Topic: Merit requirement should be proportional to activity - page 2. (Read 682 times)

Forum should not change rules due to bounty stake. As you mention problem is signature. Why should increase or decrease merit system? As well as its working fine. Why not just remove signature space from Jr. Members. It has been suggested by lots of user include me. But eventually implemented 1 merit for Jr. Members. It's true that few spamming already reduced. But not fully and it's not possible. Because there is lot of existing user who got merit by Airdrop. A legendary rank by airdrop it doesn't mean he is a great poster.

However spam will never end but we can reduce it more. I don't think need to touch on current merit system for that. Just remove Jr. Member from signature campaign will reduce almost 70% spam (IMO).

Or just disable signature on Jr. Member rank since newcomers (aka people who genuinely interested with Bitcoin technology/discussion) who don't plan join signature campaign still need feature such as no PM restriction and can post images.

Increasing the merit requirement for jr. Members without making any reductions anywhere else is the way to go.

You can read bounty as "Activity" then.
When we says Jr.Member are spamming for signatures then activity based merit system will just discourage them to go on creating multiple accounts.
Anyway I guess bounty stakes basis was "Activity" only.

If you agree Signatures are cause of spamming then you have to create rules that can effectively counter it and it is not equivalent to "forum change its requirements to conform with some random bounty allocations"

Rather than lowering the requirements for higher ranks, I think a better way of combating spam would be to increase the requirements for lower ranks. Specifically, raising the merit required for Junior Member, and therefore displaying a signature at all, would do far more to reduce spam than making it easier to reach legendary.

LoyceV's data have shown us that the one merit rule has had a significant effect on spam. A 10 or 25 merit rule would be even better.

Why should the forum change its requirements to conform with some random bounty allocations?

I know theymos has no interest in knowing what rank get what bounty stakes in signature campaign but truth is that everybody agrees that signature campaigns are the main root cause of spam.

So I checked various bounties thread and my understanding about stake ratio in a campaign as follows:

Jr. member : 1 stake
Member      : 2 stake
Full Member : 3 to 5 stake
Senior Member: 4 to 6 stake
Hero  member  : 6 to 8 stake
Legendary        : 8 to 10 stake  (in some cases they are treated equivalent to hero only)

It simply look like 2 Jr. member bounty stakes are equivalent to Member  and bounty stake of 5 Jr. member are equivalent to full member.
But Full member requires to get 100 merits while it just require 5 merits for 5 Jr. member.
When you start comparing rank of Jr.Member and Member vs other higher rank , you will clearly see that  bounty stakes are favoring multiple small ranked account instead of one high ranking account.

My personal belief is that it might encourage spammer to create multiple account and get few merits by hook and crook for that account and start one more  new account instead of focusing in posting etiquette and sincerely try to rank up.

I suggest that merit requirement for each rank   should be proportional to  the activity required (or bounty stakes, but look like bounty stakes also based on activity only (before the inception of merit) and still continuing on that old model)

With my above suggestion, I guess problem of spam generation by Sig campaign might be solved but it will cause new problem of ranking up in lower ranks like 25 merits for Jr.Member rank or 50 Merit for member rank.

To counter this problem , I will suggest to reduce the number of merit required to be half to activity for each  rank.
Like 15 for Jr.Member, 30 for Member, 60 (or 50)  for full Member, 125 for Sr.Member, 250 for Hero Member and 500 for legendary. Since airdropped Merits were given to maintain the rank earlier so we should half them also for maintaining the rank.

For ex. A senior Member at the time of implementation of Merit given 250 airdropped Merit and earned 100 Merit till now will be having 350 Merits and still still short with 150 merits for hero (assumed Sr.member full filled the activity criteria.) With new proposition, Airdropped merit will be halved that become 125 and member earned 100 merit, making total to 225 and now short of only 25 merits to become hero  (assumed Sr.member full filled the activity criteria.)

I think maintaining the linearity between activity and merit will discourage user to create multiple low level account for sig spamming.

 Edit: Look like some users are taking in another sense when I am mentioning the word bounty.  My whole intent for this post is to explain that current merit requirement still encourage alt account creation at Jr.Member/Member level  for bounty farming.