Topic: What can I do about possible merit abuse? (Read 1076 times)

I really appreciate all the feedback and insight everyone shared in this thread. From now on I'll take a few extra looks on the merit that my potential participants have earned and if I ever suspect they've abused the system by buying/trading merit I'll give them a neutral tag and send in to a few people that could look into it further.

I'll also get going on applying as a Merit Source shortly to start awarding good posts that participants in my campaigns are making. Hopefully this would also lead to me not having to enforce specific merit requirements when launching new Campaigns and instead look at their posts more (although I already look at it, but I'll get better at it in the future).

Will now lock this thread as I feel it served it's purpose, again thank you guys!

That really might be getting much challenging for you to even judge good standing accounts including green trust. You should simply go through the post on which they recieved merit and judge that post according to your point of view and see if it seems a genuine merit transfer. If you feel anything fishy then you can reject the application maybe.
Even i am confused what can be done against such merit abuse but you are well trained and wise enough to judge peoples so i really hope you undergo this much wisely. I would love to hear your results as it would be exciting for me.. 

In my opinion it's a clear abuse of merit system and I won't accept those members in my campaigns if I were a campaign manager.
You can't say it's coincident, because they are receiving merits right after you have announced the campaign. So its a clear sign of merit abuse in order to get into a campaign.

But the accounts with good standing must be checked with special care because I don't think they will take the risk to harm their rep.
From whom they received merit and for which posts it should be checked and you are no doubt an experienced one in this field.


I was abt to write the same suggestion, but you wrote it.
I think it will help campaign managers a lot in regards to time saving.

All the above replies are salutary and you have the choice to implement whatever you want. I also have an idea which could result in less merit abuse.
How about creating a list of people who are possible merit abusers ? Like how you think that some people are abusing merit, just adding them up to the list will do the job.
Few people like the Pharmacist, Lauda and few more who are too good in investigating accounts can find out if the person is a merit abuser or not.
Or lets say anybody who identifies and proves that the person is abusing merit will be rewarded with merits. If the person will actually be abusing the merit then it's his 'Endgame' 

Just a thought :-)

If they have met the Merit Requirement but the Merits they've received are all very new (it probably isn't an issue if they reached the requirement recently by earning a few Merits, legally), then simply open their post history, check if their posting behavior convinces you. If it doesn't, then you can outrightly reject them since you are the manager and you want constructive posters for the campaign (that is why the Merit requirement is added, right?), but if it does convince you, then you can open their Merit history, look for the post they've received the Merits for, and see if the post deserves to get that many Merits and they've not earned them in a wrong way. If they're all earned legitimately, it can be a coincidence and they don't deserve a rejection for it, and if they are not, you are the boss. 

I hope that my topic can be helpful for you, manager.

I don't think it is necessary, all rights to accept or deny applying participants made by manager.
'For any reason', really? Even posts or topics merited because they are really constructive.
I don't agree at this point.
You should adjust it like 'earn 20 merits for non-sense, low quality works (posts or topics).
Abusements, when founded should result in rejections on applications. I don't think that recently abusements should lead to rejections, whilst past abusements (weeks or months ago) should be ignored. Abusements are always abusements. 

If you're concerned about possible merit abuse mainly for the purposes of choosing participants for a bounty campaign - couldn't you just add a catch all sentence along the lines of 'I can accept or decline any participant for any reason at my discretion at any time during the campaign, including for possible merit abuse' etc.

You probably already include something like that but if it's right there in black and white then you're good to decline someone who 'earned' 20 merit for any reason. Will also mean that any last minute merit abuse will be somewhat wasted on the person who is trying to sneak into your bounty campaign - so that's a small win. 

There you go, @Vod already replied. More adjustments will come soon.
It's time to use the tool to help you more effectively check your campaigns' applicants.

---

Furthermore, DdmrDdmr gave another option with his Merit Dashboard.
I have not tried using it, but you can take a look at it.

Yes that's 100% accurate. External script or tools will give you total merit transaction details. I mean lifetime merit details. So I don't think you need to use any external script or tools in order to check only 120 days merit history.

Thanks for the tools, but I just go to peoples profiles and press Merit and that shows me what they've sent and received in the last 120 days. Are those numbers not accurate?

I have a news for you, manager Hhampuz.
Vod created new feature for BPIP site, that gives new tool to sort out received merits in last 120 days.
Please check it there:
For instance, your received merits in last 120 days
https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?to=Hhampuz&from=&start=120&end=&min=&max=

Edited: Something works incorrectly, please wait for Vod's reply (I already asked him).

Copy that, as soon as I'm back home from my vacation I'll stop dragging my feet and get to it. Thank you!

He's been adding some and/or reshuffling merit allocations every 3-4 months. Last change was in January IIRC.

For those reasons mentioned below, I don't think theymos will add new merit sources in short- or medium-term.

---

Two main things:
- Checking merited posts or topics to assess it's quality in your own perspective.
- Checking the whole post history, especially within last 120 days.
From those two essential checking steps, the overview on quality of posters as well as potential merit abusements will become clearer.

I've been meaning to but then things just kept coming in the way. Is theymos actively adding new merit sources, if you know?

For me, it is too easy to identify if that merit was given freely or abusively. As you have said you are a campaign manager and among others you should understand way more better what a constructive post to not and if it  deserves a merit.

Tho, finding proof that it is a purely abused is a different story. Even tho, that merit is given from the time they applied you can still identify it's authenticity by reviewing the post.

 

Have  you applied? If not - do it, you have a good reason right there since you're reviewing posts as part of your job.

maybe report them here > https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/self-moderated-report-unmerited-good-posts-to-merit-source-5093271


OK maybe 50 is a bit too much, but you get the point.

 you are right, it depends on the campaign, you can't have the same "strict" requirements for every campaign, but for those with high pay rate where you have more on the waiting list than what you can accept, it makes sense to be a bit more strict.

anyhow i think you are doing a great job, it's great to see some camping managers being open for community opinions ,and actually care about the overall performance of the forum. good luck.

Although I can agree to some extent you should see the amount of people that apply in my campaigns with 0 or just a couple of earned merits during their entire stay here. I always check their posts and you'd be amazed at how many of these people actually post some good shit but more often than not they post it in the "wrong" sections where the merit is not flowing as much. A lot of them perhaps never visit Meta, never pursue any scams/abusers or never posts any guides while still holding a good tone and adding to the discussion.

Everytime that I'm counting posts in my Campaigns I'm wishing that I'd be a merit source so that I could award these people a few merit (and I try, believe me), but with a balance of 10-20 merit at any given time I am very limited in what I can do. I also usually have different requirements for different campaigns as if I were to set it at 50 I'd hardly get any applications as most people with 50 or more earned merits are already in some other Campaign.

My beliefs are that if someone is here, actively participating in discussions and trying to make the community better they deserve to get a chance to earn off of it just like everyone else.

You can see how often a person received merit. If the merit is received 1 time in the required amount just before the application, then it is really suspicious.

increasing merit requirement specially for higher ranks will help you filter merit abusers, having 5 or 10 merit for as a requirement is as good as useless, those a few merit can be easily obtained by many "abusive" ways, plus it only makes sense that if someone has a hero rank for example and have not earned 50 merit for example then probably his/her posts are pure shit which you wouldn't want to have in your campaign.  

I am assuming Yatsan is the person you suspect is abusing merit.

I am not sure if he received merit from his alt account, or if he purchased the merit, perhaps from this guy. I looked through his merit history, and I am not quite sure what to make of it. He has received merit from a number of people that I don't think are selling merit, although this is based on their reputation from my perspective, and I did not look at their merit history. Most of the merit he received is from his various WTS threads.

I noticed he also received merit from Distinctin for a post that I do not believes deserves merit on a reasonable basis. Going down the rabbit hole, I looked at Distinctin's merit history, looked at the last 8 posts he sent merit to, and believe at most one of these posts reasonably deserves merit, and most are the only post on the page/thread with merit.

Back to Yatsan, on Feb 19, he received 2 merit from Distinctin (for a questionable post -- see above), and the next day he applies for a campaign (run by Hhampuz) with merit requirements, although only 10 merit were required, which he already met (the recent merit could have helped his application as it would have implied he made good post(s) recently).

I think there is at least a 60% chance Distinctin is either selling merit or giving merit to his alts (I think the former is more likely), and at least a 51% chance Yatsan recently purchased merit. Assuming Distinctin is selling merit, everyone he sent merit to did not necessarily purchase merit because there may be some false flags. Obviously both 60% and 51% is far from certain, and I would not say any of the above proves anything.

Either it can be merit abuse or may be a coincidence that a person just received enough merits to meet the requirement of your campaign soon after announcement or just before applying, if you are not sure than leave/ignore it.
However if the applicant have received merits on some useless or non-constructive posts just before applying than surely he/she is abusing the merit system, so you can point it out (or tag them) using reference.

No, In this case you will start counting 120 days , when you open a new opening. Why you will stick to OP when you have already recruited all the participants against that requirement?

Threads like this from a DT-1 user are proof that the new system works and that snowfucker is a good choice for DT.

Personally I would tag them, guilty to proven innocent and all that, but I have the patience of a fly and couldn’t do your job. Seriously though a 60 second look through posts would give you enough info to tag or not buddy

I guess it will be better not to allow them to apply on your campaigns if you feel that the account is abusing merit. When the requirement is Earned Merit  in just 120 days then I should sughest not to count the 10 days before you launch a campaign. Example the requirement for member rank is earned a total of 10 merits then a user applying has 20 merit and the 8 merits is just received on that day then you should not accept that user rather report it for abusing (buying or begging)

Any others action isn't requir for them although they abused merit system. Admin don't like to tag this kind of merit abuse if really there is no any strong evidence of merit sales. From your site you should deny them from your campaign. On the other hand you can blacklisted them from your future signature. Maybe others managers will not accept them as well when they will on your blacklist.

Since it's not appropriate to tag this kind of abuser so we can make a list with name of this users who had abuse merit system for join signature. I have seen few similar case on some signature campaign. So you can give a name of your blacklist and others managers also could report to thread if they found similar case.

How it will be if you give name " Signature Campaing Blacklist of Merit abuser" . Just make a thread with list so that other managers could see and report as well.

I don't think they deserve tag for this behaviour. Blacklist will be best solution in my opinion.

Will do, no harm with a neutral and if it's not true they are free to present their evidence to me. Thanks!

However impossible to follow practically when new users are required if the campaign does last over 120 days.

If one participant drops out of the campaign after 4 months (ie 120 days) the amount in the last 120 days, before publishing the thread will be 0 for everyone

However as said before, it has to be handled on a case by case basis, and since HHampuz was thorough enough to spot these abusers, I trust him to be as thorough in the future as well.

Hhampuz, please consider adding a neutral rating for users you suspect of merit abuse. This would help enormously when they inevitably get themselves into other shady dealings down the road.

What you have noticed is a clear example of merit abuse, and you should not accept such users in the campaign. First for the reason that they are using alt accounts to merit their other accounts, and second because they think that you will not notice it.

I think campaign managers should set even higher demands when it comes to merit, 5 or 10 earned merit is actually a very small and insignificant number, very easy to reach for merit abusers.


This is also a good advice, with this rule you can prevent merit abusers to adjust number of merits for new announced campaigns.

Not much you can do against the accounts themselves.

• Of course don't accept them
• If you have the time, check if you can proove that merit sender and receiver are alt accounts
• Alternatively you can ask someone to look into it. There are some pretty smart "detectives" around
• Participate in the SMAS blacklist. Lutpin used to use it with the previous bitblender campaign - LINK
• If the merit abuse is blatant, cf the example for the sales thread, tag them read, or highlight me, I will happily oblige

Thank you all for the insight, it is much appreciated!

I never look at the merit earned as a definitive factor when accepting participants, I do check their post quality too (you'd be amazed at the shit I see), sometimes I just want to get more in touch with what the community thinks and  that's why I created this topic since there's always room for improvement on my end as well.

You've all given me a few things to think about and I'll probably start reporting the possible merit abuse that I see from now on. Honestly I've never really bothered with it before.

That was to reverse the effects of a merit source sending merit for reasons theymos disagreed with.

It was allegedly done to bypass an arbitrary rule, and I do not like arbitrary rules. There are many posts that are not objectively "high quality" (the intended purpose of the merit system) that receive merit. Campaign managers should stop being lazy and should review post quality of their applicants themselves.

While one might conclude this was 'abuse' based on the information in the OP, I don't think this is proven.

BINGO

Actually relying on any subjective metric that you can NOT provide a compelling case to demonstrate is not unfair, untrustworthy and shady leaves you open and the project open to serious and damaging criticism.

If you want clarity on what I mean there then just ask.

Manual review is the only way. If i were a project I would be very careful about the kind of subjective/misleading metrics  .
my campaign manager used as thresholds for entry.

It should be first come first served unless you can provide clear case that stands up to scrutiny why the person should not be allowed. Anything else could destroy the projects/your rep for good.

Campaign manager is a precarious position and one that needs to be squeaky squeaky clean. You also need a very credible and compelling case that will appear fair and trustworthy to present as the basis for every decision you take.

If accounts received just enough merit to satisfy the campaign requirements and their earned a bulk of it within the last minute, I'd say that's a solid proof that something fishy happened in the background and is grounds for blacklist/rejection but then again, no one can prove it quite exactly and correctly. Post history and quality is still something that should remain superior in accepting candidates IMO, with merit requirement being secondary as again, there are loads of really good posts out there in the wild that rarely gets the attention--not that I'm saying that merit requirement should be ditched all in all.

But it will be entirely on your discretion as a campaign manager to reject or accept. Merit earned in the last 120 days is just as good as merit earned IMO, but then again, it's entirely up to your judgment.

By setting a minimum Merit requirement, you already get rid of most of the spammers, which makes a campaign manager's life much easier. For the remaining accounts you still can't rely on Merit only, but all it takes is a quick check to see if they really qualify.
I've seen the last-minute Merit sales before from campaign participants. You can't absolutely prove it, so I wouldn't do anything more than reject and blacklist them.

The logical path would seems to be that of manually screening the candidates that meet the requirements, by cherry picking those that seem free of suspicion (looking over post history and merited posts). That is certainly time consuming, but since merits (and quality) is subjective, there is no other way to assert that the candidate’s merits are "legit".
 
There are a few other small things that may be considered at some point during a campaign design process, but that require a bit of additional information to be gathered.
For example, the preliminary number of merits to require can take into consideration the current stance on earned merits over 120 days per rank (in order to decide, for example, if placing the number of earned merits at one level or another could have enough potential candidates to start with). This is the distribution of earned merits over the 120 days (22/11/2018 .. 22/03/2019):



Ideally, if merits were to become a widespread use in campaign candidate selection processes, it would be nice to count on inner merit stats to facilitate the selection of the cut-off limits to use.

Changing your local rules from "Merit Earned" to "Merit Earned in the last 120 days" will not change a thing. Like you said, the possible merit abuse happened on the same day as you started your new campaign. You are the one making the decision who to accept so if you feel that someone is trying to deceive you just look for a more suitable candidate.

Both "Merit Earned" and "Merit Earned in the last 120 days" have pros and cons.

A user could have earned a significant amount of merits in the earlier days of the merit system and now due to real life issues has less time to post resulting in less merits earned. What you can do is try to get in touch with such a user telling him that you like his older posts but you have noticed that the quality/quantity of his posting has decreased. Ask him if can deliver an X amount of posts (like in the old days) if you select him for the campaign. That might just be the incentive he needs to improve the quality and quantity of his posts.

Some users suggested that you shouldn't consider merits earned from the day you started your new campaign. I wouldn't necessarily do it that way. The most important thing is what kind of posts got merited since the start of your campaign? If those are posts that you would merit yourself or you think they deserve merits - it shouldn't be a problem.     

 

I think the best solution to it is blacklist that user if you think that it is a possible merit abuse. But as you just said that just minutes ago they get the merits they need for the campaign, I guess there's something fishy going on at it. Though we can't say it's totally an abuse there should be an investigation on your part to be followed if you find something is unusual.

Merit abuse is against the rules on same cases in fact theymos remove manually merit sometimes like here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49936656.

The question is another one, in this case, is or is not redtrust worthy? for sure is an untrusted behavior since they did for bypass a rule.

We had a similar case in the past on stake's signature

The op accused one man to abuse the merit system for a contest paid in $ and in the end, even the OP admitted to had cheated to get money in the same contest. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/merit-abuse-by-wilburwilbur-5114255

Most likely, it is about Yatsan who probably is evading a ban at this moment: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50333329

Who are you referring to?

At the end of the day, there isn't really anything you can do. Officially, "merit abuse" is not against the rules. You can decide to ban the person from any of your campaigns if you wish, although I would first ensure their post quality is reflective of what you do not want in your campaigns.

You cannot blindly use merit as a basis for judging who to accept in your campaigns. There are a lot of people who have little merit who are very good posters, and there are people who receive a lot of merit from low effort posts. I would suggest having lower merit requirements than what you might otherwise want, and as a supplement to merit requirements, you can review their post history to ensure they have sufficiently good post quality, or you can ask applicants to present examples of posts that demonstrate their understanding of one of several topics posted at least several weeks ago.

How it will help to find the merit abuse or alt accounts by asking proof of authentication?

Proof of authentication is needed when people are applying through forms,so they need to post on the thread also to confirm that they are the real person applying for it since anyone can fill form with anyone's detail with their own address.

But in this case it will not help bro.

You are a manager, certainly more efficient and understand in detecting someone who has the potential for Merit fraud.
And accompanied by strong evidence.
But in my opinion it takes a rather boring time, in this case,
For that, a little leads to the rules: ( Topic: Merit & new rank requirements ) if viewed from a good post or not.

There is a tip from me that has been done by other managers on this matter, to find out that participants in your campaign are the same person either multi or merit, by displaying the Authentication link, it is clear that you know the same person who is participating in your campaign.

Example:
#Proof of Authentication:
Authentication Link:
Bitcointalk username:
Bitcointalk profile Link:

If you find cheating, I think, you can give a negative tag, or report to: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/known-alts-of-any-one-a-user-generated-list-mk-iii-2021-q2-2544574

---

The Authentication link code is the same, there you can see the same person if he uses one computer, Laptop, smartphone. by using crome, browser, phoinex or Firefox.

This account should not be accepted and also should be blacklisted from joining on your all campaigns in future as well.

Just accept the people even if they don't have enough merit requirements if they have good quality post history because normally high rank members won't receive merits due to the fact they are not in need of that to rank up anymore.

Don't accept the people only because they have enough merits.

Thank you for the kind words, they do mean a lot!

And sometimes I think these merit abusers are real smart.. Let me give you one example in a Campaign I opened up today without throwing the user under the bus (but if you look through applications you can find them).

Account has positive trust.
Account has earned 40 merit since the implementation of the system, but only 6 merit in the last 120 days.
Account had a sales thread for a painting that was not bumped for over 2 months, until my Campaign was posted.
Said Sales thread received 3 merit randomly 3 minutes after the bump (from a user with negative trust).

As you can see, the above should be considered merit abuse and what makes me sad is that the user that applied in the campaign probably would have been accepted even though they were short a merit or two as I did like their post history. It's sad, really.

Just wanted to see what other peoples thoughts were and I appreciate your input!

It is the basic fact.
Campaign managers are responsible to choose participants for their campaigns, so I don't think it is the one should be added to campaigns' rules.
Participants apply, and their applications will be taken into consideration if they satisfy including criteria and not violate excluding criteria of campaigns.
After that, get acceptance or not depends on the screening procedure of managers, who will check their post quality, trust points, and more things.

I think the only thing you can do about that is to simply state in the campaign requirements that you have the rights to not accept certain applicants regardless if they meet all the requirements; and simply just accept the ones that you think are legitimate users who don't abuse the merit system. Not sure if this is the best solution, but that's probably how I would do it at least.

The forum, with supports from merit system, and good managers, has jumped into new era, in which there is very less chance for shitty higher rank users get acceptance to join serios, high paid campaigns.
The era of self-made high rank users has started, and they will dominate serious, high paid campaigns soon.

---

Why not counted?
Merits born as one of tools to measure the level of constructive in the forum.
So, whenever posts/ topics received 'true' merits for its contributions, it's good.
Your suggestion is likely that 'real constructive' posts/ topics that received merits after campaigns announcements will automatically turn into un-constructive ones.
Let's look further a bit.
Such merited posts/ topics are unconstructive in one campaign, but will turn into constructive ones in others campaign (that announced mins/ hours later). It sounds a bit weird, and unlogical here, right?

---

I still have not found theymos' post, gave up for now.
By the way, I also remembered @LoyceV stated somewhere that newbies with 1 earned merit is more interesting than a Legendary without a single earned merit.

Most simplest solution that I can suggest you to change the requirement as below.

"You have earned "X" amount of merit in last 120 days but merits gained after publication of this OP will not be counted "

I'd say you're definitely right in assuming this, because we all know the lengths people will go to in order to get into a new campaign.  It isn't like the good old days when there were multiple new ones starting every week. 

The only thing I'd recommend is checking a suspected merit abuser's most recent earned merit--specifically, look at the post(s) that got merited.  You're the manager and I know very well you know what a good post is so if something looks fishy to you, just reject them.  If someone got merited for a shitpost, and especially if the merit sender is low-ranked and not well-known, there's a very good chance it's a merit sale.  You're not obligated to accept anyone anyway, and you don't have to give a reason.

The pain in the ass part is that you'd still have to spend time checking people's posts before accepting them, but I think to prevent cheaters from getting in, it's necessary.  It also shouldn't take too much time, because if someone bought merits it's not very likely that person has a long merit history.  Good luck and it's awesome you're still adhering to high standards.

It is a really good indicator for merit abusements.
However, it is just early indicator and does not make sure that those cases are really merit abusers.
Reasons:
- If those merited posts/ topics are really constructive, there is no reason to say they are merit abusers, even their latest merits earned come to their accounts few mins before they made applications.
Personally, I experienced myself that sometimes merits come to me in a row, with large amount, sometimes I have to wait for days, or weeks to get my next merit (huge gaps between two merits received).
- If those merited posts/ topics on which they have additional merits to satisfy your campaigns' requirements are bad posts/ topics, it might be a merit abusements.
However, in such cases, for small merit abusements, @theymos stated months ago, maybe early days after merit system activation in 2018, that insignificant merit abusers should not be tagged, because those ones will run out of merits sooner or later.

---

To sum up, if you find those insignificant merit abusers applied to your campaign, simply Ingore their applications. That's all, in my opinion at this point.

Well if I was in your shoes, I'll just take note of the suspected merit account abusers maybe store their username and how many merits they currently have earned somewhere and on my next campaigns I will increase the merit requirement depending unpon how long it took before new campaign was launched (maybe 1 more merit for each week). Now I'll look through those accounts to see those that receive enough merit to qualify for the campaign and file a report on reputation baord, I believe with those information you'll have enough reason to accuse them of abusing the merit system. For those that's a coincidence they'll appeal and maybe with their post record and post merit was received on, they will be pardon.

     I think it depends on how long your campaign has been up. If it has been quite a while, it could be someone who had an eye for the campaign and went to apply as soon as they achieved enough merit. You may want to look over the most recent merited posts and see if they are something that is deserving of merit. If they are uninteresting posts in mega-threads, it may raise red flags, especially if they are earning more than a merit or two per post.

That's a tough job indeed, and you have to differentiate the meaning of Merit Abuse.

If they've just received the merit after your posting of new campaign, it might be done intentionally just to qualify and it can be consider as a merit abuse but of course you still have to make proof on that which is hard to do so. You can just ignore them or try to raise a new topic on that so someone will also make their own investigation.

I think its better to change your "Merit Earned in the last 120 days" to "Merit earned 30 days before posting of this campaign".

I think it all boils down to your discretion as the campaign manager as you are the one who prescribes the rules and chooses participants.  If you think that they are abusing the merit system, then you can always ignore and move on!
There will never be a shortage of good posters here in the forum and you can always take your time to review each!

I think one possible solution may be checking their merited posts and see if they intentionally did the merit abuse. This may be a difficult job but I guess this can be a solution to problem!

Good luck, Hhampuz!

Alright so, I'm a campaign manager and whenever I launch a new Campaign I usually have merit requirements. Lately I've switched over from "Merit Earned" to "Merit Earned in the last 120 days" as I do want high quality people in these campaigns.

Now to the issue, more than once (both previously and right now), I have people applying in my Campaigns and when I go to check their merit received I can see that they just received enough merit to hit the requirement, in some cases it was done just minutes before they apply. Now, this is probably merit abuse as I don't buy that it happens as a coincidence. However, how can I prove it? Do I just deny these people due to the fact it's just assumption, do I take any other action against it? It happens with accounts in good standing too, green trust & very active users so I'm a bit torn.

Any insight is appreciated!