This is actually not the first time Ive heard the idea of testing peoples self-confidence with a merit/trust gambling thread. But the version I heard before had a losing proposition of
negative trust feedback. Not a
neutral tag.
actmyname, I will take your wagerbut only on double-down terms: Twice whatever you give others, if you think my last 20 posts are overall meritoriousor a red tag from you, if you dont.Why?
I am against the whole concept of merit faucets. Straight from the early days of the merit system (while my merit score was still in double-digits), I argued that merit should only be earned
organically. The system will work optimally if merit is awarded only in the ordinary course of writing and readingthe production, consumption, and trade of
thoughts.
A faucet offering +1 might be relatively benign; but if somebody stands to gain a whopping +14, that person should take a serious risk on his self-confidence. A formally neutral tag is not a sufficient risk of loss, regardless of its comment.
Think youre good? Prepare to be richly rewarded, if youre rightor shot at dawn, if youre wrong.Now, here is what I wrote as to this suggestion before:
Elitist that I am, I approve of the idea.... But be forewarned... [such a wager] would wind up red-tagging a
large crowd of quite sincere people who are neither spammers nor beggars.
As a basic fact of human nature, the vast majority of people innately lack the capacity for accurate self-judgment. The few exceptions are perforce exceptional in other ways, and thus would never need [a merit gamble].
Take me, for example. I would [take this wager], if I
needed it to rank up. Indeed, I have sufficient confidence in myself to use myself as this examplewhereas I know that if my self-assessment be inflated, I would come off with empty conceits, and thus lose [] respect. But I wouldnt and dont need to ask for merit, on any terms whatsoever. Im not saying that on the basis of my current merit score... I started with zero, less than a month ago.
Now, take
a contrary example.
Observe that hilarious awarded me +5 for lancing an apparently sincere persons abysmal misjudgment of the quality of his own poor, unrecognized posts. I think that demonstrates my point both ways; and despite this sample size being unscientifically small, general experience with human nature will show it to be widely applicable.
OP there seemed confident. He was not even hitting a faucet: He started a thread to criticize the merit system, largely on the evidentiary basis that his own most excellent posts had gone unnoticed. I dont doubt that he put significant
effort into his posts; and this may have the substantive basis of his self-confidence, whereas only the smartest students truly understand why professors do not award As for effort. He may very well have been sufficiently confident to risk red distrust.
I do need to take back the part about not asking for merit on any terms whatsoever, insofar as since then, I
have hit a merit faucetonce. Its run by one of the wittiest men on the forum; and I did it not from any need for the offered +1 to rank up, but rather, to fulfill a sentimental wish that merit be awarded to a post dear to my heart:
Ignoring the principal rule of this thread, I here present not what I claim to be my
best post, but rather, the post which constituted
my debut in the Development & Technology Discussion forum. It is the ninth post in my accounts history, made three days after I actively started posting.
Let us see if this post be truly Nullian:
- Pro-Segwit? Check.
- Quotes Greg Maxwell? Check.
- Like, technical and stuff? Check.
- Explains that miners have exactly one function, Byzantine fault-tolerant ordering of transactions? Check.
- Insults the stupid and the Btrash of the world? Check.
- Sprinkled liberally with informative hyperlinks? Check.
- Diatribe? Check. Alternates between solemn seriousness and scathing sarcasm? Check.
- Asks, Cui bono? Check.
- Uses two spaces after a full stop and Unicode fancy quotes? Check; and, check!
I suppose its mine!
Though I am quoting it per the rules, I do hope that this link will be clicked (
hint, hint). The post feels so lonely, now sliding down to page 40 of my post history. It has not been awarded any meritnone! This is my first time ever hitting a merit faucet; and thus, now is my chance to
whine justly complain about how
nobody notices Newbie-ranked posts:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2469397.msg25696091#msg25696091[snip]
I have also recently gained much more merit than that (+15) by winning a contest.
The contest is for a good cause: Encouraging post quality through a sportsmanlike
competetion, and building a healthy culture against signature spam. Only the top three contestants each week can get anything at all. It also awards some modest monetary prizes, which are a considerable motivation to me: Its a chance to be paid something for
not wearing a paid signature. I think thats distinguishable from a faucet, where everybody can win (at least till the faucet runs dry).
Now, I ask to hit a faucet againbut with a counteroffer to the terms offered. I do this to prove a point, to wit:
This is how a merit faucet should be run, and this is how a wager ought be done: If my last 20 posts are judged by you to be overall the work of a meritorious member of this forum, then please give +14 to the OP in my
😈😈😈 PGP 256% AIRDROP BOUNTY SIGNATURE SPAM CAMPAIGN! Old-school CRYPTO 😈😈😈, an +14 to the
very first post by my new role account. If not, then
red-tag me to hell as a spammer with a serious case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
0 Both of me.Double trouble. Let me make a real bet!
Ante up.
0. The term is put in scare quotes, so as to not let Dunning and Kruger enjoy the cognitive bias of overestimating their own achievement. The phenomenon of self-overestimation has been known to students of human experience ever since man first turned a philosophical eye on his fellow men.