Topic: Merit & new rank requirements - page 248. (Read 167717 times)

That was my filling when first used Merit to upvote somebody. But now understand that there is sMerit thanks to

Donated !


I am asking myself why this tool now? Why so fast? We could just test it out before fully implemented.


I can not let you sit there so empty. Here you are +1 for you too. I think we will see plenty posts like this. Just about Merits.

Yeah! Admin should consider about this possibility to reopen local boards. With merit system, spammers know that they will get nothing from spamming both the forum and their local boards. They have only two options:
1. Leave the forum forever
2. Increase their posts quality, which in turn help the forum to be cleaner, better, higher qualified one.

Please consider carefully about this. It's strange if the forum have local boards, but have been locked and users have to go to other forums like bitcointalk, etc.to discuss ideas with their locals.

Does anyone actually believe that the merit system will "improve the quality of posts"? You guys think that a bunch of people (not to mention certain national groups, but it will happen in that way, for sure) won't start to give each other merits for posts like "good sir, when airdrop"? I don't believe that the system was designed for the improving of the overall quality in the first place: it was designed for the slowdown of the forum activity. Quality will more or less remain the same, it's obvious. But what worries me is the existence of these "Gods of Merits" who can show their merit mercy upon their lobby champs, and rage upon the sinners. Was that really necessary? Couldn't that be done in some other way, without showing the muscles? Would someone from the management explain us why that title was introduced, maybe I've missed a philosophical idea that exists in the background of that act (which I won't call the act of absolutist power, although the resemblance is stunning)? Do you think that the act is in line with the very essence of the decentralized Bitcoin nature and everything else that blockchain technology represents, comparing to the banks, states, companies and other bs creations? Will any of these Gods give me 150 merits, so I can move to the next rank? I don't believe so. Will they deny merits to Satoshi because they don't know that it was Him who has written a "low quality" post? Will they give him merits if they learn that it was He who has written the "good sir, when airdrop" thing? Do we really need to associate personalities with the addresses/nicks and to introduce such a state-like central power to Bitcoin and communities that surround it? If management was concerned about the quality of posts, I think a lot simpler and more repressive system of, for example, some negative merits or something similar could be introduced. So, please, don't talk about "quality of posts" anymore 'cause it hurts intelligence. Hail to the Gods ('cause they give merits)! And cheers to everyone else ('cause they make the Bitcoin and the existence of Gods possible)!

I wish our forum had Merit long ago to limit / destroy spamers, if so, our community has not become overly aggressive and abusive forum as in the past.
With the arrival of Merit, a tool to control spammers, I expect that Admin & Mods will soon decide to reopen the locked-in local forums.

Humor is that most of the forum members are not familiar with Merit so everyone keeps their Merit  

Is there a delicate issue: Will there ever be a secret Merit exchange on the forum?
You may hear this: "All, which can't be bought by money, can be bought by so much of money."

The purpose of BITCOINTOLK is a meaningful conversation, it is wonderful! But to sustain, the ranking is effective.
I think that it is a problem that merit becomes a hindrance to the rank up.
I hope to consider supplying a sufficient number of merits.
On the local, merit sending has not become active due to the small number.

I think exactly like you.
I would have preferred that signatures were forbidden for everyone, if this was the problem that caused spam.

Sources cannot read every post and the rest of the members will not necessarily reward quality... They may trade merit or give it only to other uses they know etc... For the system to work, all users should have the improvement of quality in mind and I don´t think that´s safe to assume.

This system may easily become a favour-for a-favour thing. It is impossible to "police and patrol" every merit given.

Yes I agree with you. It better to have also demerit system so that it can minimises too the shitposters instead raise the very useful post and constructive,

I have spotted a tendency and extrapolated an outcome - of course there will always be exceptions, like high ranking members occasionally meriting also critical voices. But reality is not defined by exceptions.
What you are stating, which in itself would make a sense, is alas just theory, to which I can now reply opposing empirical evidence. Did you notice that all my well articulated posts in this discussion didn't bring me a single merit? Fragments of my arguments have been quoted and re-quoted several times in the poets of other people, but not a single merit has been given to any of my posts, in a thread highly populated with people full of sMerits. I am not complaining, this must be very clear, not I am in any way begging for merits - if I were a such kind of person I would have formulated an entirely different kind of posts here. But I'm mentioning this only to prove my point. Empirical evidence is right now showing that a critical contribute to the discussion - but a non "politically correct" one according to the general view - is leading to no merits or so.
I am really not happy to be right in this discussion. I really would prefer you to be right. I am in favor of a merit system to fight shitposting and improve the quality the forum, but I am getting more and more convinced that as things are shaping up it will not work as expected. It may turn out to reduce shitposting (we cannot be sure until we will observe that) but for sure it will set off a new pattern of behavior which personally I'm finding even more obscene than shitposting - and that is buttlicking. Conformism and buttlicking are at risk of becoming the new plague of this forum. I can already see so many cases, just after a few days. Wait that all the people with no dignity which is infesting the forum (as well as the world) find out how it works. Which is the ONLY feasible way to get merits here. Not in theory - but in the practice. Statistics rules. Mark my words - and we'll comment it again in six months.

In fact, not only Ledgendaries have the rights to send smerits ( I would like to emphasize that sMerits, not Merits), but also Heroes, Senior Members, Full members, and Members too. The problem is Heroes and Ledgendaries have more sMerits since the start of merit system to give. However, everyone in the forum can help each other to rank up, to improve the quality of posts in the forum, to make the forum as a better one for discussion.

It's not only about to be a "holder". You simply don't have merit to spend.
I don't have any, members have ONE. When it's gone, it's gone. Oh, after it's gone, it became 0,5!!!!! So very fast...no more merits on the forum (the 8'000 from "mining are insufficient for sure)
The only way to grow is to have some legendary friends that will "sponsor" you.
The forum now is property of an elite of high ranks, the others can only beg for mercy.
It has nothing to do with the quality of post, only with power.

No, actually not. You won't lose your merits for sure. What you really send to others is your sMerit, which is sendable merit. Hence, what you will lose is sMerit, and you have nothing to gain for keeping sMerits for yourself. Only merits will help you to satisfy new ranking system which highly correlated with both the your merit points and your total number of activities.

Additionally, users who receiving merits also increase their sMerits by 50 percent. I mean when they get 10 merits from others, they actions focally have 5 more sMerits in their accounts, which in turn allow them to send those sMerits to others as gifts and help. That is the way merit system work and the approach in which users help each other as real, strong community over time.

 Merits of my threads useful, constructive, ok?

By now, Theymos decided that the merit suytem has automatically given users certain number of merits which correspond to their current ranks, regardless of their current activities. For example: 10 merits for Members; 100 Merits for Full members, 250 Merits for Senior members, 500 merits for Heros; and 1000 Merits for Ledgendaries. That's the original allocation of merit system; however, some days after that point, Theymos corrected it a little bit by reallocating more merit points for users whom are Heros but has already had above 700 activities (I don't remember exactly the number of activities range for the case, you can check in previous threads).
Hope it helps, and please send me Merits as gifts if possible. I almost upgraded to Member before launching of merit system.

I have recheck previous threads, the exact one is

So, if I send merit points to another user it will be deduced from my account? Most of bitcoiners are holder by nature I don't think they will spend their points even if they cross a good post ( maybe they will do if you pay them well   )

It will be hard for moderators to check all members posts if they ask for their merit points (10 constructive posts), it would be better to use a Demerit system to punish shitposters.

I don't know how much the merit system will improve the quality of the posts.
For what I can understand, the only result is to make impossible for low ranks to grow (please don't tell me "Write good posts and you'll receive merits." It's a lie, and you know it: for example, even if I like a post, I can give any merit)
Of course legendaries are very happy, because this novelty "freeze" the situation in their advantage.
But, by definition, nothing static is good, in this dynamic world.

I predict that in just some weeks the system - at least in this way - simply will fail.

We'll see.

That's why you have no merit requirement up to junior level and only 10 for a member. Highest ranks are supposed to be hard to achieve. The previous system based on activity was way too easy.

I hope the new highest rank is introduced, so all the current Legendaries have something to strive for.


Not sure whether people ignore it, or just waiting to see how this system will pan out. You don't want to shoot yourself out in the first week.

But changing colour is a great idea, green should do the trick.

+ Having sMerit balance shown on the Merit summary page would be useful (not visible for everyone though)

See the first post of this topic:
"For current members, your initial merit score is equal to the minimum required to your rank. Of that, a certain amount (less than the usual half) is spendable. The spendable amount was calculated based on your current rank and the number of activity points you earned in the last year. A Legendary member who hasn't posted in the last year would still be Legendary, but would not have any spendable merit."

The merit system have been designed few days ago. Some of the members are not even going back online since this system was implemented. Sooner, people will get used to it. And if there are things like ignoring the merit system and ignoring the posts (even the constructive one), they won't be benefited for not doing that and that means that they are the type of people who doesn't want to embrace the new change. This new system teaches us to have a constructive post, and be open minded and teaches us to give those posts the merit they deserve.

How was it determined how many sMerits we get?
For the last couple of days I thought I'd have 500 sMerits, but seems that's not the case
http://prntscr.com/i6jetn

+1 Ass licking post  When will you realize that this system is not about bitcoin, it's about people who want monopolize their influence. It's fully against Satoshi vision. But, better I will be silent, as all others )))