Quote from: Lauda on February 04, 2018, 02:51:43 PM

Quote from: EthanB on February 04, 2018, 02:24:43 PM

This is one of the things that I think is harmful to the merit system.

It absolutely is not. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. There is no obligation to do anything, especially not when you are not a merit source. Were I one (and no, I do not think I am ever going to apply for this), I would probably reconsider my position. The SMAS list is only effective if it is used as intended; a filter. People who are on the list also do not realize that they should improve themselves for their own and the forum's sake, not improve themselves in order to get off of the list/back into a campaign.

I don't think I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the system, however I may have misspoke when I said it is "harmful" to the merit system. You are right, there is no obligation to do anything and this is why I believe I have misspoke. I was not implying that you have any obligation to grade their homework, but I was saying that it could be helpful to our overall goal of improving the quality of posts if you were to reconsider your stance. Again though, since you are not a merit source it is more than likely a waste of your time and merit to review these people posts out of the blue. I was simply saying that when you come across someone that you would've merited, until you realize they're on your list it is a missed opportunity for rehabilitation and positive reinforcement. I know this is not your obligation, but it would seem mutually beneficial for everyone involved.

I will agree that almost everyone on that list does not realize their posting habits are unhealthy for the forum and detrimental to whatever they are trying to accomplish as individuals as well. I was not saying anything about getting off the list for a campaign, just was saying when someone has made the necessary adjustments it might be best to not hold-back merit after they have realized these things. You're your own person, you do with your merit as you wish, this is simply my perspective at the moment and my perspective is always shifting.

Quote from: Lauda on February 04, 2018, 02:51:43 PM

Quote from: EthanB on February 04, 2018, 02:24:43 PM

It would seem the system is meant to reward good posts, not avoid rewarding good posts because you don't like something about what they said in a completely irrelevant thread/post(s).

I'm extremely conservative with the trust system and this is likely (already is) going to manifest itself also with my usage of the merit system.

Fair; It is your merit, use it as you wish. I have no problem disagreeing with a small detail on how you distribute your merit as an individual, as long as it doesn't become intentionally malicious. I don't believe filtering certain users from your merit is going to be the end of the world, I just would hate to see the merit system being used as a popularity contest rather than a meritocracy, which was the heart of my point. If too many users begin throwing the contingency that "I also must approve of your character/behavior entirely" before handing out merit we will quickly catch ourselves in a dystopian regulation of our thought-crimes.

Quote from: Lauda on February 04, 2018, 02:51:43 PM

Yeah, and? As long as you do not annoy me about it, you will get processed eventually. My PM queue is often long, and SMAS reviews are not priority given the high denial rate.

And nothing, I am in no rush to be removed, it does not affect me significantly. I understand you have your own things to do, rather than worry about people that have already proven themselves to be clueless and harmful to the forum. I'm sure you get spammed by the same people daily asking to be removed or asking for how they can improve their posts, I get it and I'm not negating the hard-work you do to maintain that list. I was only trying to make the point that with your queue being so long and it taking awhile to respond to SMAS removals it may be the case that someone has made tremendous strides towards improving themselves and now they are being filtered twice essentially. They are being ignored for merit, when they may deserve it, because you are too busy to review their SMAS status. I was getting at maybe allowing the SMAS to be for Signature Campaigns and let the Ignore list be for the users you don't care what they have to say, rather than mixing the two into a SMAS/SMAM (Against Spam/Against Merit). I'm being a little flippant. but I hope my point is not entirely lost.

Quote from: Lauda on February 04, 2018, 02:51:43 PM

While aspiring to be very rational/logical, that does not work in practice at all (an exception would be where the other side is actually equally rational/logical which is almost never the case with humans; 99% of the people you encounter/interact with will be irrational). It is very naive and will easily lead to believing lies from smart manipulators/psychopaths and scammers (see Quickseller et. al.).

Obviously there would need to be caveats and contingencies for this to be a proper thought-process. I know Quickseller is the boogie-man around here and you should not trust them with a trade or your money. However, there is an almost equal possibility (especially if they are logical, as you put it) that these people will produce technical information or guidance that is universally accepted still and merit-able. I'm saying nobody is a two-dimensional villain and they have equal capacity to produce high-quality information that is not misleading or malevolent. The merit system is not meant to tell you how trustworthy the writer is, it is meant to tell you who thinks this information is high-quality. The trust system already does a solid job at alerting users what these people have been up to. Maybe I am naive, but is it detrimental to believe someone like this if they are only providing information that has been vetted through the public? Meriting their quality posts would seem to help the public navigate through their posts to determine which are lies and which are actually helpful. I'm not saying we seek out these scammers to merit their good-deeds, but adding an extra layer of trust to the merit system would seem a mistake.

Oh, and I would also say that spammers and scammers are not in the same category and I would ask you the consider making a distinction. We're talking about meriting people on your SMAS, but then to mention QS seems to be disingenuous and making a false-equivalency. I understand you're just giving an example, and a good one, I'm sure you already see a distinction, but for the sake of your "Merit rule" I am discussing.

Quote from: Lauda on February 04, 2018, 02:51:43 PM

It's a general statement building up on your suggestion. That is, if we allow this kind of bounty, then we really need to make sure we do not move the goalpost eventually to other types (as mentioned in my previous post).

I agree, I just wasn't sure if you were misunderstanding my proposal/suggestion. Alright, I can get behind that as well then; I was fearful thinking you were hinting that I was deserving of being tagged for suggesting or "participating" in this kind of thing. I think that merits should be given as merits to posts that have earned them, not given out as signature campaign rewards or other irrelevant "contests"/giveaways.

It seems like we agree more than we disagree and a lot of the disagreement seems to stem from miscommunication.