Topic: Theymos can you explain your reasoning on merit allocated on a political basis. - page 5. (Read 1559 times)

So this is about facts?
I somehow fail to see that you live up to your own standards:

Belief.

Significant?
Do you mean statistically? If so, that might be a fact.
If so, how did you measure it?

Any hint as to which posts precisely you're referring to, and how you established the "fact" that they are mere personal statements?

"Groundless" is an evaluation by yourself.

I wonder how one can "withhold" merit.
My understanding is that people are free to give or not give merit.

Not a fact. I doubt it.

Not a fact. I don't see it clearly.

Not a fact. I don't see it clearly.

Where's the evidence?

Opinion.

Opinion.

Not a fact. That depends upon the definition of "value" in this case.

Opinion.

Opinion.

"True value" is a strong word.
Care to elaborate how such a valuation might be established?

Opinion.

Opinion.

Opinion.

Opinion.

Opinion.

That's an impossible standard you're applying.

Speculation.

Opinion.

Opinion.

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).

Unachievable standard.

Theres no such rules with these people,if they are meriting each other's posts,giving trust to each other it is okay but if someone has given merits,trust or even multiple accounts you will get red tagged even if you are doing something which isnt violating any rules you will get red paint.Abusive people does have double standards when it comes to their friends or enemies,i pitty this forum even the admins cant handle this type of abusive people.

This is what happens when you have ambiguously and selectively enforced rules Theymos. Every time.

Theymos can you explain your reasoning on honest meriting of merit worthy posts by those that clearly announce their intentions vs those that are sneaky about it and report others whilst clearly doing it themselves?

This is not a criticism I want to understand how this even works here in your mind.... It is another long post but I feel that if you read it all and give a thorough explanation then this could start to push the systems of control in the correct direction faster and create less collateral damage along the way. Merit is the key to these newly introduced control systems.


Local rules - NO PERSON that does not substantiate their answer with facts and observable events may reply. If you wish to voice a groundless opinion which when called on it will not be able to provide evidence or corroborating events to back it up then I wish you to NOT post in this thread.

Anyone following those rules can post.


This is a system wide discussion of a topic that theymos commented on personally himself and made clear that political motivation for a post is not allowed and only the post value itself should determine the merit given.

So let's just discuss on the FACTS and reasonable conclusions we can substantiate with corroborating observable events.


If you were to take an objective view of the posts made by persons here below and merited by each other
(I will add others because actually I believe many many persons merit based on pure political agreement and do not even bother to analyse the post for VALUE that you can substantiate if they were called on it. Just claiming their opinion is valuable because it demonstrates a consensus with your own and strengthens your case (in your mind) is of course political in terms of discussing other members or issues relating to how the forum functions.)


         Foxpup -
         Lauda -
         The Pharmacist -
         marlboroza
         owlcatz
         suchmoon
         Coolcryptovator
         DireWolfM14
         Hhampuz
         Jet Cash
         LoyceV
         TMAN
         o_e_l_e_o
         xtraelv

You will notice a significant proportion of merits they allocate each other are not because the post is of great value because those posts introduce no new facts based nor substantiated information at all, they are merely in many cases a brief personal statement that confirms they subscribe to the same political (where the board is concerned - approval of or non approval of certain members regardless of whether they are proven scammers or not or on other political matters regarding the running of the board) views or have the same ideas as those meriting them.

You will notice a lot of merit given for empty or faux rebuttals to political statements based on fact here on this board a lot 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. This is merely political noise.

You will also notice these person withhold 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.

Their connection/collusion/political allegiance  is also clearly evident on the DT inclusions exclusions.

So we see here clearly that many merit sources here are meriting/not meriting on political grounds. However, they are just sneaky and would seek to deny it even though the evidence is there in black and white.
This actually makes them far less trustworthy than 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"

So not only have you (in my opinion) on suchmoons (provable double standards and highly politically motivated merit cycler) guidance punished an honest person regarding his intentions you have removed merit from merit worthy posts that present factual information of great value in the removal of stingers and his correctly applied (from an objective pov) merit . This is not wise in my opinion because...

The merit should have only been removed if the posts themselves were clearly not merit worthy else that is demonstrating the system is nothing to do with the objective post quality. Motive can have no influence over the objective value of the post. That is a fallacy of the ad hominem variant.

Post quality should be judged on its own merits. 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.


If a merit score is supposed to represent the true value of a post then we have just punished an honest person and rewarded a sneaky person for complaining about the same actions he takes, but he is too devious (or not as blatant) about announcing it, but his actions clearly demonstrate this as do the actions of most other merit sources from his circle.


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.

Punishing someone who announced their intentions honestly to find merit worthy posts and merit them from persons who subscribe to his personal political views on this board at the behest of a circle that are doing that in plain sight and making jokes about it is quite a bad move. 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?? I mean this is making a mockery of the merit system.

Surely there can not be one rule for one side of this political rift and not for the other can there?

I mean surely you can see they are meriting based on political shared views rather than on the actual post value (many of which have zero value and are misleading)? also are withholding merit on this same basis??

Or do you deny this is happening? 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? Please try to be really look at this situation deeply and objectively.

I have clearly said before that I do believe you want what is best for the board and that is your only concern. I still believe this even in light of the curious and strange answers that you gave last time which I would still love to debate with you and I am sure that I could alter your views.

However, i am speculating that you are willing to take some collateral damage to innocent persons to achieve an eventual result that is more fair than the path that leads to that.  This i understand, but I feel that just a bit of analysis of what I have said here and some strong words to those committing WORSE than what stingers got punished for could speed up to the eventual result that you are looking for. I am however happy you have spoken out on DT lately and said that should be for scammers only to get red trust. This is a great announcement and should now allow person to voice their love or hate of lemons more freely.

I mean if you tell me that these people are objectively meriting posts on their value and that they are not guilty of WORSE than stingers (because he made efforts to merit only merit worthy posts and openly announced his intentions) whilst they merit posts of zero value and low effort but will not admit they do it for political reasons and ignore valuable posts of the same basis. If you tell me that then I will know then that there is no further point to try to discuss things with you and help this board in this way.

I am genuinely interested in a real discussion on this very important matter since now the DT is directly a merit dependant system. I have no idea why merit would equal trust anyway because it is allowing persons with a very short history here to be put into positions of trust where legends with years of observable history demonstrating no dishonest or untrustworthy actions is verifiable. 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.

These new systems are quite risky if you do not mind me saying. I have had legends and other old members tell me in pms (which you can probably see them) that they are scared to support some of my views because although they share some of them they are afraid of reprisals from the gangs that those systems have allowed to form. This is a clear clear illustration of free speech being crushed along the way.

This i say again is not a direct criticism of you personally other than to say the systems need some tweaks in my mind to prevent those things I have described happening. I think you should listen less to the suchmoon group and really investigate and consider the concerns of the opposing group here who only want a fair and equal system for all persons. Surely that is what you want to is it not?

Please can you just give some criteria for merit and red trust that ALL persons must abide by equally from now on. Also consider lowering earned merit too 150 and entering an activity of 1500 therefore the person has longer history to check against and has a more senior account to risk here from untrustworthy actions.