Topic: POLL: Initial merit provided to older established accounts - page 2. (Read 847 times)

Who is the most "merit-able"?

A)  a person with ten thousand comments/tips&tricks/how-to's/etc on common and basic subject(s) that are commonplace

B)  a person with a few good comments/tips&tricks/how-to's/etc on a single complex and important subject that effects most in one way or another

Hmm. I did not digest the retrospective aspect. Poor show.

I would've preferred a totally blank merit slate for everyone with existing ranks intact. Whatever 'work' you put in for you rank would still exist. To get further you would've needed to embark on a different type of it just like everyone else.

Where it's can get confusing is that there's no delineation between merit shoved up you in the first place and that that you've earned. That should've been dealt with from the off.

I guess everyone still needed a pool of merit to get rid of in the first place but that didn't need to show up as awarded merit too.

I think ranking up for the lower levels should've been harder, easier for the mids and the golden heights are about right.

Ironically some posters here don't seem to have read the OP

ibminer doesn't have the authority to change the merit system nor is he trying to do so as far as I know. He also posted a clear disclaimer that this has nothing to do with ranks. It's a question about an event that already happened two years ago and I think enough time has passed to take a good retrospective view at it.

If it helps, split it into two questions: (1) does someone with 100 (or 500 or 1000) airdropped merits and 5 earned ones really deserve 105 (or 505 or 1005) merits; and (2) was that a majority of members in Jan 2018.


Damn, I though you were honestly trying to solve to unemployment problem.

I voted other.  

some People like me should have been give 2x the norm maybe 3x.

All idle members should have been given ½  maybe ⅓ the norm.

I figure my 9 threads in alt coins were worth 500 to 1000 merits The first 6 had zero as they were before the merit concept started.
Many people posted really good info from 2012 to 2018

people that post "Airdropped merit should totally be erased. It serves no purpose other than giving false authority to farmed accounts over those not in the know.

If someone had a good account that hasn't been back in two years it's still a good account. The ranks can stay if need be. The merit should go."

[Note: gentlemand just posted that]

 are just as guilty as the original problem of giving the merits in the first place.

an "all or nothing mentally"

BTW Theymos was guilty back in 2018 of giving them away
just as gentlemand is guilty of saying drop them all now.

The proper way would have been appoint a few people to judge and decide who sucked and who did not.

I figure it was about 1,000,000 plus posts that needed to be looked at and then decided on how much effort is that>  I could do 1000 posts a week so  in 20 years I would be done grading  them.  So hire 20 people at $20,000.00 each and maybe they would be done in six months.

@ Theymos
@ gentlemand     since you would be yin and yang on the subject I used the two of you in my example.


Please read fine print below:

To anyone that recognizes I am kidding and it is my attempt to make you smile kudos to you.

Airdropped merit should totally be erased. It serves no purpose other than giving false authority to farmed accounts over those not in the know.

If someone had a good account that hasn't been back in two years it's still a good account. The ranks can stay if need be. The merit should go.

I'm voting undecided, and I'm choosing not to make a decision.

Merit spending is said to be subjective and one can give it to any post they think deserved it. If we are going to question whether or not the early posters (individually) deserved the airdropped merit then we can also argue on individual merit transaction done after the launch of the merit system.
Some users contributed immensely to the growth of the forum and some chunked out shit posts and raised their activity. Even though it's more difficult to rank up now, some would argue that merits still gets given to undeserving posts.

Someone may have done it differently if given the opportunity, theymos chose the algorithm that most suited the system at that time. It was/is subjective.

Anything a scammer wants patching needs careful examination.

Why does it " need" patching mr atriz 50 merit trader and abuser? Where 80% or more of your merit comes from 20 ppl Lol or is it 10 ppl?

I see no "need"  

What would it achieve? How would it solve the insoluble problems merit has created?

I would say many legends deserved 1 million merits in the fair context of the likes of pharmacist loycev nutildah

I would argue that Cryptohunter deserves 2 billion merits for months of battling lauda the scammer  who was lying there was no premine for months until he was crushed and cryptohunter forced a 2 billion dollar compensation offer you tried to prevent.

What have any of these high earned merit cycling dregs ever done here but drain and milk this forum for every sig dollar they get for themselves. ? Nothing that is what. That's when they are not busy scamming, extorting, auction scamming , crushing free speech??


Go ahead prove me wrong? Bring their achievements here. What are all these 1000s of merits for? Bring me their 10 original thought inspiring posts that made any difference here.

Tell me more about this vital patching that those giving merit to each other think must take place and why?
Sounds like an attempt to centralize control further.

You go through each member 1 by 1 lauda and we will compare their posts using lfc bitcoin and pharmacist/ hugeblackwoman and tman as benchmarks of earned merit.

Measuring against these brilliant posters ( with 1000s of earned merits) of regurgitated crap,  scammer  supporting and memes we will mark down and delete inferior airdropped merits?

Get on it.

Deleting airdropped merits is laughable unless done  case by case. For some 1000 is an insult for what they have contributed in the context of tman lfc pharmacist micgoosens loyce ( imagine no merits to analyse )

To actually delete cycled new merits would be far more sensible.

Allow only 0.5% of merits to come from any other single member that may help for those over 1000 earned. Or work out something that prevents them being chipmixer collusion credits or political points.

The whole system is based on subjective opinions, and according to the above way of thinking then we might as well drop it completely. This is a well needed iteration of the system. Why should we not patch something that is partially broken?

You can add Legendaries to your ignore list. If you don't feel that their posts are worth reading, then just ignore them - no need to change the system for some subjective opinions.

I remain neutral on this issue as a number of users did fill the forum with usable content before the merit system was introduced, for which they were rewarded. But in many systems there are errors. In this case, they are shitposters, trolls, etc. Many of these people have sold their accounts or lost them due to abuse.

Interesting argument, to some they would feel they deserve the initial Merit while to others they would not feel they serve it.
So let see it in this way even as they got initial Merit still those that contributed and not content with just the initial Merit are the once doing well and as such still getting merit - this in a way can show does that truly worked for it even before the merit system came-

We have also seen member that benefited little or none from the initial Merit still surpassing those that did benefit @Ddmr Ddmr for example and they are respected.

Let say the initial Merit was like a bonus to early users like we see some other site or establishment do. Initial Merit aside we can see people do nasty things with merit, like giving it to those that supports their claims, trading of merit, giving Merit to there alts. but if it's not truly deserving it won't achieve much.

Those that truly deserve it would still stand out from the crowd.

Most of them not really deserved to get such merits especially the farmed accounts but I don't care about the ranks of people, if they make a meaningful post in my point of view and they really need merit then I will give it to them. Since merit is also not moderated here then it highly subjective to the users and what they see while reading those posts.

You may be talking about the state of the forum members in January 2013, definitely not 2018. In 2018, the overwhelming majority of all ranks were shitposters (and are to this day).

Yeah, I get it but none of it was earned merit so I don't see it as an issue of whether any members who received airdropped merits were deserving of them.  It was just a mechanism to grandfather in higher-ranked members and (speaking for myself here) that initial amount of merit isn't indicative of quality posting. 

I'd say that most of the Hero and Legendary members in January 2018 were the best posters--and that's obviously comparing them to the lower-ranked ones, which is where the problem of shitposting was all along.  If I agreed that your question is one I could answer, then I would have to say yes.  There were--and are--certainly garbage posters among the higher ranks, but in general I think they "deserved" that airdropped merit.

I have voted:

However, how this was implemented is a grave mistake. This has primarily caused selling of merit and creating abusive farms. What theymos should have done is that the starting merit for all older ranking members who earned next to no merit in the following 12 months since introduction (next to no being a proportionate % limit of what they had, e.g. if they had not earned at least 10% of what they had) would have been wiped out (0, including smerits). This would have helped the forum considerably and caused next to zero damage to innocent users.

---

This was my thinking, and I have yet to find some use cases where this would cause more trouble than benefit. Satoshi and similar very contributing posters would be unaffected. Occasional contributing poster that is inactive for half a decade would be affected, but who cares? There is no actual damage done there (and we can resupply the cases which we find with merit afterwards anyway).

Maybe a few users should have received more/less than what they got. Maybe there could have been an algorithm to determine the amount of merits a person deserved, based on time spent, posts made, et al. But right now it doesn't matter, cause there is no going back. Even if there is, its not worth it.

I do feel like, majority of them deserved it, a lot of people spent a lot of time getting those activity points, and waited years to get that activity, not getting that airdropped merit might have caused more members to leave, it could have become too demoralizing to be fair. I know, there are lot of shitturds out there that used their merit in not so right way, but we have to just live with it and let it go, as we don't love in an ideal universe.

You have added a point I wanted to include in my initial post in this poll, my choice/vote in this did not include users who are no longer active or who post sparingly, not at the rate or frequency they did in the past; my choice in this poll is based on users who are still active, and posting the same way they did before the merit system. And also users you mentioned like Hal and Satoshi have "earned" so many merits, far more than a lot of users today.

I second this ^^^

I know I earned my rank (before the new merit system).   I developed, contributed, answered, reported, and have been an overall good contribution where I have been on this forum.  Just about everything I have done in the crypto world has been for free, for request with offer for payment or just for fun and self enjoyment; under the condition that it remains exactly that.   I believe knowledge should be shared for the betterment of everyone.

Not everyone can say: "I earned my rank" and actually have something substantial to back it up.

Seeing the merit above the "airdrop";   just is only an indicator of how active they have been compounded by the number of persons impacted by their contribution since the "airdrop".    Food for thought.

To be more clear, I'm not saying there is any issue that I have with the forum providing or not providing initial merit.
This is information I'm seeking for my own research.

And I realize some deserve it and some do not.

I guess a better way to put it is... I'm looking for whether you, as a forum member, think the majority from pre-2018 deserved it or the majority did not.
If you do not care, or it is too close to call, then that is fine too.

Sounds like the system works good as it was created for.
Please don't say about new ranks that will put me under lower position in the hierarchy of the rank system. It will take me years to have 1000 merits in my pocket.