Quote from: TMAN on February 03, 2018, 02:46:21 AM

@nullius. I do like the cut of your gib.

You are what is making the merit system awesome. A non pajeet Inteligent and eloquent poster and guess what.. you have received a fuck ton of merits for your rank..

Keep it up fella, can't wait to see you with 1k merits so I can point the moaning pajeets at your profile and tell them to fuck off as you are proof theymos was correct with the implementation

Thanks. Feel free to point to me already. For my part, Ive been flaunting my merit score to whiners of all kinds. Some might take that as tooting my own horn; but I dont care, becausewell, zeroth of all, I just dont care about that. First of all, I neednt boast when the number is printed right below my name. But it sure feels good to rub it in the faces of all the self-entitled nincompoops who loudly demand that they should be able to rise in rank, when they cant or wont make good posts.

Quote from: HabBear on February 03, 2018, 05:30:42 AM

Cheers, HabbyB

Cheers!

Quote from: hilariousetc on February 03, 2018, 05:42:56 AM

Maybe they should stop complaining.

That.

Quote from: hilariousetc on February 03, 2018, 05:42:56 AM

I wouldn't be against certain restrictions like one account can only be created per ip,

As a Tor user, I would strongly object to that. It is likely that many accounts have been created from whatever exit IP I happened to use when I created mine. I paid the requisite fee to absolve myself of that IPs evil. But had there been any restriction on accounts created per IP, then I would not be here at all.

Whitelising Tor for multiple accounts created per IP would not be a solution. Tor is not the only anonymity solution; and moreover, a whitelist of Tor exits would simply mean that all users who wanted to create many accounts would use Tor for that. Its likely that many of them already do, anyway.

Of course, as an anonymity network user, I focus on that aspect. What about ISP proxies and carrier-grade NAT? Due to IPv4 exhaustion, carrier-grade NAT is increasingly common nowadays. A single IP address can map to many people, each of whom has no choice in the matter other than to swich ISPs. In a market with an ISP monopoly, or where all local ISPs use carrier-grade NAT, they may have no choice at all.

The notion of some quasi-bijective mapping between people and IP addresses is a common fallacy; as such, IP addresses are far too much abused and mistaken as some sort of identity token or identity limiter. The worst part is, professional spammers, blackhats, and other net abusers have access to huge collections of IPs. They suffer the least from such restrictions. I recall theymos saying that part of the reason why his homebrew anti-DDoS system failed was that attackers had thousands of IPs. So do many other abusers.

Quote from: hilariousetc on February 03, 2018, 05:42:56 AM

Quote from: Naitik on February 02, 2018, 06:24:22 PM

If these things can't happen, then they have to introduce a panel of experts who will give merit points to quality posts without any discrimination.

How can any panel of experts be free of 'discrimination'?

The whole point is to discriminateto be highly discriminating between high-quality and low-quality posts. As a discriminating conoisseur of fine words, I urge discrimination and intolerance against worthless drivel.

What Naitik evidently desires is that merit be awarded indiscriminately, to forum poetry and one-liner garbage posts alike. I think that speaks much as to his motives.