FWIW just reading this thread; I have only received merit just once since the new implementation; and gone from Hero to Legendary (apparently)... Just noticed a few minutes ago when I saw the huge addition to the user stats.
I don't consider myself a shitposter (especially given the sig campaign i am a part of that people seem to despise); I am pretty much straight to the point, and offer help and assistance when I can, if I can. I have uploaded many miner scripts for free open public use.
If the original thoughts on requiring merit really happens; I fear it would impact my abilities here in a negative way possibly.... I don't post all over this board... pretty much just post in a few subforums.
Look at my merit. Hasn't moved much in the last how long? Yet I am active, and contributing in many ways....
Topic: Suggestion: Merit Phase 2 - Drain the Swamp (@theymos) - page 4. (Read 3032 times)
legendary
Activity: 1848
Merit: 1166
My AR-15 ID's itself as a toaster. Want breakfast?
The purpose of the bounty is to promote the product at any means regardless it is a shit post or not. And it cannot really prevent the shitposters who are already in the higher ranks. If they have 5 account they can just give 1 merits to their alts and they're in again on the campaign.
It will just give more advantages to higher ranks shitposters.
It will just give more advantages to higher ranks shitposters.
You know what i get your point on removing shitpost with the forum.
Let me help you with that
'You know what? I get your point about removing shitposts from the forum.'
That's better, it is in English now.
As what you are suggesting is just like you will remove bounty hunters that will help every ICO to promote their project.
That is indeed the idea.
You will going to monopolize those campaign for yourself. Then you are more greedy than those individuals creating multiple accounts. You are worst than scam. Think of it many times. How could a project be promoted without the help of the bounty hunters around the world just to remove shitposter? Definitely your ideals are wrong. Go back to school kid.
I would not promote scammy ICOs and I'm trying to get them to leave the forum and spam their shit somewhere else. Then this forum can go back to being a place for Bitcoin enthusiasts to discuss issues without all the shitposts in broken English like yours. I'm no kid and you are the one in need of an education. Your English is so poor it is barely understandable and you think you are eligible for a writing job.
You know what i get your point on removing shitpost with the forum. Even though i am new to this cryptocurrency and this system but still rank is not the basis that the person holding the account is a dumbass. An individual with newbie account will not determine his/her educational attainment.
Anyway base on what i have understood with your post you were literally want to remove shitposter but think of it a number of accounts here will remove just because they do not receive merits. Merits are not readily given even if your postings are all good. A bigger chance that you will not be able to receive merits. As what you are suggesting is just like you will remove bounty hunters that will help every ICO to promote their project. You will going to monopolize those campaign for yourself. Then you are more greedy than those individuals creating multiple accounts. You are worst than scam. Think of it many times. How could a project be promoted without the help of the bounty hunters around the world just to remove shitposter? Definitely your ideals are wrong. Go back to school kid.
These aren't spam campaigns. And once again we have a user who's snarling, red-faced, about how he's been terribly mistreated by the merit system--and he can't even format his post properly, and can't write in English properly. You're never going to get anywhere with this.Anyway base on what i have understood with your post you were literally want to remove shitposter but think of it a number of accounts here will remove just because they do not receive merits. Merits are not readily given even if your postings are all good. A bigger chance that you will not be able to receive merits. As what you are suggesting is just like you will remove bounty hunters that will help every ICO to promote their project. You will going to monopolize those campaign for yourself. Then you are more greedy than those individuals creating multiple accounts. You are worst than scam. Think of it many times. How could a project be promoted without the help of the bounty hunters around the world just to remove shitposter? Definitely your ideals are wrong. Go back to school kid.
You people need to stop blaming the system for your troubles and start looking at where your problem is, and it's you. No one but you. You spew out all of this jumbled nonsense, so much so that Bitcoin Discussion and Economics are nothing but spam sections, where there's no actual discussion of bitcoin going on. Those sections are FULL of garbage like this:
I think bitcoin not only source of extra income,but its also source of full income.bitcoin is the best source of earn income.by using bitcoin people get income.also its a platform of investment and it return good profit.
And let me tell you, the above is nothing but a shitpost, which I've reported. It was written by someone who heard you could make big bucks on bitcointalk by just having a thimbleful of English knowledge. No experience necessary, and you don't even have to know anything about bitcoin!
It's backfiring on you guys, though. Hopefully the merit system will keep you at Jr. Member status for life. May you never rank up.
Amend the forum to hide signatures of any account that hasn't earned at least 1 Merit in the last 2 months.
This will bar them from getting paid to post and not have any negative impact on anyone making even the tiniest contribution to the forum. Nobody loses their rank and even if someone is away from the forum for a while they can quickly get their signature back.
You know what i get your point on removing shitpost with the forum. Even though i am new to this cryptocurrency and this system but still rank is not the basis that the person holding the account is a dumbass. An individual with newbie account will not determine his/her educational attainment.
Anyway base on what i have understood with your post you were literally want to remove shitposter but think of it a number of accounts here will remove just because they do not receive merits. Merits are not readily given even if your postings are all good. A bigger chance that you will not be able to receive merits. As what you are suggesting is just like you will remove bounty hunters that will help every ICO to promote their project. You will going to monopolize those campaign for yourself. Then you are more greedy than those individuals creating multiple accounts. You are worst than scam. Think of it many times. How could a project be promoted without the help of the bounty hunters around the world just to remove shitposter? Definitely your ideals are wrong. Go back to school kid.
Your quoting failed, and you didn't even bother to correct it.
And also
You know what i get your point on removing shitpost with the forum.
Your posts will be also removed if that happens. You know what I mean right?I would change the part about merit and encourage signatures managers to check out the merit background of their users, as well as their last 20 publications. This is really easy to detect here on the forum merit-farmers if you take a look of their profiles and check out their merit, for they are usually shameless and give merits from an account to another almost every day.
Checking the post history of a single account is much easier than cross-referencing multiple accounts in order to spot Merit-related issues, but I agree, I would be the better solution. Many of those who do this are also already tagged for Merit cheating.
Amend the forum to hide signatures of any account that hasn't earned at least 1 Merit in the last 2 months.
This will bar them from getting paid to post and not have any negative impact on anyone making even the tiniest contribution to the forum. Nobody loses their rank and even if someone is away from the forum for a while they can quickly get their signature back.
Even when it is not a bad idea, I don't agree with you on the point of merits. Recently I have seen too many farmers giving merits to their accounts, even when the publication with merit was a total crap. In order to make your suggestion even more accurate, I would change the part about merit and encourage signatures managers to check out the merit background of their users, as well as their last 20 publications. This is really easy to detect here on the forum merit-farmers if you take a look of their profiles and check out their merit, for they are usually shameless and give merits from an account to another almost every day.This will bar them from getting paid to post and not have any negative impact on anyone making even the tiniest contribution to the forum. Nobody loses their rank and even if someone is away from the forum for a while they can quickly get their signature back.
Nevertheless, I find your suggestion truly useful to the forum, and my little modification is focused on the only part I consider to be improvable.
[...] and the merit system is designed to reward those who can arrange words in the best manner possible.
Thank you, I'm in bed with a cold but this made me laugh
I think campaigns--and especially these altcoin bounty-campaigns that tend to have managers of questionable judgement--should only be able to accept members who've proven they can earn merits.
I totally agree that Bounty Campaigns should incorporate Merit (as I suggested in 'RANK & MERIT-BASED Signature Campaigns'), but a problem is that it can't be too restrictive as Bounty Campaigns aim to get as many participants as possible (that post a lot) as this means more visibility. If Merit would be a requirement, most Campaigns wouldn't have enough participants.It would be very nice if the admins would require campaigns to increase their standards.
Enforcing this through mods and admins would require a lot of overhead and I think we need a more 'natural' way that it doesn't need to be enforced but that everyone benefits from the way things are handled.
Limit all income of bounty hunter due to count of merit? Award base on merit?
snipAbout the topic "Amend the forum to hide signatures of any account that hasn't earned at least 1 Merit in the last 2 months." Counteroffer Amend the forum to hide signatures of Legendary and Hero Member account that hasn't earned at least 100 merit in the last 2 months (bold 2)! This is comparable to your statuses! Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
ps.I apologize for Bad eng, I tried as best !
What an irony, you want an equality between old members with new members (bold 1) and talking like the old member's time that have been spent on here is nothing even though some of them only spamming, yet you counter offer this good proposal with a system which is easier for low ranked member and harder for higher ranked member. Thats the problem with people like you, only thinks about a system or condition that is easier and benefitted your self and your kind.
The Pharmacist has gained over 100 merits, and that is in addition to all the work he does in trying to improve the quality of the forum.
Limit all income of bounty hunter due to count of merit? Award base on merit?
I don't know about all bounties, but for signature campaigns that actually require posts written on bitcointalk, I fully support basing someone's acceptance on merits. It makes sense to me that if you can't earn merits for your posts by writing coherent sentences, then you shouldn't be paid to do it. The users who haven't earned any merit so far are the ones who write garbage, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what country you're from, what your skin color is, or how poor you are--if you can write reasonably well, you'll earn merits. The people who are in campaigns like Chipmixer and a small handful of others that have been around a long time aren't shitposters. That's tooting my own horn a bit, but it's true.Since campaigns are so competitive, I don't see why requiring a minimum amount of merit points is unreasonable. You might feel "discriminated against" but that's just how the job market works. All you have on bitcointalk is your words as your qualification for campaigns (and reputation), and the merit system is designed to reward those who can arrange words in the best manner possible.
To the extent that it serves that function, I think campaigns--and especially these altcoin bounty-campaigns that tend to have managers of questionable judgement--should only be able to accept members who've proven they can earn merits. It would be very nice if the admins would require campaigns to increase their standards.
About the topic "Amend the forum to hide signatures of any account that hasn't earned at least 1 Merit in the last 2 months." Counteroffer Amend the forum to hide signatures of Legendary and Hero Member account that hasn't earned at least 100 merit in the last 2 months! This is comparable to your statuses! Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
ps.I apologize for Bad eng, I tried as best !
Limit all income of bounty hunter due to count of merit? Award base on merit?
I don't know about all bounties, but for signature campaigns that actually require posts written on bitcointalk, I fully support basing someone's acceptance on merits. It makes sense to me that if you can't earn merits for your posts by writing coherent sentences, then you shouldn't be paid to do it. The users who haven't earned any merit so far are the ones who write garbage, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what country you're from, what your skin color is, or how poor you are--if you can write reasonably well, you'll earn merits. The people who are in campaigns like Chipmixer and a small handful of others that have been around a long time aren't shitposters. That's tooting my own horn a bit, but it's true.Since campaigns are so competitive, I don't see why requiring a minimum amount of merit points is unreasonable. You might feel "discriminated against" but that's just how the job market works. All you have on bitcointalk is your words as your qualification for campaigns (and reputation), and the merit system is designed to reward those who can arrange words in the best manner possible.
To the extent that it serves that function, I think campaigns--and especially these altcoin bounty-campaigns that tend to have managers of questionable judgement--should only be able to accept members who've proven they can earn merits. It would be very nice if the admins would require campaigns to increase their standards.
Well look who become selfish and how people of the forum becoming self centered now a days, if I can't earn one merit in a month then it means I cant join signature bounty even I reach Jr. Member rank? I think some cells on your brain has died due to dehydration and need to be watered, when your request become legal and adopted it means only higher accounts will only survive our forum?, and only you will earn and take all the credit together with your family, friends and neighbor? Then what's next? Limit all income of bounty hunter due to count of merit? Award base on merit? ha, go and study law subject for you to be enlighten again.
[
In my experiance, more often merit receive users with beautiful signature and avatars, than a person with only nickname and number of activity and merit number..
In my experiance, more often merit receive users with beautiful signature and avatars, than a person with only nickname and number of activity and merit number..
That is only true if the awarder is a sig spammer, an alt, or a bounty manager.
Also, Jet Cash has awarded merit to brand new members for their first posts. I suspect he is not unique in this.
Some campaign managers have taken the initiative to make minimum Merit requirements compulsory to join their campaigns but those managers were already the ones with high standards. They were not the problem, it has always been the managers that just blindly accept the first x hundred people to apply and pay them regardless of the spam they produce.
Honestly, I think it is a good practice.
But I think signature campaigns should not be restricted for non-merit heroes-legends members, their stacks should be reduced in a half, I think it will be fair and enough to stimulate make quality posts. And will give more income for merit members. Fortunately , there are managers who already implemented such practice.
Ok, there is true in your words, but who will give merit for a post from newbie?
In my experiance, more often merit receive users with beautiful signature and avatars, than a person with only nickname and number of activity and merit number..
I haven't bothered to read this thread, because there are so many inconsiderate posters that keep on bulking their posts with repetitive quotes. If you want people to read your point, don't wrap it in a load of old vegetation.
I did spot the quoted comment, and I have given merit to a wide range of new, and not so new, members, and that includes some who I awarded for their first post in the forum. I won't give merit if I don't read your post though, and I probably won't see it if I have to wade through a mass of repeated text.
Ok, there is true in your words, but who will give merit for a post from newbie?
In my experiance, more often merit receive users with beautiful signature and avatars, than a person with only nickname and number of activity and merit number..
In my experiance, more often merit receive users with beautiful signature and avatars, than a person with only nickname and number of activity and merit number..
I will and have done so. Usually, they will have learned to trim quotes so people don't have to scroll through the whole of the post they just read again. Then after mastering the basics of using a forum they have posted something that I found interesting, didn't already know, answered a question better than I could or just simply made me laugh.
Really signatures and avatars don't make any difference other than sometimes I feel a bit guilty if someone is promoting a scammy ICO, but it doesn't stop me.
...I can assure you there will be significantly less spammers.
Btw I think it will be more, not less spammers. Previously, acc traders make few accounts and pump to highest rank. Now I see they are making tons of newbie and jr.members accounts and selling then. I even saw someone selling newbie accounts for 5$. Ridiculous.
My "voting" method will cut all merits from high rank accounts sellers, that now sell merit...
Hello TheQuin,
By doing it you want to hide signatures from Jr.Members also? It's harder for them to get at least 1 merit point,
By doing it you want to hide signatures from Jr.Members also? It's harder for them to get at least 1 merit point,
I'd suggest that is ridiculous. People give Merit to the post not the signature underneath it.
Ok, there is true in your words, but who will give merit for a post from newbie?
In my experiance, more often merit receive users with beautiful signature and avatars, than a person with only nickname and number of activity and merit number..
The Merit system has been with us for six weeks now and is clearly having some success in reducing the spam. It is now very hard, if not impossible, for account farmers to provide a constant supply of high ranked accounts. This, of course, is good news for any of us who have become tired of finding any interesting content quickly buried under a pile of shitposts.
What this hasn't addressed is the large number of accounts already in the hands of shitposters. Let's be honest about what rank is all about - signatures and the ability to gain income from them. The ability of someone who is already in possession of, for example, a Hero account (or 10) to continue to get paid for every shitpost they tack on the end of a spam megathread has not diminished or been restrained by the Merit system.
Some campaign managers have taken the initiative to make minimum Merit requirements compulsory to join their campaigns but those managers were already the ones with high standards. They were not the problem, it has always been the managers that just blindly accept the first x hundred people to apply and pay them regardless of the spam they produce.
I have noticed that these spammers are very easy to spot now, they are the ones stuck on 100, 250, 500 or whatever merit number they were initially given. They haven't managed to gain one single Merit point in the last 6 weeks.
So to my suggestion:
Amend the forum to hide signatures of any account that hasn't earned at least 1 Merit in the last 2 months.
This will bar them from getting paid to post and not have any negative impact on anyone making even the tiniest contribution to the forum. Nobody loses their rank and even if someone is away from the forum for a while they can quickly get their signature back.
What this hasn't addressed is the large number of accounts already in the hands of shitposters. Let's be honest about what rank is all about - signatures and the ability to gain income from them. The ability of someone who is already in possession of, for example, a Hero account (or 10) to continue to get paid for every shitpost they tack on the end of a spam megathread has not diminished or been restrained by the Merit system.
Some campaign managers have taken the initiative to make minimum Merit requirements compulsory to join their campaigns but those managers were already the ones with high standards. They were not the problem, it has always been the managers that just blindly accept the first x hundred people to apply and pay them regardless of the spam they produce.
I have noticed that these spammers are very easy to spot now, they are the ones stuck on 100, 250, 500 or whatever merit number they were initially given. They haven't managed to gain one single Merit point in the last 6 weeks.
So to my suggestion:
Amend the forum to hide signatures of any account that hasn't earned at least 1 Merit in the last 2 months.
This will bar them from getting paid to post and not have any negative impact on anyone making even the tiniest contribution to the forum. Nobody loses their rank and even if someone is away from the forum for a while they can quickly get their signature back.
Hello TheQuin,
By doing it you want to hide signatures from Jr.Members also? It's harder for them to get at least 1 merit point, then why would be so cruel for them? Using your suggestion Jr.Members will never get any higher rank, since I have noticed, that people rarely grant merit for Junior, and rather give merit to Hero or higher rank (even just for a huge post, but with few useful words).
I would suggest to make "Anti-Merit" button.
For example if you see some high ranking member is posting some crap, then few (for example 5 members) can start a vote to remove 1 Merit from him.
If they win this vote - crap poster got merit reduction.
If they lose, they (for example) lose their 1 merit point.
This will protect merit owners from being zerged members, willing to cut their merit points.
Of course I understand that my suggested Anti-Merit button should be discuses so that there will be no system abusers in future.
No no, just stop guys, you are trying to make it too complicated. This is a forum after all, we can't keep implementing new systems all the time to stop shitposters, every forum has them, sure there is an incentive to post crap in this one but still. The merit system as is, it's perfect, eventually people that cheat will run out of merits and usually get busted and the high rank spammers usually get busted as well, they either get banned or red tagged by someone like vod or other people that usually tags shit posters. It just needs time, in a year from now, I can assure you there will be significantly less spammers.
Hello TheQuin,
By doing it you want to hide signatures from Jr.Members also? It's harder for them to get at least 1 merit point,
By doing it you want to hide signatures from Jr.Members also? It's harder for them to get at least 1 merit point,
I'd suggest that is ridiculous. People give Merit to the post not the signature underneath it.
I would suggest to make "Anti-Merit" button.
This has been suggested countless times since the introduction of merit and I think it would simply be used as an "I disagree" button or for personal vendettas. I just can't see it working.
Jump to: