Topic: LoyceV's deMerit source application - page 2. (Read 1532 times)

Merit is like doing something useful, positive for the community. DeMerit is like denying that positive? If you find that merit is not worth it, can you give RED TRUST?

P/s : sorry for my bad english.

Let theymos decide on this matter since for the time being had no plan for this to create a demerit committee. Besides if a demerit committee is needed theymos should consider also on how it will be used like a protocol before proceeding to demerit a member for it could be subject also for the possible abuse of its use. Let theymos decide on this matter and its consulting team and not just by one or two members here in the forum.

"a" is much better than "b" for reducing spammy posts made by ICO bounties. Say; every 100/75/50 posts(I would prefer 50 posts), 1 merit is reduced. But this kind of method should only be applicable to people who wear "bounty" ICO signatures.

I didn't choose "b" because there are people with default merits who wear signature that aren't ICO related like this one:


IMO, ICO bounties are the reason why people see spamfest posts on every section.

If theymos wants to gamify the new forum software, if ever it comes, method "a" is the best option.

No for deMerits, BTW.

As I was saying....


I think that less than 0.1% of the merit was sent by mistake, usually with that back page bug but the focus of the demeriting should not be on posts that have been merited and did not deserve it.

The main target should be the shitposts, like the ones here: Wall of fame / shame.

I think you are on to something here, OP 

Imagine the red trust (irrelevant of course) and the utter fallout of someone being demoted back to Newbie or Jr. Member that will prevent them to participate in bounties.

I think they will start a vendetta against you, maybe even spam you with loads of PMs 

To be honest I am not agree with demerit system. I don't believe that merit could be send by mistake. It's not same as Facebook like that could be press by mistake. During meriting time there is new tab, that means you are fully aware that you are going to merit someone. On the other hand once you are meriting someone you are meriting on post, you are not consider a person. Same thing for others people also. Say someone merited me on a post,  but in case after few days if they aren't agree with me for any reason than may be some one will think I will demerit my merit. It's just example, but I think it would be happen. I don't think it will be fair.

If you think for source of demerit like current merit source than also I am not agree. You will se many accusation against them. Adding demerit source means merit will moderated by forum. So it would be easy to question forum. And it's more difficult to identify who are really abusing. Without proper explanation couldn't be demerited. You can see sometimes there is accusation also against merit source regarding merit abuse. So you can imagine how many accusation will be against demerit source.

For me current merit system is working fine. Just we need to follow who are abusing merit system and identify them for tag. I know merit abusing increase after implement new rules. But I don't think it will longer as well they are getting red tag if caught.

If you think you can trust LoyceV in doing this, you should advocate him becoming a mod, and he can be subject to the forum rules in regards to moderation when handing out bans.

If we allow "normal" users to remove merit from others, then we will eventually have corrupt people such as Lauda handing out negative merit to their enemies, handing out negative trust for giving merit to those he does not agree with and saying that he can leave whatever merit to whoever he wants for any reason he wants.

At the end of the day, I don't think it is a big deal if a small number of people can spam with a paid signature because this will only be a small number of people, and will be easier for the mods to handle, and also because there is a limited number of merits available (to spammers), so they can only rank up a limited number of accounts to spam.

If there is a widespread problem of spammers getting a single merit to wear a paid signature, it would strengthen the argument that you must pay in order to wear a signature (and to rank up above a junior member -- in addition to activity requirements).

I like and support this idea, great! LoyceV is someone we can trust, especially in this task, this man will be fair and won't abuse anything.
Curious, why theymos didn't think about demerit? Well, not everyone has to be available of it but at least we need another group of people who are fair and wish to so this job like we have merit sources.
In LoyceV We Trust

Yes, this is not a bit bad, but you have to think about how to improve the current situation for the better

The sadist in me would love to see this happening as I can't picture LoyceV abusing this and I'm pretty sure that if he is proven wrong on something he will award back the merit but if we're going to have 10 or 20 sinks (?) around we are going to end with the same controversy we have with the trust system. And we all know how many sides are waging war on that front.

And having a single person with this "power" won't be a much brighter idea either...

Rather than hunting them down, I would really like to see two things implemented:
a) (this was also LoyceV idea, I think!?) an automated system where you either
- lose 1 merit for every 100 or whatever activity if you wear a signature for even a second during an activity period
- you need at least one merit in the last x days to keep your signature active

b) this is going to piss off a lot of people but I would love to see all jr/full/sr/hero or legendary members who haven't earned a single merit since the system was implemented without the possibility of displaying a signature

After all, legendary and heroes were supposed to have earned their rank with the hundreds of worthy posts made before the system was introduced. So what's the difference between a newbie who made 1000 posts and has not earned a single merit and a hero member who has also done 1000 posts in the same timeframe with the same results ?


 

Why we always rush to create more solutions without giving time to the current situation and evaluating and thinking about improving it?.

How many accounts will be ranked-up? Hundred thousand? I do not think the number will be significant because of the limited merits.

Let it be as it is and evaluate the solution after some months.

The improvement will be by adding more merits to rank-up "5 for jrmembers", lowering ranks if no one has access to a certain number of merits, restrictions for some boards "newbie can’t post on altcoin boards."

I do not like this solution "deMerit."  

Part of the reason I started this thread was to (re)start a discussion about deMerit. I see good points, both in favour and against it.
I didn't mention it in the OP, but if deMerits are introduced, it should be a shared responsibility, just like the current Merit sources (and not just me).

Demerit has its usages, and I'm not saying it's a terrible idea. However, just because a demerit source disagrees with a merit source or someone who rewarded the merit, doesn't mean that they should have the ruling over them. Mistakes happen, and they could perhaps be removed by a global moderator or something, but I guess they have enough on their hands. I don't think giving someone the right to just demerit when they disagree with something is the best solution. Everyone has different opinions on quality of posts from users.

Introducing deMerit sources would be a good decision to remove some Merits given to Newbies by mistake, like this one: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/before-you-give-merit-to-a-newly-demoted-newbie-5030749

Another idea could be if we increase the rank requirements for Jr. Members later again. Most of them who received 1 Merit now will continue shitposting, not all of them, but most of them. If we wait a few weeks now and then change the rules again that it's necessary to earn 2 Merits to get a Jr. Member we can check their new comments after the account got his 1 Merit. If he didn't change his posting behaviour and continued his shitposting, this second Merit he needs now to be Jr. Member will be refused.

This can be another measure to prevent mistakenly given Merits.

Merit abuse is pretty damn hard to spot, unless its blatantly obvious. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll be finding that many abusers with the low requirement of 1 merit. If we had a 5 merit requirement for Jr member then it would of been easier to identify abusers I think.

I get your idea, but this could be abused easily/misused in many ways. Increasing merit requirement for some ranks, limiting signature features for few ranks and permanent ban for obvious merit abuse are far better and should be easier to be implemented.
Report button on merit page and hidden list of trusted member (which only can be seen by moderator/admin when see reports) should be better.

Remember , Theymos want to welcoming The Good Newbie so we can't just think in one view but both of view.
Yes, it's become the homework about how to rework the rank without hurt the good one.

1 Merit is so easy to get and not sufficient to remove spammers.  Maybe 5 or 10 is good.

Alternatively, it would be good to require the merit on regular basis to reduce this tendency, e.g. requiring earning 1 Merit/month to stay at the current rank, which shouldn't be an obstacle for those who contribute to the forum regularly.  The opportunity of earning merit is monotonically increasing as time goes by, it would be natural to increase the requirement as time goes by.

This is not a good idea. If someone is breaking the rules, then you should report them and a ban will be issued as appropriate.

It would not be appropriate to allow someone to arbitrarily be able to remove certain features granted to users.

I'm against the idea of demerits to be honest. However, the current problem we have is newbies actually making an effort to make 1 good quality post or a few until they receive their merit, and they'll then go back to spamming their bounty shit, and we'll be no better off. I would of personally preferred the merit requirement to be higher.