Topic: Top 200 Merit receivers without Merit from the Top 200 Merit receivers - page 2. (Read 21255 times)

Why are you people even jumping on this like I have not already said this 10x before and I have said already I have probably sent more merit to top holders on meta than other people?? the fact you assume some vendetta to produce data which clearly demonstrates what I have said all along then you feel you are doing something wrong which I have never said nor assumed. Meta is subjective how can you be doing anything wrong ? therefore why is it a vendetta?  I can't accept this concept is too complicated for these top merit holders to grasp.

Do you honestly still not get the point.

Does this seem like some double standard from me?  Honestly after all that has been said you think this is the point. NO.

Anyone can send merit to posts they wish or whom they wish. There is nothing wrong with it. It is understandable you send to people on boards you post on the most and to those you align views with the most. This is natural behaviour. It is fun, it is nice to reward people that provide stats, or do things you ask for and provide info you find useful. I like the merit system it's cool and helps somewhat to prevent spam.

What they can't claim is a high merit score better poster than low merit score. That really is it.  

No need for all this fuss and excitement once you just accept that.  Once you accept merit for what it is then you can just enjoy meriting who you want for posts you feel are good. If you want to bookmark certain peoples post histories and just check them for good posts that is totally acceptable and fine.

Why is this still being discussed is the weirdest thing. It is like a few people can not accept their merits scores do not make them proven and tested great posters by any kind of objective criteria. Also from debating even simple things with them it is quite obvious that the fact they could even dream that they could be valued according to their merit scores compared to all other members is ludicrous.

Let's discuss something new. I am ready for a new topic since this is debate has been thrashed out and is now rotating in circles with mostly people just repeating things that have been said before. Even entire reams of stats that had been presented before.
If people wish to read the entire history of this debate they can easily find the threads and read and decide for themselves.

Exactly! People are free to merit whomever the please. If this rule applies to you, why does it not apply to the top 200 merit receivers/senders/sources or the Meta board, against which you seem to have some sort of personal vendetta?

Look, I agree that Altcoin Discussion needs to be improved, and I have no doubt that in amongst the piles and piles of shitposts there are a handful of good posters who go unrecognized. The fact is, no one has the time or energy to spend hours digging through 100+ pages of trash to find the one or two good posts worthy of a merit. If you want to improve things, then your energy would be better spent reporting posts for deletion and threads for locking than it would be rampaging in Meta against some perceived "inner circle of merits". Especially since theymos agrees with the whole "I will merit whomever I please" thing.

I am not stalking you and I am not spamming.

Quoted for record and archived http://archive.is/blsV4#selection-9073.32-9073.58  

---

Why? Because you told me so?

/ignored.

I'm surprised my profile is still on that list! It's been months since I last posted here or have earned a merit. Makes me wonder if the forum's quality posts are actually deteriorating. Anyhow, the drama above is the reason why I don't want to leave this place anytime soon.

Stop spamming your sig and stalking me and my posts. Using them as an excuse to spam your sig is annoying.

Rome was not built in a day and I will merit whom I please you clearly still do not understand there is nothing wrong with sending merit in meta nor have I said there is nor is there anything wrong with sending them to the top merit holders. If you understood how merit works and what it demonstrates rather than what you want it to mean and what you want it represent then you would stop worrying about it and replying to these posts. Of course you will reply to anything to gain some btc dust. If you stfu I will send you some wireless coins which are great during time travel. Bitcoins don't work before 2009.

Please read my posts before reposting stuff others have said 10x and that I have said myself many times before instead of apparently revealing something that amuses you that is not funny nor amusing because it does not contradict anything I have said. You find it funny only because you don't have the capacity to realise if I send all my merit to suchmoon or foxy on meta board it does not mean anything with regard the point I have been making.

Go spam your sig elsewhere. Make some posts in ivory tower or serious discussion ..... oh wait no sigs in there?

I am not spamming and I don't remember receiving dollars, especially not 4 bucks.

---

You wanted to prove something here, so how is your new thread going?




Merit giveaway for posts in altcoin section ended up on 4. page and in 5 hours no one posted in it neither I see you merited any post in altcoin.

How is that you didn't send merit to anyone in altcoin? You didn't search for quality posts or something?

Look, you merited 2 posts in Meta today:

You are funny girl, you know.

Stop sig spamming. Keep to sensible comments. I don't think you should get 4 bucks or whatever for this kind of post.

You are not a "wanna be moderator" because I heard you will refuse the position (not that i'm saying it would be offered to you)

Thanks. I hope you won't reject my merit 
How this discussion moved from "merit circle of jerks" to "wannabe moderator"?

Digaran, is that you?

Not sure if anyone would like the post or not, but it wasn’t a thread created by forum members to postulate their candidacy to it, and the idea really dies with the referenced threads themselves, going no further.

This, on the other hand, was at some point and unofficial voting that took place at the end of 2016, with what seemed to have had 126 voters and 8 candidates to "choose" a Global Moderator: [Unofficial] New Global Moderator Election - [Voting]. The poll seemed more serious, and originated by staff members themselved. The poll winners were @Lauda and @Mitchell, although I haven’t been able to trace it from there to see if the poll had any influence at all on the selected Global Moderator.

That's a load off then.

So none of those want to be mods and were just pushed forward by others and will refuse such a position.

No doubt about it that a certain fairness could be a good thing to have in that position.

I guess you are referring to the poll originated here: User nominated names of possible moderators for forum and eventually voted here: Vote for new moderators who deserve it. @theymos please take a look..

The names on the (short) list were added not by self-nomination, but through the suggestion of other forum members on the first thread. Not that it was really going to serve seriously as a shortlist pool to draw moderators from, but it was one of the hundreds of proposals created on Meta that serve the purpose of creating a little brain storming around an idea.

If I recall correctly, some of the people clear stated that they had no real intent to become moderators at all. What’s more, merits I doubt count in any way towards the possibility of becoming a moderator. It would rather be a good report count, a perceived knowledge of the area to be moderated, and a certain fairness of judgement, aside from a willingness to perform a task which I doubt is a very grateful and personally rewarding one.

One obvious conclusion is that merit score has no merit (pun intended) for moderator selection. Two new mods appointed this year (Welsh and FHF) were chosen not for their merit scores.

would I need to provide that.

I said they are hoping to be

Look at the proposed new mod suggestions draw your own conclusions.

@suchmoon

"Meaningless without providing those two user IDs. Seems to be based entirely on your allegation that top 200 merits and Meta merits are not indicative of post quality, not to mention the unclear definition of "better poster".

LOL I mean the entire fact you want a definition of "better post" or good post or it is meaningless  completely substantiates my claim that you can not take merit at all as an correct measure of some objectively derived quality  and is meaningless there is no objective criteria/definition given for its basis. The fact you can not see this is quite funny. Your entire statement is a only valid in your own mind to be anything other than word salad. I mean you just proved my entire point without even bothering with the data that demonstrates to anyone considering the fact that if you remove just 0.13% of users merit given that that same 0.13% is crushed by over 80% is well......

As to your other points which are nonsense I have answered I am responding to those directly posting nonsense as an explanation or bringing me up personally to discuss what I apparently predicted without stating my full criteria for those predictions then apparently proving me wrong whilst actually proving my predictions were quite accurate. Anyway It seems I was pretty near the mark so no need to discuss further.

Thanks for posting.
We can leave it there unless people want to continue discussing.

Please show me how I can reject merit.
In other words:

Then don't. You're the one obsessed with those scores to the point of pushing others around to manipulate them to your liking. If you don't care then just move on. I think most sane users have figured out how to interpret the scores in a way that suits them without drowning Meta in their conjecture.


Meaningless without providing those two user IDs. Seems to be based entirely on your allegation that top 200 merits and Meta merits are not indicative of post quality, not to mention the unclear definition of "better poster".


Let me guess. Someone else should do it. And you'll be bitching about them doing it wrong.


Who are these horrible people?

According to who? Is theymos telling you some secret criteria he uses to pick mods? Can you provide evidence of a single case where a member was added to Default Trust or chosen to be a moderator based on their merit score?

What happened is simple. Look at the stats. 0.13% of the users are cycling it between them because if you remove that and one tiny board their scores dump by 80%. That is not an expected figure in a system where there is anything like a balanced objective system.

It actually leads to people within that group stating it is foolish to assume some of the remaining 99.87% of users can make posts as good or better than some of the 0.13% of users. This can lead to bookmarking post histories of fav posters and spattering them with merit compounding the skewing of these scores.

Now as I have said over 10x already this is not a huge issue so long as no weight is attributed to merit scores and to use those scores as if they are scores based on objective and fair assessment of all posts against strict criteria.  Merit is useful for preventing some spammers if you leverage it in the correct way. It is a fun way to reward posts you think are good that you choose to view. Best not to draw any other conclusions from a merit score.

Now to make it simple

Is someone with 500 earned merits going to be a better poster than one who has earned 5 merits? No that is not an assumption you can make and I am not even sure if there is a super high probability of that being true either. If that 5 merit poster had earned his 5 from 5 different sources on the alt discussion board and the 500 earned it all on meta from inside the 0.13% then I would not even as a gambling person want to bet on the 500 merits guy if the decision was made by someone who reviewed all posts against some objective criteria that was proven valuable to the board.  

I have been ready to let the issue drop for quite some time but every time I see people either raising it again with fresh excuses or some strange logic claiming it would be strange it the stats were any other way then it all has to come up again.

The problem is really that the top merit hoarders are hoping somehow to becoming merit sources, DT members and MODs. This is leading to a centralised power here that should be prevented before it goes to far. Already they are close to such a goal.

If you are to have a centralised power that can crush people with Neg DT or ban them or hold them back through the merit system. Then you best hope the entire merit system is redone with objective criteria so that only the people most suitable will end up in positions to control behaviour and opinion here.

Very nice statistics from LoyceV once again but what happened to the forum nowadays, it seems that there are so many jealous people with members who got their hundreds of merit from the meta thread since the inception of the new system.

So like if a bank made an error and took like 90% of your money away you would simply say you have less? you mean practically took all of your money right??

So to put your statement in more precise terms.

Remove only 0.13% of the boards users merits  and one tiny sub board with a tiny fraction of the forums posters (not posts) and that same 0.13% have "less" LOL less like a couple of percent or maybe 10% ......I think you meant to say their merits are crushed to a tiny tiny fraction of what they had previously been allowed to award themselves.






@ suchmoon

actually was locye who prefers to accept merits for the same data set actually
You saw the same data and did not merit either but now have as I said.

Please refrain from making shit up.