Being very conservative with your sMerit (until we know the details of the decay and whatnot), actually boosts the fight against spam. It does also reinforce the negative side of the system, i.e. making it hard for constructive users to get merit. Therefore, it's a double edged sword (both being and not being conservative is).
That's an interesting way of looking at it. I was approaching it from the other angle, thinking about using it liberally (albeit with standards) in order to fight against spam. I've been forced into using it conservatively because of my initial lack of merit, so it's possible that I'm just working from a "grass is greener" mindset, I suppose. As you said, it's a double edged sword and there's no way of knowing how the other one would/could play out, because we can only take one path at a time; it seems we both acknowledge there's ups and downs to either. Although I don't feel confident saying that one is better than the other now, which is to say you've at least changed my mind somewhat.
I do not check whether a user is on the SMAS list or not before I send them merit as that would be too time consuming
Well, then that is different from the impression I got at first and I see no problem with how you are doing things. Definitely not harmful to the merit system, I apologize for impulsively labeling your thought-process without more information. I can live with :
your case is an exception
, on multiple fronts.
I also believe that we shouldn't solely judge people based on their post quality when giving merit. Would you give merit to a known scammer? How about a known account farmer? Obviously, it is highly likely that they would abuse it and thus I would not give them anything.
A decent dosage (but not too much) of assessing the user before giving merit (especially in larger quantities) would be optimal.
You're right, I agree that we shouldn't solely judge them on their post quality when giving merit either (though this would be
ideal if practical). I wouldn't want to give merit to a known scammer, because as you said they would most likely abuse it. Although it would be optimal, in my opinion, if it were the case that merit were not abuse-able in the manner of being seeing as "trustworthy". I suppose I am speaking of an ideal and you are speaking in the present, which makes our approaches very conflicting, it would seem. You put it nicely :
Of course. I would not claim that someone shady or a *boogie-man* (as you've put it) would never be able to produce a quality post.
It will be a long road until we reach the state where the general consensus is the following: A high merit count does not make the poster credible; but individual posts with high merit count are credible/useful/constructive. The former is definitely going to be state that we will find ourselves in for a long time, especially given the practical experience we gained from the trust system (people naturally think a *green user* is definitely trustworthy/credible; this is not the case).
Once (or if) we reach the former, then I wouldn't mind meriting such people for deserving posts.
Okay. I can agree with this, we are not at a point where this is the case and so it would seem necessary to approach merits with an increased level of caution until we are closer to this ideal. Relating it to trust, people do not do their research and dive in head-first thinking other users did the leg-work for them; then they are criticized for their ratings and feedback, even still users are incautious about green-trusted users. It seems like if we find ourselves in the "ideal" then you would be willing to do exactly as I am suggesting, which is perfectly reasonable.
Optimally, we wouldn't need such bounties. However, given the state that the forum is in, it will take as a while to get there.
Agreed, which is why in the meantime I am trying to find any sort of solution that would be acceptable, even to a conservative merit-sending such as yourself.
It seems like we agree more than we disagree and a lot of the disagreement seems to stem from miscommunication.
Indeed, which is why the long posts are being exchanged.
I'll try my best to be more concise and quote as little as necessary. I enjoy the dialogue, you've changed my mind on a few things and clarified yourself on others that allow me realize we agree on those, as well.
The only question (unless you have your own) that remains is whether or not you think it would be realistic, possible or helpful to implement what I am proposing in any context under any criteria?