I see no reason at all for "merit" being the sole determinant for the key positions in a trust system.
You might not see a reason, but other people did. That's not something you can simply disregard. And then some people expressed their view that it might warrant being a larger amount of merit than initially suggested, just as a precaution. It's also worth pointing out that the posts I linked to earlier had no hostility in their tone. It was merely people demonstrating concern for the overall well-being of the forum and not wanting to see this new system easily gamed or manipulated. Perhaps that's a view you share, but you're going about it in a very caustic and abrasive way. There's no need to turn this into a witch-hunt by finding a culprit to blame for the way in which it changed. I'm sure all the salient points will be evaluated and reviewed, but I don't think your current approach to the issue is doing your cause any favours. Clearly you feel strongly about the matter, but from what I've seen of your various posts about this, it only seems to provoke hostility from others in return towards you.
It's undoubtedly something theymos is keeping an eye on, as they stated this was a 'see-how-it-goes' kinda deal:
I am never completely tied to anything, but let's try this for at least a few months and see how it works.
That is a very sensible post and I know actually it to be a truthful account of part of my current situation.
However let's analyse this.
1. Suggesting or debating anything in "meta" is not like discussing it with the entire board. The same few people hang out here who also happen to be the beneficiaries from the "merit" system. WHY? because meta board is merit board. You see more merit handed out here for discussing "merit" than anywhere else. So discussing the importance of "merit" here with those that are the main beneficiaries of the "merit" system is going to be met with a lot of replies about how important merit is for everything under the sun.
2. Those persons commenting on how LOW 100 earned merits is for DT key positions are.
a/ part of the merit cycling club
b/ meta board posters (99% of the board don't know about meta board or never visit it)
c/ self confessed trust abusers and those that support proven liars and trust abusers knowingly.
d/ have self interest and motive to suggest a higher level
e/tman?? a provably demented and untrustworthy turd. He has never made one original thought inspiring important post ever. I asked him to provide one and he vanished like a fart in a hurricane. The very notion that anything he says could be a "good" idea obviously ranges anywhere between very unlikely through highly improbable to basically impossible.
3/ Those persons saying that 100 is too low are not considering the activity threshold of 1500 or 2000 so really we can't say they provided any insight into why "merit" alone should have anything to do with trust or why it could be "better" than combining "merit" with activity.
I agree with you that I take a caustic tone of late. However, review my post history for the previous 6 years and you will find that I generally only take this tone with persons that I consider scammers, untrustworthy or that take that tone with me first. I am the victim of blatant trust abuse and will not even consider altering my tone until those scum bags are removed from DT or they undo their trust abuse. Even then my opinion that those that have demonstrated they are untrustworthy (liars, trust abusers, sneaky sock puppet sig spammers ) or if they are knowingly supporters of untrustworthy persons should be kept away from positions of trust will never change. There is no shortage of legends with clean (free from observably untrustworthy deeds and actions) pasts on this board... we are not that desperate that we need proven liars and self confessed trust abusers and other dirt bags in positions of trust.
Tone though to me should be secondary to content. So I hope those really wanting the best for this board and wish to see free speech flourish here take note of what is currently happening with this board. Regardless of the manner the information is presented. Find the truth that is all that is important.
There are 3 simple options here
1. tighten up the systems to prevent abuse
2. make sure those that would try to abuse them are not part of the systems of control
3. remove the systems
as i warned previously these systems of control set up as they are very dangerous for this movement, better to have no systems of control at all (trust)
merit is good at stopping account farmers. In its current state (merit) it is dangerous to apply any other meaning to it.
