Topic: Should Legendary/Hero/Sr Members be de-ranked? Additional user ranks? (Read 379 times)

Or Three Strikes/Warnings and they're out? People would get the message quickly.

The outline I made in OP isn't perfect, of course there are some flaws and I do not believe that all members should be held to the same standard, even though it would be seen as unfair. I think that certain, clearly well-known, informative and respected users could be immune to the system, this would likely have to be a manual upgrade and could be decided based on community votes.

Agree with removing sigs.. I only did it this year and only cos my mates were doing it!

DT - we need something, but what we have now is wank.. cant have an open trust system due to the cunts like QS..

Here is what I think about this :

1) The purpose of merit system was to remove spam posts from this forum. It has succeed to some extent but only new members are compelled to follow this as they need merits to rank up. Those at the highest ranks need not work for any merit as they have no need to do so. This is certainly not fair and should be fixed.

2) I had seen some of the posts by high ranked members who are not able to even frame correct sentences while posting here. They should be de-ranked asap so they the have a reason to improve.

Why not eliminate all Rank and DT. At the same time, ban ALL sig campaigns and account farming. I'd gladly trade Rank and DT for that.

nope just ban the window licking entitled arse holes.

You just beat me to it, except that I was going to suggest they went back to junior, or maybe we could have a fema rank ( failed to embrace merit awards)

How about anyone below the rank of full member who uses the word merit gets nuked? could be automated.. would remove 5 billion threads and posts.

At first I didn't think it would be possible to come up with a de-ranking system that would work but after sleeping on it I think I might have got it.

The forum should hire in addition to moderators a new elite group of Shitpost Scrutineers (The SS for short). It would be their job to monitor all sections of the forum but focus on the spam megathreads and award -1 merit for every shitpost they find. Any account would be instantly demoted to the rank their new merit count earned and if they reached a negative merit count they would be nuked.

so old hands who are on vacation (or dead) during the "probation period" get demoted?

are we demoting hal finney from senior member? he's only received 26 merit.

you're basically erasing all contributions that people made to the forum between 2010 and 2017. the people that made this forum great once. screw that. old hands shouldn't be penalized just because most new members are spammers.

Why all this focus on merit and ranks when its all useless garbage?

Until they stop this sig campaign garbage and stop letting people sell accounts the forum will always be filled with crap.

This board should be about crypto and not about how much money you can make spamming sigs and other garbage.

Its like putting a sign in the middle of the city telling all the bums where to come scavenge change.

So, let's say that behaviours you said fit to 99% of the low ranks members VS 10%/30%/99%? of high ranks... Are you trying to make a comparison here between 1.000.000 VS hundreds of accounts?

Probably? Give valid statistics and show me! I doubt that 10% of active junior members passed to the member rank if not 1%...
+ some people tend to refrain from giving legendary merit points and prefer giving it to low ranks.


Because we passed here more than 2-3 years to get our ranks? Because some people have thousands of old posts that could receive hundreds of merit before the update?
It is a long journey between senior member or even a hero to the legendary rank in which you can collect the required merit of the latest rank before even you have its required activity!

LOL'd. Are you talking about the reward in signature campaign...
Yeah, you can add a coin...just place as you want in your avatar...
Why are you so stressed about the ranks?...aww sorry.

I would suggest to nuke users posting in altcoins sections. I would also suggest, if they aren't nuked of course, they should collect at least 100 merit per month in non-altcoins section to maintain the headache that this post gave me when I read it and of course I doesn't mean a word from these stupid ideas that I gave... Rofl. Sometimes I miss the first minutes of the merit system when you could use a bug to give...

I miss also account price estimator and its useful informations (if you know what I mean)

Did you view my post as a complaint?  That was not my intention... I realize that it is called Bitcoin Talk and that is its primary objective.. but having certain areas of the forum that are more rewarding is an example in my mind of how fairness has to be just eliminated from the equation.. Most complaints are the system isn't fair.. I think the response should be that the system can't be fair... I was simply just trying to list things with the voices of both sides and how the wishes and demands of both sides can't co-exist.  You can't have easy ranks without spam.  You can't maintain signature rewards if 100,000 users were legendary.  You can't have activity be overwritten by merit because of exploitation even if merit should be weighted higher.  

Those new ideas are starting to look more and more like a political debate where poor people want more money for themselves (merit, ranks, campaign access), with minimum effort (spam), high ranked players are looking down at newbies and their pathetic attempts at making money, while low ranked members want equality and all others brought down to their rank.
It's like the problem with  trust all over again. Those who have positive trust want the system to stay, those with neutral want to get positive, and those with negative want to bring the system down.

It's almost worth giving a merit for that comment, except that I suspect it is intended to be a complaint, and not a vindication of the merit system.

I had to check to see if this forum was still called "Bitcoin Talk", and it looks as if it is. I think it's great that merit is being awarded for posts that help people understand and use Bitcoin. Maybe the polluters, who it seems are the ones chasing merit, should take time to learn about Bitcoin, and then they could use this knowlege to earn money elsewhere. if they aren't capable of doing it here.

TL:DR Every improvement in my mind requires likely coding that the forum isn't capable of.. most of my issues with the system come from what will gain you exposure over just merely helping.. the types of content you create will be more heavily weighted on specific topics (and maybe rightfully so).  Theres things I like about the system and things I don't like.. like many things it comes down to whats right vs whats fair.. and based off of the position you are in currently, you'll be swayed to one side over the other.


Things I like about the system:

1) Hard merit/activity curve, maintains value for getting these ranks and limits competition.
2) Eliminates spam/useless posts, since they don't help you in any way.
3) Rewards early adoption.. simply being in the right place in the right time is the most important thing in life, and this system heavily rewards that to its earliest users.
4) Level up system.. makes the competition of working through the ranks feel rewarding.

Things I don't like about the system:

1) Early adoption outweighs hard work.. a user could be the most creative helpful user on the forum and it would take 2 years to reach activity goals even if merit goal could be reached uncapped early on.
2) Merit system tends to be an example of the rich getting richer.. longer users on the forum who dabble in more advanced topics tend to receive more merit than their newer counterparts.. if certain areas of the forum are weighted more heavily as far as content goes, why even have sections that are viewed unimportant?
3) Topics/infographics or things with more exposure get heavier weighted (I've seen as much as 50-100 merits gained from one post.. I certainly can see more than one.. but 50 merit points is likely 1000+ posts for people who don't heavily post in bitcoin related topics or don't create posts and merely just respond to others).

Observations/Biased Opinions:

1) I think activity should be thrown out if Merit reaches next requirement before activity.. but then people could exploit passing out merits to rank a person quicker (Activity isn't a good indicator of good posts, just more an exploit management system which penalizes new users).
2)I think merit should only be used for people below legendary.. but the system requires Legendary members to dish them out as a sort of trickle down economics. (I don't like this term but I can't think of another way of describing it).
3)I think certain areas should be monitored more often like "For Beginners" section and places noobs feel more comfortable talking.. but most merits are given out in Bitcoin related technical topics that the people who need the most merit are least likely to participate in.
4)I think there's way too many merits given out for people creating posts to farm merits over merits rewarded for helping people and answering questions.  (This is probably because helping people isn't as noticeable as creating posts...especially in noob heavy sections).


To wrap things up I do think the system is working and as much as I don't like certain drawbacks for me specifically, if I was in a position of power the things that could maybe be improved on may be more limited by what the forum coding is actually capable of.. even things that I would consider changing for the sake of fairness would maybe not overall serve the forum better... Its often an issue with most political topics to choose between what is right, and what is fair.. and your forum rank, early adoption, and time spent reaching these ranks will often sway which side you stand on. 

As a Jr. Member merit that get affected by the merit system, for me it is ok that the elders almost get immuned with this system, Im looking at it as their reward for the loyalty in this forum and their time that they spend here. Though it is too hard for us newbie with this system, but this is for our community so what's good for our community will be also good for us. You are one of those lucky person here for being a senior member before the merit system.

LOVE our community, if we keep tolerating spammers and the creation of many alt accounts it may cause bad for our forum, many people are helped by this forum so its good for me to stop these people from creating many accounts and spam post.

I have a better idea. Anyone not a full member, with less than 30 gained merits and who cannot sign an address with more than 5BTC should be IP banned.

That's about as stupid an idea as all these de ranking ideas, worry about yourself guys

I don't think it would be reasonable to put users on a monthly probation of earning a certain amount of Merits to stay within the rank, and get demoted if they fail. The Merit system itself is good enough to control the ranks and promotions where you can't get promoted unless you acquire a certain amount of Merits, no matter how much time you spend on the forum.

However, de-ranking old users sounds to be a really interesting idea to me. And I think, it would be even better to de-rank users according to the Merits they have earned until now. I mean, if a Hero member is to be de-ranked, and he has 600+ Merits (100+ gained after the Merit distribution) by the time, he should be de-ranked to Full member, as we know that 100 Merits are required to reach Full member rank. All members should be de-ranked accordingly. And from that point, everyone will need to put equal efforts to reach a higher rank. Hence, there will be no one spared by the effects of Merit system.

P.S: satoshi should be excluded from the list of users to be de-ranked.  

Wrong.  Activity/ranks =/= contributions. Then again, given your post history I am not surprised by this comment.

---

De-ranking is actually a good idea; it goes well with merit points (i.e. more damage to the rot of this forum). However, the proposed requirement is bad.