesser rank up users yearly then people will value the system. We have 365 days lets say deserving members recieve at least 1 merit daily a situation where we have more less rank-up users would be fun to watch especially in the top 3 ranks.
Also maybe your contribution to combating spam (via good reports) should be considered too before you're given a legendary status, lets put some respect on it.
Also maybe your contribution to combating spam (via good reports) should be considered too before you're given a legendary status, lets put some respect on it.
Quality posters will definitely rank up. Each quality poster has his/her own pace of merit earnings, but finally they will all to be ranked up.
Someone might need 1 year to move from Junior Member to Full Member.
Someone else might need longer period (2 or 3 years) to move to Jr. Member to Full Member.
Quality posters deserve to rank up and they will certainly rank up when they collect enough merits, even years does not a serious matter.
I don't suggest to decrease merit requirements on ranks, but if such merit requirements decreased adjustments implemented, what should be treated with old generations, who simply ranked up with old rank requirements, without merit requirements. They even can not earn themselves a single merit so far. Let's envision furthere, such as 5 years later, what happen if a old Legendary who will remain actively posting in the forum next 5 years (more than six years in total since merit birthday) won't be able to earn a single merit from 100, 1000 posts during 6 year period.
There are some users who selfmade 1x, 2x of required merits for Legendary rank (LoyceV, DdmrDdmr). For users who are inactively in the forum for years, it is obviously that they don't care about their ranks.
Someone might need 1 year to move from Junior Member to Full Member.
Someone else might need longer period (2 or 3 years) to move to Jr. Member to Full Member.
Quality posters deserve to rank up and they will certainly rank up when they collect enough merits, even years does not a serious matter.
However, after all the works by merit distributors, it is true that the users are not ranking up even if he/she is a quality poster.
I think current requirements are acceptable to prevent shitty posters to move up to higher rank fastly.Quote
There are probably two reasons for this, (1) Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive
I thought it is another wrong point. Merit sources have enough merits to send to good posts, but good posts are hardly to find. It's the matter, merit sources, total merits of merit sources are not matter.Quote
(2) Merit Sources are low in number in comparison with the members this forum has[/b].
I don't suggest to decrease merit requirements on ranks, but if such merit requirements decreased adjustments implemented, what should be treated with old generations, who simply ranked up with old rank requirements, without merit requirements. They even can not earn themselves a single merit so far. Let's envision furthere, such as 5 years later, what happen if a old Legendary who will remain actively posting in the forum next 5 years (more than six years in total since merit birthday) won't be able to earn a single merit from 100, 1000 posts during 6 year period.
There are some users who selfmade 1x, 2x of required merits for Legendary rank (LoyceV, DdmrDdmr). For users who are inactively in the forum for years, it is obviously that they don't care about their ranks.
Quote
If the ranks are not so important or shouldn't be cared about then why there is a ranking system in the forum, what is the use of activity?
You haven't answeredSounded like a rhetorical question. I don't know what the original intent was but I doubt it was designed to become a source for anxiety the way it is often perceived these days. It's just a word on the screen.
And stop criticizing, the way you replied it seems I've asked for Legendary.
I'm a self-diagnosed asshole. You should be worried if I start being nice to people, that would mean I'm up to no good
All I'm saying that your Hero rank is almost as "exclusive" as Legendary would be if the merit system hadn't been implemented. Same applies to other ranks as well. If you care about ranks as a measure of achievement in your forum contributions then lowering merit requirements would not make everyone achieve more, just like printing more money doesn't make everyone richer.
Quickseller- I'm not saying sources per say. Just a feeling that people who have given out a large amount of merit may tend to merit posts that agree with them more than they would a post they disagree with. Nobodys perfect and I believe most try to merit objectively.
The ranked up number may be low, but I'm not hearing from these members stuck in limbo worrying about it. Like I said when people do come here, there may be the odd brushed aside remark, but most will go through the post history and evaluate themselves. The case of the member I linked, they did pull in a large amount of merit quickly, just because sources thought they should be legendary - merit wise - doesn't mean they were obligated to dump the maximum amount on them. I imagine a few will go back over the next couple of months and drop more as they see fit.
No, it has a lot more to do with posting made-up stuff like above and pretending it's a fact that supports his account-farming ideology. Also spuriously attacking users with conspiracy theories. Also his recent cringy sig-induced hyperactivity while claiming to be one of the best posters... that's not how it works. Those are not meritorious posts regardless of fancy words and legalese phrases.
Disagreeing with someone or even being an outright asshole doesn't prevent one from gaining merits, I mean look at me LOL. Being nice may help though, I mean look at LoyceV.
I understand what your saying. I was really referring to I guess was more in line with how others perceive QS. I can't say I've had many reasons to interact with them but have read quite a few threads where a post could be deemed meritworthy, generally this was when I had none ( I try to unload them as quick as they come in). I don't think that most users worry to much about it but I think some do, whether they realize it or not.
See when you're an asshole I laugh and find it funny, this is generally because the target may deserve it IMO. If QS were perceived to be an asshole at some point most would see him as the villain, regardless of if his point of view is valid.
This is me just talking about my perception, I have nothing to back it up and could be off the mark.
This does often get intertwined. Mostly because a lot of the people that complain about it show through their history that they are here mainly to earn. You can tell when someone genuinely wants to learn, and grow. These members generally don't care about rank at first but over time I could see why they would want to advance in that way. To help with that I fully encourage all the merit giveaway threads for quality posts, I would like to see a few more allowed to operate in different boards on the forum, so they are visible to users. That would have to be worked out with the MOD of that board though.
The ranked up number may be low, but I'm not hearing from these members stuck in limbo worrying about it. Like I said when people do come here, there may be the odd brushed aside remark, but most will go through the post history and evaluate themselves. The case of the member I linked, they did pull in a large amount of merit quickly, just because sources thought they should be legendary - merit wise - doesn't mean they were obligated to dump the maximum amount on them. I imagine a few will go back over the next couple of months and drop more as they see fit.
I would have to agree with that. It probably doesn't help that QS does tend to have a differing opinion with quite a few of the most generous merit givers. Which can lead to overlooking a quality post due to disagreeing with the message.
No, it has a lot more to do with posting made-up stuff like above and pretending it's a fact that supports his account-farming ideology. Also spuriously attacking users with conspiracy theories. Also his recent cringy sig-induced hyperactivity while claiming to be one of the best posters... that's not how it works. Those are not meritorious posts regardless of fancy words and legalese phrases.
Disagreeing with someone or even being an outright asshole doesn't prevent one from gaining merits, I mean look at me LOL. Being nice may help though, I mean look at LoyceV.
I understand what your saying. I was really referring to I guess was more in line with how others perceive QS. I can't say I've had many reasons to interact with them but have read quite a few threads where a post could be deemed meritworthy, generally this was when I had none ( I try to unload them as quick as they come in). I don't think that most users worry to much about it but I think some do, whether they realize it or not.
See when you're an asshole I laugh and find it funny, this is generally because the target may deserve it IMO. If QS were perceived to be an asshole at some point most would see him as the villain, regardless of if his point of view is valid.
This is me just talking about my perception, I have nothing to back it up and could be off the mark.
At first, I want to clear one thing,
The purpose of creating the topic is not meant for my benefit. It was for everyone.
I wrote what I was thinking about lately (my point of view), by writing something and getting some point of views gets thing clear and most importantly the brain relaxes well.
The topic was about rank ups and achievement difficulty, not about sig. and bounty campaigns earnings. But some fellow members mixed the topic purpose with forum earnings as it is related to it.
The purpose of creating the topic is not meant for my benefit. It was for everyone.
I wrote what I was thinking about lately (my point of view), by writing something and getting some point of views gets thing clear and most importantly the brain relaxes well.
The topic was about rank ups and achievement difficulty, not about sig. and bounty campaigns earnings. But some fellow members mixed the topic purpose with forum earnings as it is related to it.
This does often get intertwined. Mostly because a lot of the people that complain about it show through their history that they are here mainly to earn. You can tell when someone genuinely wants to learn, and grow. These members generally don't care about rank at first but over time I could see why they would want to advance in that way. To help with that I fully encourage all the merit giveaway threads for quality posts, I would like to see a few more allowed to operate in different boards on the forum, so they are visible to users. That would have to be worked out with the MOD of that board though.
The key is as long as people can review your posts and find something objectively good you will receive some merit.
You cannot deny that tons of posts on a daily basis also gets unnoticed.That's true, like I said though threads for reporting good posts go a long way to help that. That or more people can apply to be sources based on posts they find deserving and under merited.
Quote
@Those who wrote about your achievement,
Your knowledge helped you achieve the position where you are now, but it is not possible for everyone, I mean the avg peoples.
Your knowledge helped you achieve the position where you are now, but it is not possible for everyone, I mean the avg peoples.
I learned on this forum. I had been mining for a 2 months before I found this place. I had enough knowledge to set up an antminer... in 1 hour. That should say it all. So I'm a pretty good example of someone who can come here engage and learn then contribute. Considering my computer skills are laughable beyond the basics (maybe a little better now), I believe if people are focused on that anyone can grow that way.
I think they are excessive for attaining high ranks but they are still achievable.
Somebody from Madgascar is depending for income in this forum then we expect that "somebody" to post something worth reading.
Sound technical knowledge is plus point but merits are not limited for technical knowledge. Even sensible argument can fetch merit that have 0 technical content.
I am not looking at Merit Statistics now but the reality 6-7 month back was that Merit Sources were not using the source Merits completely because they are not finding enough quality post. I think you will interested in reading below:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/smeritsmerits-and-quality-where-the-gap-lies-5041469
Somebody from Madgascar is depending for income in this forum then we expect that "somebody" to post something worth reading.
Sound technical knowledge is plus point but merits are not limited for technical knowledge. Even sensible argument can fetch merit that have 0 technical content.
I am not looking at Merit Statistics now but the reality 6-7 month back was that Merit Sources were not using the source Merits completely because they are not finding enough quality post. I think you will interested in reading below:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/smeritsmerits-and-quality-where-the-gap-lies-5041469
Then wouldn't you want your "certificate" to be more valuable and rare and indicative of your contribution, not merely handed out to everyone who registered on the forum and made a few hundred posts?
I was expecting at least a reply of this kind.Not really, I'm not a special one nor anyone here. Every legitimate person should be weighted equally.
If it is the thing to "merely handed out" then something unique I would demand if I have an option to ask theymos.
Quote
If the ranks are not so important or shouldn't be cared about then why there is a ranking system in the forum, what is the use of activity?
You haven't answeredAnd stop criticizing, the way you replied it seems I've asked for Legendary.
If the ranks are not so important or shouldn't be cared about then why there is a ranking system in the forum, what is the use of activity?
For me, it's like a badge of honor from the forum after spending much time learning bitcoin, learning good things. Or can be said Certificate
Frankly speaking, I learned about the real virtual world by joining this forum. The good things, the bad things, how-to, knowledge... I'm still learning though... there is no end of it.
For me, it's like a badge of honor from the forum after spending much time learning bitcoin, learning good things. Or can be said Certificate
Frankly speaking, I learned about the real virtual world by joining this forum. The good things, the bad things, how-to, knowledge... I'm still learning though... there is no end of it.
Then wouldn't you want your "certificate" to be more valuable and rare and indicative of your contribution, not merely handed out to everyone who registered on the forum and made a few hundred posts?
At first, I want to clear one thing,
The purpose of creating the topic is not meant for my benefit. It was for everyone.
I wrote what I was thinking about lately (my point of view), by writing something and getting some point of views gets thing clear and most importantly the brain relaxes well.
The topic was about rank ups and achievement difficulty, not about sig. and bounty campaigns earnings. But some fellow members mixed the topic purpose with forum earnings as it is related to it.
One thing to point out again, Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? I was indicating the senior, hero accounts not jr, member, full member.
Why should we always need to underestimate sig. campaigns participants and the bounty hunters?
Not all people in the world are rich, some peoples are middle class and poor. I've seen some people say that they rely on the income from this forum.
I'd say that theymos has given a great opportunity to worldwide peoples to earn some money from this forum and he is contributing to making the world a better place.
Average income around the world. Lowest monthly income is $33 for Madagascar peoples, can you imagine how tough is their life?
So I don't see an issue (unless that someone is spammer/shitposter, abuser, scammer) if someone from Madagascar earns some extra money through this forum and gets a better life.
Another good thing about sig. and bounty can be added, what QS said, and I pretty much agree with him.
For me, it's like a badge of honor from the forum after spending much time learning bitcoin, learning good things. Or can be said Certificate
Frankly speaking, I learned about the real virtual world by joining this forum. The good things, the bad things, how-to, knowledge... I'm still learning though... there is no end of it.
@Those who wrote about your achievement,
Your knowledge helped you achieve the position where you are now, but it is not possible for everyone, I mean the avg peoples.
The purpose of creating the topic is not meant for my benefit. It was for everyone.
I wrote what I was thinking about lately (my point of view), by writing something and getting some point of views gets thing clear and most importantly the brain relaxes well.
The topic was about rank ups and achievement difficulty, not about sig. and bounty campaigns earnings. But some fellow members mixed the topic purpose with forum earnings as it is related to it.
One thing to point out again, Is Merit Requirement Per Rank Excessive? I was indicating the senior, hero accounts not jr, member, full member.
Why should we always need to underestimate sig. campaigns participants and the bounty hunters?
Not all people in the world are rich, some peoples are middle class and poor. I've seen some people say that they rely on the income from this forum.
I'd say that theymos has given a great opportunity to worldwide peoples to earn some money from this forum and he is contributing to making the world a better place.
Average income around the world. Lowest monthly income is $33 for Madagascar peoples, can you imagine how tough is their life?
So I don't see an issue (unless that someone is spammer/shitposter, abuser, scammer) if someone from Madagascar earns some extra money through this forum and gets a better life.
Another good thing about sig. and bounty can be added, what QS said, and I pretty much agree with him.
After 5+ years I'm still not sure why people care so much about ranks and other badges. If it's for money-making purposes (e.g. sig campaigns) - the forum doesn't control that. If the ranks would be easier to attain then there would be more users competing for the same campaigns and then it's up to each manager how they deal with that. Some managers already have merit requirements.
If the ranks are not so important or shouldn't be cared about then why there is a ranking system in the forum, what is the use of activity?For me, it's like a badge of honor from the forum after spending much time learning bitcoin, learning good things. Or can be said Certificate
Frankly speaking, I learned about the real virtual world by joining this forum. The good things, the bad things, how-to, knowledge... I'm still learning though... there is no end of it.
The key is as long as people can review your posts and find something objectively good you will receive some merit.
You cannot deny that tons of posts on a daily basis also gets unnoticed.The merit system was created to prevent spammers from being able to rank up. I think it is spilling over to also prevent legitimate users who do make an effort to contribute from ranking up.
I agree with you.No.
And I personally think that theymos should increase the jr requirement to at least 3 or 5 and member to 25.
I agree with you. The test should be given at the beginning to proof one is worthy but not at hero rank I think (except spammer/shitposter, abuser, scammer). And I personally think that theymos should increase the jr requirement to at least 3 or 5 and member to 25.
@Those who wrote about your achievement,
Your knowledge helped you achieve the position where you are now, but it is not possible for everyone, I mean the avg peoples.
The Merit system was put in place for the good of the forum so no, I don’t think the Merit requirement to rank up is excessive. If you’re a good poster you WILL be able to rank up.
There are a number of self made Legendary & Hero Member accounts since the Merit system was introduced.
There are a number of self made Legendary & Hero Member accounts since the Merit system was introduced.
Since the implementation of merit system there is no changes made for the number of merits required to rank up other than Jr.rank,even theymos mentioned that there will be some tweaks on the merit system soon when it was implemented but nothing changes yet so I think he is happy with the current system so we are not going to see any changes in the requirement to rank up.
There are hundreds of thousands of people who use the forum every month
~50k users have been active in the last 30 days. That includes those who just logged in and didn't post, bounty-hunters, bots, sockpuppets, etc.
I would have to agree with that. It probably doesn't help that QS does tend to have a differing opinion with quite a few of the most generous merit givers. Which can lead to overlooking a quality post due to disagreeing with the message.
No, it has a lot more to do with posting made-up stuff like above and pretending it's a fact that supports his account-farming ideology. Also spuriously attacking users with conspiracy theories. Also his recent cringy sig-induced hyperactivity while claiming to be one of the best posters... that's not how it works. Those are not meritorious posts regardless of fancy words and legalese phrases.
Disagreeing with someone or even being an outright asshole doesn't prevent one from gaining merits, I mean look at me LOL. Being nice may help though, I mean look at LoyceV.
I would say this is additional evidence that the merit system is a way to get people to agree with you, and it encourages groupthink. Any merit sources that withhold merit because they disagree with what is being said, is effectively censoring the person because they are being forced to either say what they agree with or not be able to rank up.
Projecting as usual. Count the merits you sent to people you disagree with vs merits you received from the same people.
Still haven't seen a coherent explanation of how making it easier to rank-up would benefit the forum.
I think one solution could be that some percentage of merit required for ranking upto Jr. Member and Member should come from a Verified Merit Source. Verified Merit source should fulfill the following requirements:
1.) Belong to the set of people comprising DT1 member and people who have shown enough commitment towards the forum by earning, say, 250 merits.
1.) Be randomly selected from this group
2.) Anonymous in Merit History
3.) Change cyclically
A thread could be started where these members simply grant merit to new accounts. That source shouldn't show up in the merit history to ensure that people don't get bugged or start getting bribe offers.
Its fairly complicated but so is the problem. Maybe i should think of a more elegant solution..Hmm..Thinking Hat on..
1.) Belong to the set of people comprising DT1 member and people who have shown enough commitment towards the forum by earning, say, 250 merits.
1.) Be randomly selected from this group
2.) Anonymous in Merit History
3.) Change cyclically
A thread could be started where these members simply grant merit to new accounts. That source shouldn't show up in the merit history to ensure that people don't get bugged or start getting bribe offers.
Its fairly complicated but so is the problem. Maybe i should think of a more elegant solution..Hmm..Thinking Hat on..
As one of the people who would currently qualify to be a "verified merit source," I'm not sure that I want the added responsibility of only meriting newbies. However, I believe that my current allocation of source merit allocation is probably in the top 10, if not top 5, so it would be much more work for me than many other merit sources. I could end up giving a handful of newbie posts an insane amount of merit; however, people tend to notice when the amount of merits given is a two digit number, and I am sure the "merit abuse" allegations would crop up (although only the administrators would know who the merit source is, people could figure it out by noticng that such and so merit source isn't giving out any merits anymore.) When you say "anonymous" do you mean the merit score goes up with no other record or do you mean it will have a label like "anonymous" or "Verified Merit Source?"
I’ve just updated the Merit Dashboard, and make the amount of people that have ranked-up at some point, needing Merits to do so, the following:
The reading of the above table indicates that we’ve got:
- 11 Heroes have made it to Legendary
- 25 Sr. Members have made it to Hero Member.
- 13 Full Members have made it to Hero Member.
- 5 Members have made it to Hero.
- 1 Old Era Newbie has made it to Hero.
- On aggregate, that makes 44 accounts that have ranked-up to Hero.
- There are also 106 people that have reached Sr. Member, 185 Full Member, 3.228 Member and 9.945 Jr. Member.
As we can see, there is not much of an issue to get to Jr. Member or Member rank, at least from a numerical point of view. Anyone that makes a bit of an effort and is slightly above par can do it.
Ranking-up to Full Member and above are rather more scarce, as one would expect. Given the size of the forum it seems that numbers are smallish, although this my subjective view.
The ranking-up pipeline on the Merit Dashboard places most people still pretty far away from their next rank ...
The reading of the above table indicates that we’ve got:
- 11 Heroes have made it to Legendary
- 25 Sr. Members have made it to Hero Member.
- 13 Full Members have made it to Hero Member.
- 5 Members have made it to Hero.
- 1 Old Era Newbie has made it to Hero.
- On aggregate, that makes 44 accounts that have ranked-up to Hero.
- There are also 106 people that have reached Sr. Member, 185 Full Member, 3.228 Member and 9.945 Jr. Member.
As we can see, there is not much of an issue to get to Jr. Member or Member rank, at least from a numerical point of view. Anyone that makes a bit of an effort and is slightly above par can do it.
Ranking-up to Full Member and above are rather more scarce, as one would expect. Given the size of the forum it seems that numbers are smallish, although this my subjective view.
The ranking-up pipeline on the Merit Dashboard places most people still pretty far away from their next rank ...
I ranked up to senior member pretty quickly back in the initial days. The starting times were a bit disappointing till I got to the thread by QuestionAuthority where he gave me 20 merits. Things started to feel much better after that. I was a regular at the forum back when nullius was breaking the records for merits and demonstrating to everyone what a great new user should be like. (The forum sure misses him i guess).
I ranked up just when the coinpayments campaign was coming to an end. While trying to fulfill the 30 weekly requirements for coinpayments, I often found myself saying the same thing over and over again. I also realized that most of my posts were only in the "Bitcoin Discussion" and "Economics" section..The main hunting ground for shitposters and Sig spammers..lol..
I felt embarrassed and felt like i had nothing to add without some real technical information. I used to frequent r/bitcoin and twitter accounts of all the devs to stay abreast of whats new. This used to help in adding to discussions. Yet, It gradually became clear to me that based on pure "discussions", A Sr. Member rank is the most that you can get to now AND the most that you should get to.
If you want to be a Hero, you must have enough technical know-how to contribute frequently to the Dev & Technical discussion. (I presently have to remain content with lurking). If you want to be a legendary, you must be a big contributor in at least one of the sections like Mining or Services or Market. That i feel is the only way now to get to Hero/ Legendary. I agree that its a lot of work but then it'll really be worth it. Of course, its quite a source of heartburn to see a lot of braindead people from the old days who get have the Hero/ Legendary status
but that is something we cannot help. Its like all those drug suppliers and arms-dealers that must have gotten wealthy with bitcoin. It is just part of the unfair dichotomies of Bitcoin.
In short, No the merit requirements are not excessive. Increasing them for Jr. Member could be taken into consideration too. Most people who really engage eventually do get to member status. The problem with the low requirement is that it has resulted in merit-trading and alt accounts.
I think one solution could be that some percentage of merit required for ranking upto Jr. Member and Member should come from a Verified Merit Source. Verified Merit source should fulfill the following requirements:
1.) Belong to the set of people comprising DT1 member and people who have shown enough commitment towards the forum by earning, say, 250 merits.
1.) Be randomly selected from this group
2.) Anonymous in Merit History
3.) Change cyclically
A thread could be started where these members simply grant merit to new accounts. That source shouldn't show up in the merit history to ensure that people don't get bugged or start getting bribe offers.
Its fairly complicated but so is the problem. Maybe i should think of a more elegant solution..Hmm..Thinking Hat on..
I ranked up just when the coinpayments campaign was coming to an end. While trying to fulfill the 30 weekly requirements for coinpayments, I often found myself saying the same thing over and over again. I also realized that most of my posts were only in the "Bitcoin Discussion" and "Economics" section..The main hunting ground for shitposters and Sig spammers..lol..
I felt embarrassed and felt like i had nothing to add without some real technical information. I used to frequent r/bitcoin and twitter accounts of all the devs to stay abreast of whats new. This used to help in adding to discussions. Yet, It gradually became clear to me that based on pure "discussions", A Sr. Member rank is the most that you can get to now AND the most that you should get to.
If you want to be a Hero, you must have enough technical know-how to contribute frequently to the Dev & Technical discussion. (I presently have to remain content with lurking). If you want to be a legendary, you must be a big contributor in at least one of the sections like Mining or Services or Market. That i feel is the only way now to get to Hero/ Legendary. I agree that its a lot of work but then it'll really be worth it. Of course, its quite a source of heartburn to see a lot of braindead people from the old days who get have the Hero/ Legendary status
but that is something we cannot help. Its like all those drug suppliers and arms-dealers that must have gotten wealthy with bitcoin. It is just part of the unfair dichotomies of Bitcoin.In short, No the merit requirements are not excessive. Increasing them for Jr. Member could be taken into consideration too. Most people who really engage eventually do get to member status. The problem with the low requirement is that it has resulted in merit-trading and alt accounts.
I think one solution could be that some percentage of merit required for ranking upto Jr. Member and Member should come from a Verified Merit Source. Verified Merit source should fulfill the following requirements:
1.) Belong to the set of people comprising DT1 member and people who have shown enough commitment towards the forum by earning, say, 250 merits.
1.) Be randomly selected from this group
2.) Anonymous in Merit History
3.) Change cyclically
A thread could be started where these members simply grant merit to new accounts. That source shouldn't show up in the merit history to ensure that people don't get bugged or start getting bribe offers.
Its fairly complicated but so is the problem. Maybe i should think of a more elegant solution..Hmm..Thinking Hat on..
There are only 94 people with more merit than I have. There are hundreds of thousands of people who use the forum every month, most probably won’t participate continuously for 16 months, but I would expect for at least thousands to have enough activity to be a hero.
It just unfortunately shows how big the number of people here are solely for bounties(most probably more of altcoin bounties) and aren't even to spend a bit of time learning about bitcoin or cryptocurrencies in general. It honestly doesn't even take to be an intermediate/expert to earn a few merits from time to time, but people are complaining on how to earn them. The problem is obviously more on them, rather than being the fault of the current merit system.
Jump to: