Topic: Suggestion: Merit Phase 2 - Drain the Swamp (@theymos) (Read 3041 times)

I like the fact some campaings or better, some bounty managers are doing a great work with the selection of sures for every ranks.
I hate the fact some old users probably are join  signature campaings with 10-20-50 high rank account.
I would like the fact that any manager will pay (with a part of the removed tokens from scammer, not all of them to avoid cheater) who find scammers high rank scammers on campaigns, this will can make the difference.

When merit system was introduced, we saw many people appreciating it and telling how it would benefit the forum. No doubt, there are some members here that make good posts here after merit system in hope of getting merits.

But I had seen recently that signature campaigns do not give it much importance now. Earlier, members who had merits were given preference in signature campaign or even paid higher in some cases. But such requirements had been completely removed in signatures campaigns being announced recently.

But also it is impossible to exclude the moment that even under such conditions of tightening the rules of obtaining merit, multiaccounts will not stop on their fraudulent activities. Yes, they will be much less, and it's a fact! But We will really see quality content, not a shitpost.

I don't think that is good idea. Unless in that case, if you want to leave one or two thousand active users on the forum.
According the fact of hard earning merit newbies already got a big problem with increasing theirs ranks. But disabling signatures etc - is too much, seems for me.

Interesting idea!

But we'll need additional features to make this work, you'll need some indicator for campaign managers (or anyone) to know that a forum member's signature is being hidden due to merit so the Campaign Manager will know not to pay the person. There would also likely need to be tracking to the exact post or date and time that the forum member's signature became deactivated (and reactivated) so Campaign Managers know what to pay when a deactivation comes mid-campaign cycle.

This would probably cause a lot of campaign turnover, which could be worse for the forum. You end up getting every "newbie" or Member rank getting a 2 month tryout on a campaign whether they have good post quality or not!

I would agree with you on limiting the chances of joining a giving bounty campaign to only members whom have been able to get merit since the inception of the merit system. Now let's look at this way
What happens when mr A makes quality posts and contributions and don't get merited for it?
What happens to shit posters whom have been able to pack merits from their friends? You see when you look at this two scenarios, I don't really think merit should be a determining factor. But if it will be possible for those mangers, to check the participants post history before accepting them it would be good. Because from post history it's easy to ascertain who's doing a good and quality posts.

Whiner!  And I would argue the low-ranked shitposters are even more guilty of this, because I've seen them caught abusing the merit system left and right.  You're just angry because you haven't earned any merit and probably won't.  Ever.  And that means the system is working as intended.

I don't know about acquaintances, but there are certain posters I like way more than others and it so happens that most of them are higher-ranked.  Get over it.

Here's one for the ignore list ^^^.

I think it is wrong to relate merit to anything other than post quality, and contribution to the forum ( not financial ).

But will they reach now with shit posts? i mean how lont they will stay here if they have no chance to grow, for me i have no inspiration, since merit, coz i know how is hard to get one merit, but in general, i like the idea, coz it avoids many ppl or even bot that farming here.

It's easy to get around. A person with a large rank has many acquaintances. So they will share with each other.

Ive noticed the new meta is to just make a comment of some randomness but on topic;  like "I would like to buy a batch and sell these, but where would the market for sales be?"  or "I wonder if anyone has given thought to applying [this topic] to [that topic]?" where the [topics] seem pretty unrelated from each other.


People get creative to achieve their goal...  But granted;  I have yet to give merit to anyone posting like that;  I have been giving it out to people who are truly conversing or helping the subject move along.

Thank you for your answer TheQuin.


That looks definitively interesting - I understand that in such a model long-term members would need less "earned merit" than newer members. In another thread I suggested that if such a type of reform is implemented, only accounts created in 2013 and later should be "punished" if they don't meet the requirement. I think it was that year when signature campaigns and spamming begun - albeit on a much lower level than now. (Edit: Myself I registered in early 2013, and it was this time when Bitcoin definitively crossed the "nerd/average joe" barrier.)

So maybe the "curve" of the activity/required merit formula could begin at an activity level corresponding to a registration in late 2012 or early 2013, and earlier members should be considered "veterans" and need no merit requirements at all. (The only downside could be that these old accounts then would become very valuable for sellers, but "bought accounts" now regularly get red trust if abused.)


Yes, you may be right that there are lots of proposals to improve the Merit system but few reactions from theymos and the forum staff. It may be simply too early to really detect weaknesses of the system, and that's why it would be understandable if they still don't want to implement "premature" reforms before the system is thoroughly tested.

And it wouldn't be the worst scenario if simply banning the worst offenders - the "high-ranked spammers" that got their Legendary or Hero rank thanks to account farming - without additional measures is enough. I'm however a bit disappointed that the spam level hasn't really lowered in the past months, and that's why I'm still looking for interesting proposals.

@d5000 Thanks for your contribution.

I also like the idea of slowly and very gradually removing the distributed merit but I've got the impression from theymos's posts that he won't consider anything that would result in anyone losing their rank. That was really what lead me to come up with hiding signatures as an alternative.

I think either approach would be good but a few of the replies here have highlighted long term members who just don't have time to be very active. I'm currently coming to think there could be some way of making the ongoing merit requirement proportional to activity. That way satoshi and Hal are in no danger or anyone else that contributed early but either doesn't come very often or at all.

I do like your hybrid suggestion but I haven't really spent any more time on this because I don't think these sorts of proposals are being considered seriously.


Exactly!

I have noticed the moderators seem to be a bit firmer lately. Merit has made it really difficult for new spammers and account farmers so maybe banning the spammers that are already here is the way forward.

I have discussed similar solutions with some participants of the German forum. I think the intention behind a "regular merit requirement" is good, but I came to the conclusion that it would have significant negative collateral effects, punishing valuable, but not very active members. Imagine if Satoshi or Hal Finney hadn't VIP status in this forum - they would eventually lose their signature space.

However, I like Mocaccino's proposal to give moderators the option to disable signatures for spammers not meeting a certain merit requirement, and I would support this measure if it is taken into consideration by the forum staff.

An alternative idea: As a (negative) compensation for the merits all higher-ranked members received automatically when the system was implemented, a part of the automatically-distributed merits could be removed after some time (e.g. 3 or 6 months). I would propose about 2-5%, but even 1% would be enough to rank down most spammers. For example, Legendaries would then lose 10 of the automatically received merits. This would happen only once, not regularly, so it has less impact on valuable members with lower posting activity.

In line with the spirit of the OP's proposal, I could imagine a variant: Users that would fall below the merit requirement for their rank if they lose this portion of the automatically generated merits could preserve the rank (so no veteran user not posting much would be down-ranked) but their signature capabilities could be restricted to those of the rank below. Most veteran members not wearing paid signatures do not need colours and backgrounds for their signature, so only very few should be affected.

---

I agree with these statements, but they're a bit short-sighted.

Companies want to be seen in the forum - that is completely true, and the rank of the user where the signature banner appears doesn't really matter.

But merits are not made for these companies - they are made for the good of the forum. It is Bitcointalk itself which is risking its status of the leading discussion board in the cryptocurrency community if shit-posting isn't prevented. It could become a pure "paid-for-community" without relevance out of the "clickworker" circle.

And if the trend continues, in some moment Bitcointalk won't be attractive anymore for cryptocurrency-related companies as a medium to advertise in. Maybe this could be even positive - as it would mean that signature campaigns and spamming would disappear without any "staff action". But I doubt if in this case the death spiral could be reverted.

I agree with you, this merit system has managed to hamper the increase in rank of jr. Member becomes a member
In this way both beginners and newbie should think twice about making a good post and if they want to get the merits from the campaign manager.

 I would be against this method.   

Try reading the thread before posting, I have answered that many times. That would force them to spend the sMerit they received in the initial distribution regularly and eventually, they will run out. That was part of the plan.

Probably good, but there are many ways to circumvent the law, which will use Smerit to swap every 2 months as you suggest, it will become unworthy exchange system.

Thank you very much for your valuable advice. I will definitely use the link and I will try to earn merit. Forum I love to read and gain knowledge.

I didn't know that, and thanks for posting it.

However, the Bank of England seems to be an independant public body, and is under the ultimate control of Jeremy Wright, the Attorney General, He is a remainer MP, and is therefore another of our Unicorn politicians working for the deep state. The names have changed, but I think my fundamental point is still valid. The important recent manifestation of my belief is the TSB computer failure. But lets continue this in a serious discussion thread.