Topic: Theymos can you explain your reasoning on merit allocated on a political basis. - page 4. (Read 1559 times)

the reasoning to make merit associated with political votes is flawed

Here's just the fact, we're all humans and most times we do things unconsciously. You can't take out the fact before you consider a post as a quality one you have to see it as one too. That been said, when you're active on a particular board and always come across repeated quality post from a particular user or selected few, you unconsciously become a merit fan of that/those user sending them merit almost daily. Take DdmrDdmr as an example, I'm so used to his quality posting that if I had the power all his post deserve at least 1merit. Don't think he has ever made a shitpost.

That been said if the users you mention above are sending themselves merit via quality posts, I see no crime there.

@OP, Do you know the different between Political post & Constructive post really ?  Let us know briefly how you consider this post as a constructive and valuable post. (FIY, admin marked it as a political post.)

That is true.

Really, then spend your time with your family and stay cool..........
Theymos aware about current situation, let him handle himself. Or are you expecting theymos should handover forum to you?  


Honest suggestion for you; Please don't make complain post always. Try to make constructive and useful post, so that newbie could learn something. Don't suggest always to theymos how he should handle this forum, he know very well. You become too tired, take rest now. You have worked too much for forum let us do the rest work.  


I have bothered to reply your thread since you have mentioned my name, otherwise I am not encourage to reply here. I believe I have received less merit what I contribute for forum.

I am not even reading the comments too. I lost the interest in reading whatever the CH is alleging and whatever other are defending.
I think it is now become a cycle.

I am just trying to find if Theymos replied or not.

Interesting post cryptohunter, I had you on ignore but had to take it off so that I could reply in here.

Would you mind pointing out on what sort of posts I've received substantial (Out of my 645 earned merits) amounts of merit due to political views? I'd truly appreciate that.

Considering you are all about facts this shouldn't be hard for you to supply.

I understand that you believe that fighting for an transparent objective and fair system renders me negative to the way you wish things to continue.

Where as I can demonstrate clearly that you are terrified to review observable fact of a lie by another DT member and comment on it. Once again that is far more telling and far more net negative that fighting for clear and transparent criteria that ensures fair treatment for all.

Alone55 please refer to my local rules.

Your attempts to call anything trolling that does not fit with your politics is quite evident and revealing.

Did anyone else also skipped the thread after reading the first paragraph and started reading the comments to get a glimpse of what is the point of all this? 


P.S: Does anyone from that list need this? Let me know.

If Theymos had a "political" bias, then he would have banned Crypto Hunter.

I admit that I have a subjective approach to the awarding of merits - I only award them to people that I think are contributing to the forum in a positive way. I apologise to Crypto Hunter that I don't include him in that category.

I am also aware that I am awarding sMerits to posters in threads that I have started, and I would like to reduce this, and spread the merits to a wider range of posters. I would be grateful if Crypto Hunter ( and others)  could start some quality threads about Bitcoin and the new government backed cryptos. The proposed gold backed Iranian one could be a good start.

I'm still waiting to be accused of giving merits to lower-ranked accounts as a means of somehow politically influencing them to be on "my side".  That accusation hasn't come yet, but it seems to be the next logical step for cryptohunter and the rest of the trolls.  The members on that list of his are never going to do anything right in the trolls' minds, regardless of what those members do.

These members are all pretty good posters overall, and there are many others too.  It shouldn't be surprising that they've earned quite a bit of merit for their efforts.  I'd also point out (again) that the number of sMerits I've given to these members as a percentage of the total amount I've given out is, I think, relatively small.  I have not done the math and am only speaking for myself here.

Most of the merits I've given have not been source merits, either.  The vast majority of sMerits I've given to anyone on the above list have been ones I've earned.  I only got made a merit source a few months ago, and my allotment was pretty small to begin with.  And take a look at the number of members who aren't on this list that I've merited; you'll hardly see evidence of abuse.

They can. They must not. I'm such a stickler for semantics

In most cases, I simply couldn't care less and have no measurable opinion of my own
I was just pointing out where you don't follow your own requirement of a "fact" based post.
Opinions are by definition not facts.

I don't usually edit my posts (well, tbh, I actually often edit them within the fist minutes of posting, to fix typos etc.).

I never felt compelled to change someones opinion.
If we disagree, we disagree, I'm okay with that.
As long as there's a respectful exchange of ideas, I'm a happy cat.

Actually it was for good use of hyperbole for rhetorical effect. Nobody (well, nobody with a brain) would take the lemon example literally. In fact, nobody did: you got your red trust for reasons entirely unrelated to your liking of lemons. Exactly what political motives do you think I had?

Merit sources are the only ones bound to rules, people are free to do whatever they want with their own merits if they are not a merit source. If User A wants to give User B 500 merits for liking lemons (sorry had to do it) they are free too, because they earned the SMerits they have. If they are using the Smerits given to them by the forum as a pillar of the merit system to award to people for reasons laid out before applying as a merit source, they are held to higher scrutiny.

Example: Merit sources cannot sell merit. Non merit sources can sell merit, but people will negative tag them.

Can you briefly explain this statement or expand upon it.

Please don't come at me with more lemons nonsense which I now find that I should have called nonsense from the very start.

This post is actually a good example of exactly what I am talking about.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48752174

Foxpup one of the main political merit givers and cyclers gives you 2 merits for that pile of junk telling me liking lemons is quite a just reason for me getting red trust.

This has been proven to be nonsense as per theymos last post regarding DT and of course was a diabolical post that would render trust scores a complete joke.

Now he gives you 2 points for political reasons.

I await qwk to also tell if if all points where he has put "opinion" if he refutes or supports that opinion. Please edit your post so I can see which ones need full attention first. Because the ones if there are any you agree with are those I can leave until later.

Actually qwk if you disagree whilst I am away could you say if you disagree and why you do. So that I know what I can do to assist you to see it in a reasonable and objective way. Or that you may assist me to change my own opinions ...this is why it is great to debate things. It helps everyone and there are no losers. You just all get a more optimal view after all information is analysed.

@ nutildah please allow the adults room to discuss. I can't waste time on snakes like you. I notice you ran away from my last debate with you like a total pussy. Stop derailing this sensible and interesting thread with your politically driven rantings and childish pics.

Yes well I will be on vacation actually for long time so although I like to enjoy myself I will selflessly make time to defend the forum and persons right to free speech from snakes like yourself. Generosity like this may seem insane to someone like yourself.

This is how you choose to spend your vacation??

Remember when you wanted me to point out to you one of your comments that looked like insanity?

Well this is it. Theymos already told you he's not going to read your long-winded diatribes, but you chose to double-down. Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity, so goes the great adage.

"Known" merit sources in bold:
Source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/top-200-the-most-generous-users-giving-merits-4523027

Are any of these people merit sources? Otherwise, merit "rules" don't apply.

Just for starters: I don't like being forced to simple "yes or no" answers, I consider myself a person of differentiation.

Unfortunately, I cannot answer this with a clear "yes" without certain limits being defined beforehand.
Otherwise, I'd put myself at your mercy when it came to a possibly never-ending text of yours, in which case it is obviously very much my right to deny you the satisfaction of an answer.

So, here's my conditions for a "yes":
- you create a single post with no more than 1,000 words (for reference: your OP has 1671)
- you limit yourself to a maximum of 5 examples / cases
- you provide links and quotes that support each case
- you establish facts, when you call them that(1)
- you grant the persons in each case the right to also make a post in response under the same conditions
- you keep the text "readable"(2)
Under these circumstances, I swear to provide you with a satisfactory(2) and concise(2) reply, outlining my opinion on each and every single case in your posting.
I cannot guarantee a timely answer, though, because that will depend upon factors like my "mood", "laziness" and factors outside of my personal influence. Usually, I'm pretty quick, though.

(1) I consider myself a sceptical person, so my standards for establishing facts on your behalf may be higher than you'd usually expect.
(2) by definition or obviously, that's not objectively measurable, so you'll have to trust my judgement on this.

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.