I found the new ranking requirement is not logic. It requires way too many merit points in order to gain higher rankings. For example, I am a Member now, and from Member to Full Member:
Requirements:
Member 60 10
Full Member 120 100I need 60 posts and 90 Merit points. How many posts I can get 90 merit points? Well, some posts I just reply to other people's posts, with my comments, for those, I probably get no merit points. I need to post long and original info or thoughts in order to get merit points. Say every 3 posts I get 1 merit point, I'd do 270 activities to get 90 merit points, and this is probably the best scenario, and admin will need to notice every of my good posts
Therefore, I think this system is not rational. To the least, the requirement of the activities and merit need to be consistent. The purpose of the merit is to make people write quality posts. So with 3:1 ration this could be reasonable, which means if we keep that Full Member requires 120 activities, then the merit point requirement should be 10+60/3 = 30, instead 100, for the Full Members. This will encourage people to make quality posts and don't find other ways to cheat.
Hey.. you made a pretty decent post, here, but the content seems to be whining about stupid shit (meaning already beaten to death points, if you bothered looking through this thread, for example).
I would think that if you had made some decent points about something relatively important and significant, then the way that you back up your points, such as here, and describe the situation would likely be more attracting of smerits (at least one, and you might get one here, too.. because sometimes even whiners find common cause with other whiners who happen to have some smerits that they are willing to spend on a common cause whiner).
Anyhow, you can also attempt to study into the matter and see that higher earning merit post members could provide some examples about how you could earn merits, to the extent that merits are important, anyhow for someone who merely wants to read posts.. .. and throw in a few responsive posts from time to time... assuming that there is even any real need to rank up for folks who mostly just read, rather than posting in interactive kinds of ways (which there are a variety of ways that your posts could end up earning merits, if you looked into the matter a bit (rather than just whining some seeming bullshit and seeming non-studied points)).
I went through the posts, just want to raise the issue. I am not whining here, I just hope the system be more reasonable.
It could be that I misread your knowledge base and how much you really thought about the subject, and surely if you go through the various posts on the topic or even think through the rationale(s) for the merit system, if you are a reasonable person, you should also be able to recognize that the system was put in place based on reasonable considerations (or at least attempts at reasonableness).
Perhaps there could be better systems or better reasons, but in the end, I would have a difficult time concluding that theymos was not at least attempting to be reasonable about what he implemented and what changes that he made based on goals that he was attempting to achieve (namely largely attempting to disincentivize account farming and spamming/shit posting).
I think that theymos is also open to suggestions that would make this merit system better, but there with any rolling out of any system, there are also going to be attempts to go with what you got and to tweak rather than abandon the already taken direction, unless there is another path that is relatively clear and likely better.
Afterall, the merit point is not there for fun, it's to encourage people to post better.
I largely agree with you, except I would phrase it differently.
I think that it is meant to discourage shitposting, rather than encouraging good posts, even though they seem to be two ends of the same coin... but I don't think that the new system is attempting to cause any burdensome obligations on regular members (even though you might see it that way and even if it ends up becoming more difficult to rank up).
But with this kind of unreasonable system,
Again you are assuming the system to be unreasonable, and I think that is too BIG of an assumption that is not based on facts or logical backing.
it does not achieve its goal.
First, if you have the goal wrong, then you might consider that the new system is not achieving it.
Second, if the goal is to cut down on spamming and farming accounts, I think that there is evidence that the new system might have made some progress in that direction. I don't feel like I need to provide that evidence, but at least if you are looking at the actual goals, then that would be a step in the right direction (or redirection).
I, as many here, are enthusiast of Bitcoin and blockchain technology. I come here to get information and ideas.
I don't see how this current merit system would be hindering you from getting information and ideas, and if overall there is less spamming and account farming (assuming that to be the case), then it would seem that some of your objectives would be improved.. to get better information and ideas with less clutter? Perhaps?
Of course I'd like to be as high ranking as possible.
You have not really stated any reason for that? Of course, all of us like to have recognition and status, but in a forum like this, some people do not have time to spend a lot of time on posting and getting known by other members, so there could be too much of a cost, and perhaps if you are just sharing information and ideas, then I don't see what purpose rank has in that? Unless you want to sell something or if you want to participatate in a signature campaign or something like that. You have not asserted those to be either of your goals. At least not yet.
But the system as is, I doubt it will help any, at least for myself, I don't care and it does not encourage me to make any better posts.
Again, I doubt whether the goals of the system are as you describe, which is to encourage you to make better posts, especially if you are not a previous shit poster or a spammer. Of course, if you have a goal to rank up, then at least on the margins, the system might create such incentives to get you to post in such a way that will inspire others to merit your posts/contributions.
Your overall points are not really bad and your way of expressing them are pretty decent, but I still don't arrive at similar kinds of conclusions as you, and I believe that part of the reason for our differing conclusions is that I consider the goals of the merit system to be a bit different from your consideration(s) and it seems to me that theymos (and other admin/mods who are influencing his thinking) is attempting to be reasonable (even if his reasonableness differs from some other members - including you, presumably).
I've seen the suggestion before: it would kinda be good to have a reference thread of theymos' posts related to forum policies. I'd like to make one, but there's no way I can review his 8000+ posts.
