Topic: Please limit merit awards to one per post per person. (Read 786 times)

This guy's idea might be another option for adjustment of merit system. This recommendation focuses on maximum merits each user can give to a specific user per day.

Why like this??? If a post was appreciated and recognized by thousands of user to be informative and useful, then it's his or her previlage to be given a lot of sMerit from those individuals right?
Why stopping them from giving points..

Merits are not scarce, and sMerits too. Certain Merits will be released by the forum on monthly basis. In addition, sMerits will be circulated in the forum from users to users. The problem is how ready users are to send their sMerits to others for their good, constructive, high quality posts in the forum. That will definitely be the big problem. That also totally depends upon generosity of users.

Its not scarce overall, its depends on the population.   Merit available for the lowest ranks is very rare clearly as they are not given much on this scheme starting, the idea is promote those who are posting properly.   So long as there is lots of active users from the higher ranks then Merit isnt rare, if somehow the forum was just new people then it would be rare thats true.

I checked your post history but couldn't find anything unique to give to merit to especially, guess Iam scrooge

Merit is scarce, and it is impossible for many people to add merit to a good post.

Always interesting to see a new kind of system pop up and how it circulates, accumulates over time.  There is an obvious inflationary event in its introduction and it'll be lumpy how it spreads because not everyone is even active every day or even every single week.

I'll up my game and proceed on the basis of use it or lose it and not be worried about using it all or whatever.  So far I appear to be a Merit scrooge but its not my intention    I do give just +1 with stuff I agree with, I'll give the max I can if someone posts a new Shakespeare play somehow and posts it on the forum and +10 for anything I really wouldnt have known otherwise, could even be a repost tbh if I just thought it was genuinely useful

Anyone being helpful should be +1 even if I already knew that I guess

It sounds impossible! It is also hard to pass the ball of responsibility to Signature campaign's managers. They don't have too much time for doing that.

Furthermore, as you can imagine, merits might be a little bit hard to get, not really hard, just a little bit. So it is not realistic to attached rules related to merit scores weekly for those joining signature campaigns.

Do you agree with my ideas? We can discuss more.

Personally, I want to spread it around.   I'm #16 in the generous category - I'm just sending it to many different people.

I remember reading posts and wishing I could +1 them.  Now I'm wishing I could remember those posts lol.

I want to make sure I have sMerit when I see something I like.

Now, if you want to make me a Merit "SuperSource" I'll be happy to doll out Merits on posts that "deserve to be read".   

I don't agree with this suggestion. This new system is a great addition to combat spam, to know who's putting effort in their posts. Adding the spam creator thing doesn't feel like it's necessary since they could just put a negative feedback to make the account useless then remove it in the future if they think the user they tagged made an improvement. Also we already have the DT members ,the SMAS team and the report button to help us out with the spamming issue.

A bit of a problem with your suggestion is that it is not even attempting to work with parameters of a system that has just been implemented and in the early stages of testing. 

With out really thinking the matter through you are making a seemingly pie in the sky suggestion that would be to throw out the whole system without really grappling within the parameters of what has just been implemented.. which also likely contributes to the glaring additional downfall of your suggestion that was pointed out in Vod's above response post.

The moderators do not need more work!  The system needs to stay in the hands of the members.

@Jet Cash it would be better to bring back the old system but with some corrections, which can give moderator rights to mark the user as spam creator.
After the potential spammer gets that mark, he would get chance to gain his reputation back( in a couple of weeks or more), if he gives 10 constructive posts(this is just explanation, it could be more than 10+ posts) moderator will make a decision should that spam mark will be removed or not.
If spammer continues to post shity comments, then moderator have all rights to give him Negative trust.

hahahaha...   The first line of your post seems to tell all... don't take you seriously.

I did read your suggestion, and I was trying to consider what it might accomplish, and it seems to not resolve anything. 

Perhaps distributing some s-merits to everyone based on activity once a year or every 6 months or something fairly conservative might be o.k, but not every 2 weeks... such frequent distributions, as you suggest, would not seem to solve anything, and would likely cause more problems than it resolves, no?

Surely, we are all getting used to this whole system, and it may take several months to assess how it is playing out.  

Right now, it seems quite likely that several members have not even figured out what is the merit system and they may be a bit trigger shy about using it or they may have already tried to use it in ways that were experiments, or mistakes.  

Furthermore, there can be a little bit of an adjustment for members to start thinking about the quality of posts of others and to employ such a merit sending tool, even though there are some similarities and differences with upvoting or liking.

I understand that you want to create incentives for members to not hoard their smerit, yet there may be a variety of strategic reasons that members want to hoard some of their smerits and to strategically send them or to have them available to send at a time and kind of post that suits their awarding preference(s), so I don't really like the idea of decay, unless such a decay were to be implemented in a very conservative manner and still allow for some hoarding and maybe would be a very slow decay, if there were not any movement of smerits in an account, that would be enough to incentivize some spending/sending of completely non-moving smerits.

By the way, if a user only wants to see merited posts, then sure, that seems like a good option; however, I am doubtful that I would ever use that option because I have a preference to see contexts, which is also the same reason that I do not use the "ignore" button because I can easily skim through or skip any poster that I have recognized to post shitty.   On the other hand, I don't really find fault with any member who wants to use the ignore button - because they feel that such a feature is helpful to them in terms of their time management, or stress, or information overload or whatever personal reason that they have.

Ditto here: Lately I've been giving out 1-3 merits for good posts.  The first 2 days of the merit system, when I did not fully understand it and had a fever of 102.3, I gave out some stupid merit points--but nothing anywhere near 50.  That's a crazy amount.

For all the flaws in the system, I am finding it to be refreshing that it's not necessary to tag shitposters one by one, that there actually is a system in place that organically inhibits the spread of shitposts much like penicillin will clean up your gonorrhea-infected testiclats.  It is not perfect by any means, and people are already obviously attempting to game the system, but it's not horrible and way, WAY better than nothing.

I can share my reasoning:
I've given 1 Merit to 23 posts in 4 days, my sMerit went down from 200 to 190. I sent and received most on the first days. At this rate, I'll be out of sMerit in a few months. I still report more posts than I Merit.
Even the average source has only 6 sMerit per day to give. I could spend my sMerit faster, that means I'll run out in a month or less.

I think 🤔 but don't take me seriously :
Every cut off date, an amount of sMerit should be automatically given to every member of the forum according to their rank, of course newbie is exempted. As for example all Jr. Member will be given 2-5 sMerit every 14 days this points is non transferable and only be used by the user.

Another 3-5 sMerit  where in you can give it to another user: the management or moderators will not dictate on how you give or use your sMerit points,  it's either you give it as a gift, or give it as an appreciation of his or her good post.

Rewarding of sMerit depend and vary according you profile rank.

Use your sMerit wisely since it is generated only every after fourteen days.
Making thread such as: sMerit for sale or any related post will be given a warning and continuous posting of same related thread will result to banning of account.

For additional suggestions please reply on this thread following this format----


How about that?

I was the one who made the recommendation to only see merited posts.  The merit score doesn't really discourage the old timers from posting shitposts for campaign purposes or other random purposes.  Currently the lower ranks still have to read those and it would be a nice feature if I can ignore those.  It would also be nice if members can buy smerits like reddit gold cause essentially this is what merit is right now.

Good man. Keep it up as I believe this will work, just need more sMerit circulating

I was sorry to read that post. Maybe the points aren't being given out because some people have given up making good posts, or perhaps it is because many members consider that the ponzi pushers should get the merit points.

A lot of the posts getting 30-50 points should be removed from the forum in my opinion, but then I am against the scammy coins that just seem to be aimed at stealing money from those who are new to the crypto world.

@DooMAD
If they're really not adding anything, then they shouldn't get merit. But it doesn't need to be mind-blowing, either. Someone suggested a feature where all umerited posts would be hidden (which I may do at some point) -- I think that it'd be good to look at it as asking what posts you would want in such a summary. So not just incredible posts which might've taken an hour or more to write (those should probably get 10+ merit), but also the questions, arguments, jokes, etc. which couldn't be removed from a thread without starting to lobotomize it.

It's all very new, of course, so maybe this strategy will not actually be the best, but it is what I had in mind when designing the system.

@TMAN, I have been adding sources, and I will continue.

If that is the case then you need to up the number of merit sources to include the people who have been dishing them out. Decay the initial sMerits over 4 months and chuck in another 20-30 merit sources.

More merits will be handed out up down and sideways. The shitposters will learn and then all the members who need 90-500 merits to level up will be able to in time

Maybe I've got it wrong, then.  I thought the idea was to disparage not just the obviously terrible posts, but also the average and mediocre "That's just about enough effort to qualify for a not-shitpost" type post.  And it's sometimes tricky to differentiate between those and the people who are trying to be constructive, which is why I was only giving merit to the higher-end of the quality spectrum.  There are plenty of posts that aren't really contributing anything to the discussion, so I assumed the idea of merit was to highlight just the highly exceptional posts.  If we're supposed to give the reasonably decent posts a 1 and the truly insightful ones a 10, the average run-of-the-mill posts are still going to get lots of merit, keeping in mind more than one person can merit the same post.  That doesn't really have the same effect in terms of raising the bar, because it still allows people to climb the ranks by making just enough effort to disguise the fact they're posting for the activity and not because they had something worthwhile to contribute.

My only other issue I've encountered is that I came close to giving merit to a post earlier, but then luckily I read the next post where someone called them out for copy/pasta and not citing the source.  I'm hoping that's not going to be too much of a headache, considering we can't undo the act of giving them merit if it later emerges it was just plagiarism.

Someone like that doesn't deserve any merits as they are retarded.. failed logic in that argument bud

On the contrary, it seems that people are not giving out as much merit per merited post as I'd hoped. Any post that deserves to be read should get merit, and really good ones should get 10+. If people with plenty of sMerit to spare persist in giving out only a couple of merit per post, then changes will have to be made to either disincentivize sMerit hoarding or adapt to the lower amounts.

Merit sales are not an issue. All illegitimate merit will decay, and will account for a tiny and very expensive fraction of the total merit economy. It's basically a rounding error; fight it where convenient, but waste no sleep over it.

---

On the flow of merit: imagine how the (US) road network works. You have the huge interstate highways, and the gaps in-between them are filled by state highways, and the gaps in-between them are filled by county highways, etc. Merit is like that, with sources taking you 95% of the way, and the decaying sMerit filling in the gaps.

He was trying to say that there should be a cap on how much merit
you can award to a single post.

E.g. let´s assume a Sr. Member has 20 sMerit to spend. He gives them all
to an old post by Satoshi. Afterwards he has no sMerit left until he slowly earns
a few new merits by composing high-quality posts.

If there would be a cap on how much merit you can award to a single post he would have to
distribute it more wisely. E.g. 5 merits as a tribute to Satoshi, 2 merits for
a helpful post by a newbie, 2 merits for a post that contains a nice infographic,
1 merit for a meme that made him laugh and so on.

I actually think that is a decent suggestion, because it would increase the distribution
of merits.

50 per person per month is plenty of a cap.. I don't understand the issue here

I think that is an improvement which must be made. Something like capping merits to a maximum of 5-10 per post.

No. Every time sMerits are passed on they are halved in value, but every month new ones are generated..

SMerits need to be given and earnt. Otherwise no one will level up

As far as I know, sMerits are being renewed every 2 weeks like the activities are done. If you want more sMerits, then I think you really need to have some good posts to be meritted and increase your rank.

What I meant to say here was that with time all the default Smerits that members got will get exhausted. This means that the number of available Smerits will reduce considerably. After few months, it will stabilize again.

No you need to earn more by posting quality content or asking amazing questions. I.E. helping make this place better

What about our default sMERITS is this renewable too?i only got one sMERITS and i want to give to a deserving people.

That is correct. People should just send merits, post well and get more. It's a simple enough system I really don't understand the backlash against it

Those merits released monthly for merit sources, right?

Depending on the previous days, most merits were awarded to ANN thread, merits posts and account Farmers.
i totally agree with signature campaign manager was not a Merit Faucet. But making limit merit awards to one per post per person Is a completely unfair decision and can solve this problem with a "DE-MERIT/cancel merit" property for Mods.

They are not scarce.. 10k new sMerits will come out every month. Once given then 5000 sMerits will be passed down, then 2500 and so on... don't you see?

Very informative post which has precious ideas about how to discover farming accounts and ilegal behaviours related to buying/ selling/ exchanging merits in the forum. Additionally, maximum merit donated per user per post is not bad idea, it should be considered carefully and implement in the future if possible.

With time people will realize how scarce these merits are going to be. All most of the members forget one thing that a good post is bound to get merits from multiple users here. Thus even those 1 merit per person can add up to 10 or 20 for a good quality post.

I am not surprised if such a rule is enforced in future especially for the general members (except merit sources). For quality threads also one should not give more than 5 merits. However, this is  my personal opinion and a lot of members will say that they are free to do whatever they want with their merits.

I'm keeping it one per post [//EDIT: two per post now, so that each person I merit will get 1 sMerit], with the notable exception of posts of significant historical interest, which I give a 5 just to make sure they stand out from the crowd.  I suppose everyone is going to have their idiosyncrasies and do things a little differently.  But it is a little surprising there isn't a cap on the amount you can throw at one single post.  It does leave things open to abuse.  But then, anyone abusing merit should be easy enough to identify, because it's all so transparent, so it's possible this was intentional and should make things easier to recognise account farmers and ban them.

I'm inclined to disagree about campaign managers not being merit sources, though.  It's precisely these people who need to be responsible for ensuring high quality and it's better if they have carrots as well as sticks in their arsenal to achieve that goal.  

It is becoming apparent that the Ponzi pushers are getting awards of up to 50 merits for rubbish posts. This will lead to an increase in sig spamming, and not a reduction. It would also be a good idea if a signature campaign manager was not a Merit Faucet. This would avoid them being led into temptation.