Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Post
Topic
Board Meta
Merits 4 from 1 user
Re: Merit & new rank requirements
by
nioschka
on 28/01/2018, 01:14:37 UTC
⭐ Merited by wwzsocki (4)
Quote from: theunbeatable on January 27, 2018, 11:32:34 PM
Quote from: HabBear on January 27, 2018, 09:51:38 PM
Please accept my apologies if this has been discussed, I'm not reading through 82 pages.


Currently, the forum's general protocol frowns heavily on the act of asking for positive trust in return for a transaction. Hell, I've been given negative trust (unfairly) for simply stating that I would conduct a transaction for free if the other person would consider giving me trust equal to the experience.

Should the sam rule apply, more seriously, to merit?

I just came across a post where someone explained a simple idea and then said "if you like my idea, send me merit." There is no negative merit, so an ask like this seems more serious than asking for trust.

What's the consensus here, if someone is asking for merit should they be penalized or ostracized or "corrected" as to the correct forum protocol to not do so?

Theymos stated that : Do not beg for merit excessively.
The trust system and the merit system are a two different thing, merits have been designed to improve the quality of posts of those who are here in this forum, and yes there is a consensus here. Because the merit system is different from the trust system you can have negative trusts if you are begging, selling and buying merits.
In simple terms terms you can have -100 plus trust rating even and have 1000 plus merits at the same time. Wink
Does anyone actually believe that the merit system will "improve the quality of posts"? You guys think that a bunch of people (not to mention certain national groups, but it will happen in that way, for sure) won't start to give each other merits for posts like "good sir, when airdrop"? I don't believe that the system was designed for the improving of the overall quality in the first place: it was designed for the slowdown of the forum activity. Quality will more or less remain the same, it's obvious. But what worries me is the existence of these "Gods of Merits" who can show their merit mercy upon their lobby champs, and rage upon the sinners. Was that really necessary? Couldn't that be done in some other way, without showing the muscles? Would someone from the management explain us why that title was introduced, maybe I've missed a philosophical idea that exists in the background of that act (which I won't call the act of absolutist power, although the resemblance is stunning)? Do you think that the act is in line with the very essence of the decentralized Bitcoin nature and everything else that blockchain technology represents, comparing to the banks, states, companies and other bs creations? Will any of these Gods give me 150 merits, so I can move to the next rank? I don't believe so. Will they deny merits to Satoshi because they don't know that it was Him who has written a "low quality" post? Will they give him merits if they learn that it was He who has written the "good sir, when airdrop" thing? Do we really need to associate personalities with the addresses/nicks and to introduce such a state-like central power to Bitcoin and communities that surround it? If management was concerned about the quality of posts, I think a lot simpler and more repressive system of, for example, some negative merits or something similar could be introduced. So, please, don't talk about "quality of posts" anymore 'cause it hurts intelligence. Hail to the Gods ('cause they give merits)! And cheers to everyone else ('cause they make the Bitcoin and the existence of Gods possible)!