Topic: Suggestion: Raise merit requirements at the lower and highest ranks (@theymos) - page 2. (Read 1414 times)

Ranks and merits are highly overrated.

But I don't understand why that would matter for you? You have enough Merit for Legendary. After Legendary, you have no need for merit at all.

I think having higher merit requirements would make sense for legendary. Make it an actual very hard thing to obtain.

My issue with it from a selfish point of view is all of my old posts that are really great will probably never received any merit. Look how many spammers I found with alt account to in the past. I don't think anyone will ever give me that sweet sweet merit for them so I can see why this would be hard to implement for people that have already been around for a long time.

AIGHT WHAT UP GUYS.

I JUST GOT ONE MERIT TODAY.

That means I can do this! One merit per day! Let's see if we can all be as good as Nullius' says we can be!

I'm going to try for 1 merit per day without spending like 10 hours on bitcointalk posting it up.

If i can get one merit per day, then Nullius is right.

We really need to get back on topic here,

Like: Some of you have already called him this, but did anyone notice that nullius is 'officially' a full member.....

i'd echo the general consensus that this rank stuff shouldn't matter this much. as far as theymos' intentions with merit go, the simplest short-term solution, as rlim475 points out, is to remove all signature capability for jr members or establish a merit requirement.

or just remove signatures entirely so we can end this stupid drama. and call us all "members."


that's not actually rational. it doesn't matter to spammers whether it's difficult to write 20+ good posts. they'll apply and write 20+ posts regardless. at the end of the day, these people are getting into campaigns. over and over and over. there has never been any action (formal or informal/community-based) against any campaign managers, so that's unlikely to change.

the "minimum posts required" custom is part of it. it's not getting paid for something you ordinarily do anymore. it literally makes it a job to spam---one where you don't get paid if you don't meet the spam quota. that spam quota exists whether or not there are enough interesting (non spam megathread) discussions happening on the forum, or whether you are capable of engaging in higher level technical discussion.

that is to say, the incentive for "post padding" is much, much higher when you threaten not to pay participants for their posts.

why do campaign managers require a spam quota? it's to make their job easy and please advertisers at the expense of the forum's quality. that's their prerogative. can't blame managers for that. but instead of people acknowledging the reality and establishing new community standards, they'd rather go around hurling racial epithets and blaming "third worlders" and "Indonesian shitposters" and "pajeets" for ruining the forum. yet---somebody is paying all these shitposters. are they not?

The problem with your proposal is that you're comparing the ability of other members, to you. You are quite clearly the exception when it comes to earning merit points, and I think we all know you never use an exception to create a rule. I personally think the thresholds are fine where they are, perhaps increasing HERO to 750 might be a useful change, but I doubt it would have much effect on the forum as most sr's and above tend to have grown out of shitposting anyway.

I don't think campaign managers should get into trouble unless they specifically ask users to spam. If a manager says, "make 20 posts, sone with generic one-liners in multiple threads," then they should get inew trouble.

Otherwise if they simply omit "no spam" in their campaign rules, then it shouldn't be counted against them as per forum rules. It should be the individual posters' responsibility to abide by forum rules when participating in bounties.

As soon as campaign managerso are forced to add posting rules mandated by the forum, then it is bitcointalk itself that now has minimum signature campaign rules.

While it may be clear to you that if you cannot post 20 quality posts in a week you should not apply, this is not clear to others. From the point of view of a bounty manager (this is an assumption - I do not know with certainty as I am not one) the more participants and the more posts the better because the signature will be more widespread across the forum.


Again this is not within their incentive, do you really feel that bounty managers are all that much better than the signature spammers that they reward?

The easiest solution to kill another big chunk of the spam (which I've seen banded around a few times) would be either to make Jr. Member have a merit requirement or to make it so Jr. Members cannot have signatures at all. At least 50% of the accounts in signature campaigns are junior members. We cannot rely on managers to change their rules to only allow members plus because they've had a month and a half to do that and I think I've only seen 1 who has done that.

Disclaimer: I am talking about alt-coin campaigns, I have seen that many bitcoin campaigns are using merit to identify better quality posters.

If it's difficult, then don't apply. Is that not a simple principle to follow?

It's not easy to be a full-stack developer with minor programming experience. Campaign managers should take responsibility, yes. However, at the end of the day, if the campaign member is not sufficiently qualified then they should be booted out. Furthermore, they shouldn't have applied in the first place. If all that they can output is bad quality work, then that's not something that should be rewarded.

---

TL;DR: You should not be paid for a job you cannot do.

Managers are mostly responsible for such posting. For example, even yahoo, sylon and other worthy managers wants from their bounty members 20+ posts per week. It's not easy to create 20 worthy posts. I don't mean a posts full of so-called "water" (big post with sense but without purpose and usefull information. About nothing in fact). Of course, if you spend most of your time at forum it will not be a problem. But most of "shitposters" have a real life and they isn't interesting in crypto, forum or other.
Bounty managers may decrease needed number of post at first. it will help to reduce the flow of low-informative post (do not confuse with low-quality posts)

Some of the legendary don’t see the need for new ranks, for others, they would like something to work for, and for nullius, well there is… this

Rank              Threshold
Newbie              0
Jr. Member        10
Member            30
Full Member     100
Sr. Member      250
Hero Member   500
Legendary       1000
Mythical          2000
Nullius            7000


So.. why not add a rank or two?  Seriously, who does it hurt?


For nullius to achieve the highest level (Nullius), at the current pace of 12.55/merit per day, it would take 506 days to rank up.  Probably need more time for the activity to catch up.

Going to need more coin… and an average post length line.


https://imgur.com/a/Te9lC



What seems to be missing (a lot) is a sense of humor.

Life of the party, this guy.


Yes. Campaign managers (with a couple exceptions) are part of the problem.

Be proud not of rank
But of your posts and yourself
Then, that is true pride

---

Rank is arbitrary. Despite what some people may do by conflating it with reputation, it's arbitrary all the same. The only incentive one has is to create more elaborate signatures, which tend to be rented on the forum.

I acquiesce that because of the financial incentive, this [rank] should be limited. However, that's an issue that campaign managers should take care of: they should punish poor posting quality. And if they allow spam to manifest on the forum, then they themselves should be punished.

There is no need in my opinion to increase the merit requirement.
If someone posts bad replies nothing change, they still receive 0 merit.
If someone posts good replies they will receive some merits, but some users has problems like local board with few merits givers, low visibility on forum (some people simply skips post from newbie jr member etc), and is really hard for them receive merit even if they post good replies.
If someone cheat with merit, nothing change they still abuse the the system.
Your idea in my opinion will icrease the abuse of merit cause it becomes more valueable.

I Agree something can change but in a diffent way from what you propouse, my idea is to create a new merit rank based on earned merit but with the activation only after legendary.
For example:
Newbie 1000 merit earned? still newbie rank
Hero 1000 merit earned? still Hero rank
Legendary 1000 merit earned? new rank

Yes, and I am one of those people who prove your point.  The problem is, and always has been, that good posts are immediately swamped in a tidal wave of bullshit--and the number of garbage posts outnumbers the number of good ones by probably a factor of 10.  And excellent posts, such as the ones nullius makes, are rare. 

Frankly I don't think people should have given me merits for my posts.  They should have given them to someone with a lower rank who needs to rank up, but whatever.  It's definitely a lot harder to find a Jr. Member making really good posts than it is a Hero or Legendary member.

When I joined the forums for the first time, i had 1 dream (<>objectives), i want to become a legendary.
At that time, I was admiring legendary, it is like a challenge to achieve. While ranking up, i didn't mind joining signature campaign, bitmixer mainly, if you can see my records there, I passed months with less than 25% of max posts per week, money...it is secondary, getting more experience, avoid making mistakes/ being scammed was part of the long path.
Finally, after i achieved the required activity for legendary i was waiting my turn, that was the longest waiting time by far, i forgot how long i wait to become member, full, sr then hero member.
Now as a legendary, even if i will lose all my activity and all my merit, I will stay a legendary with a big 0, but who cares. Put 10.000 merit points to become legendary or the king of the jungle rank, i don't care, i will stay legendary.
So nullius, after this long introduction, I would say we shouldn't prevent people from ranking up at all. It's true, the "demography" has changed, priorities has changed, grab cash is attracting tons of bees, lazy ones mostly... Those one had to acquire the basics of the forums rules and cryptocurrencies, they should learn that shit-posting will not help them progressing.
The change should start from the beginning. A jr member will try to find any utility to easily rank up by cheating, begging... 10 smerit isn't that hard to achieve but next, collecting 100 will become way harder especially that most of smerit circulating is hold by sources, same goes to sr members etc...
If we want to cut with the spam, we need to impose rules on bounties, they should recruit only member + (i suggest even sr+). The others have necessary to learn and contribute if they want to progress.
1 month and a half isn't that much to judge. But if a modification needs to be done, it should start from the introduction of the tail.
And this is by far, one of the longest post i made.

The point of adding merit was to prevent spammers from achieving higher ranks, and in doing so incentivize higher quality posting. The current requirements achieve this purpose. There is no way your average low quality bounty spammer will be able to pass above member or so now that the initial supply of sMerit has dried up. Remember that merit is only supposed to be an addition to the activity requirement, not the new threshold. I don't know why you act like the activity requirements are so trivial. Hero still requires more than a year and a half of active participation on the forum, Legendary on average almost three. In my opinion meeting both requirements is more than enough to prove yourself a quality member.

Frankly, the limits you are proposing are arbitrarily high. Even you yourself are receiving less than 1 merit per post, and I think you will agree that your posts are on the higher end of the spectrum in terms of merit per post. Suppose your average high quality poster receives .5 merits per post, which is probably still on the higher end. It is absurd to suggest that they should need 6,000+ posts to achieve Legendary status. After a certain point the only determining factor is how many hours you can sit on your ass posting, which in my opinion is not a very good metric for member quality.

at last a different discussion about merit system.
not the overall repetitive and redundant hack account and merit shit.

How fastly Jet Cash can read in an overly unreadable trimmed quotes.


P.S Will be following the thread because Eminem said F-bomb.

All these long arguments, that are not interesting given that they have been repeated ad naseum put aside, nullius has one undeniably correct point: The necessity for the merit requirement to reach Jr. Member. It is not uncommon for altcoin campaigns to allow users of these ranks as well. There are huge waves of farmers and bot accounts being enrolled in campaigns[1], and which are therefore spamming the forum.

---

[1] I had someone attempt to enroll ~40 jr. Member accounts in 30 minutes about a week ago.