So let's just discuss on the FACTS and reasonable conclusions we can substantiate with corroborating observable events.
So this is about facts?
I somehow fail to see that you live up to your own standards:
I will add others because actually I believe many many person merit based for pure political reasons
Belief.
You will notice a significant proportion of merits they allocate each other are not because the post is of great value
Significant?
Do you mean
statistically? If so, that might be a fact.
If so, how did you measure it?
because those posts introduce no new facts based nor substantiated information at all, they are merely in many cases a brief personal statement
Any hint as to which posts precisely you're referring to, and how you established the "fact" that they are mere personal statements?
You will notice a lot of merit given for empty or faux rebuttals to political statements based on fact here all of the time, just as much as merit given for unsubstantiated agreement in the form of groundless opinions and ideas. There is no value here.
"Groundless" is an evaluation by yourself.
You will also notice these person withhold merit
I wonder how one can "withhold" merit.
My understanding is that people are free to give or not give merit.
from posts that do not fit their political agendas or are made by persons they do not like or persons they have argued with previously. This is without doubt the case.
Not a fact. I doubt it.
Their connection is also clearly illustrated on the DT inclusions exclusions.
Not a fact. I don't see it clearly.
So we see here clearly that many merit sources here are meriting/not meriting on political grounds.
Not a fact. I don't see it clearly.
However they are just sneaky and would seek to deny it even though the evidence is there in black and white.
Where's the evidence?
This actually makes them far less trustworthy that a person that says "okay i subscribe to these political views and I will scan those persons posts and find merit worthy posts that are objectively worthy of merit and then allocate them merit"
Opinion.
So not only have you (in my opinion)
[...]
This is not wise in my opinion because...
Opinion.
Motive can have no influence over the objective value of the post.
Not a fact. That depends upon the definition of "value" in this case.
Post quality should be judged on its own merits.
Opinion.
You should analyse a post, and to your best ability pick it apart for useful relevant information that can be seen to contribute to the optimal outcome.
Opinion.
If a merit score is supposed to represent the true value of a post
"True value" is a strong word.
Care to elaborate how such a valuation might be established?
I say the merit system is broken and damaging greatly this board now that you have once again pushed (possibly by the same circle I am referring to here) to raise the DT threshold to something that suites them nicely ie 250 earned and self awarded (in a nice little circle of pals) to each other.
Opinion.
I mean just look at the merit back scratchers and back stabbers joke threads the complainer suchmoon is nearly at the top of both of those?
Opinion.
I mean this is making a mockery of the merit system.
Opinion.
I mean surely you can see they are meriting based on political shared views rather than on the actual post value
Opinion.
(many of which have zero value and are misleading)?
Opinion.
You actually are going to tell me that these people are objectively analysing posts and allocating merit in this way free of politics and prior interactions with other members?
That's an impossible standard you're applying.
However, i am speculating
Speculation.
This i understand, but I feel
Opinion.
not guilty of WORSE than stingers
Opinion.
I also see CLEAR discussion by those with the 250 earned merits commenting on other person trust lists and cherry picking if THEY consider that therefore makes them ripe for inclusion or exclusion.
I somehow fail to see the problem here, because that's precisely what is expected from DT1 members.
Discuss if someone should be on trust lists (and come to a conclusion).
Please can you just give some criteria for merit and red trust that ALL persons must abide by equally from now on.
Unachievable standard.
I'm on vaction but reserve this post to answer each of those points that you raise. When i get sensible opportunity to give you post the consideration it deserves.
However, I am looking forward to a full debate with your qwk and on this occasion I hope that you will not be shy and tell me that you do not WISH to review evidence that I will supply to validate my "opinion"s.
I will make an effort to reply to your post if you will promise me now not to "shy away" from hard evidence that I will provide and give an opinion on ALL evidence i bring forth. Will you make that PROMISE qwk? Then I will certainly thrash out all of the "points" that you bring up. I have only been asking for someone to debate these with me for quite some time.
Yes or NO qwk do you promise to review and give your public opinion on all evidence that I provide to substantiate my OPINIONS that you call into question? YES OR NO? no half debating then this time vanishing or saying you do not wish to review or comment. Or that it was a typing error. This time please check the entire post you made for anything that seems incorrect before I spend time with you debating the points in the OP.
Also can you make it clear if you are in agreement with items you have branded "opinion" as if they are groundless and can not be backed or supported by observable events? You are saying you disagree or agree? please revisit your post and clarify. Don't agree or agree. I will not waste time on debating if you already agree because it will require more effort to bring forth the case than is needed if you already accept my opinion. I hope you understand what I mean.
But you must agree to answer everything that I ask you and visa versa... else the debate is one sided.
I like you qwk and look forward to this. Almost want to miss out my afternoon partying later just to focus on this.