Quote from: TheQuin on March 09, 2018, 03:19:05 PM

Quote from: crypt0heaven on March 09, 2018, 03:11:26 PM

This made it virtually impossible to level up.

Even if I write a really high-quality post, maybe 100 people really like it but only 2 of them have spendable merit because they used it already.

I don't understand how this system is supposed to help anyone level up?

Instead, it just makes sure that the people who already put in the work previously, will be rewarded for it.

It's virtually impossible to gather 250/ 500/ 1000 merit scores if you don't have the rank yet.

Really? I started on 250 Merit as a Sr Member so I need 250 to rank up to Hero. Since 24th January I've got 147 of those so only another 103 to get. It takes 8.5 months to get the activity required, so this isn't going to slow people down at all, let alone make it impossible.

With all do respect, this is a false equivalence. I have looked at some of the posts you made, in particular that gained you many merits at once. And whereas you made undeniably fair and proper statements, gainig 30 merits for a short two sentences post, is disproportional, and has IMHO nothing to do with "quality". And please, don't get me wrong, I am not blaming you. I have received myself 10 merits for posts which I found completely undeserved, while other posts that I truly believed make some important, new contributions received 0.

I've read many comments here equating the quality of posts to the success of earning merits. From what I have seen how merits are awarded, this is not what really happens. Merits seem to me more akin to "likes" on Twitter or Facebook, than to a "fair" peer-review of quality. People seem to be MUCH more likely to give merits to short posts that express their own opinions rather than the quality of the post itself. Also, there are certain threads in which readers are more liberalrly spending merits than in others. A weak post in such a thread has a higher chance of gaining merits and a great post in a less visited thread with less "free flowing" merits.

I understand the rational for introducing the merit system, and if it manages to keep the scammers, serial fudders or brainless posters away, then great. But I do have an issue with comments that seem to imply that quality and merits go together and if somebody makes quality posts they will be rewarded with merits. Average posts and some large amount of luck that a like-minded generous reader stumbles upon the post, is more relevant for merits than quality.