The irony of this thread? It looks like everyone in support of the OP is wearing a paid signature ad. Many of the people you will be penalizing are not. That should be the first sign that you're barking up the wrong tree.
Why should someone lose signature privileges because they don't post very often? Or because they're inactive for a while? Or because there's not enough merit to go around? Or because they're not in a social group that customarily merits each other (like Default Trust cliques, the Wall Observer regulars, etc)? How do you even know that merit distribution is adequate to begin penalizing those who don't earn it?
If some posters aren't receiving merit, it doesn't necessarily follow that
post quality is the determining factor, either. I've seen no change since I said this one month ago:
The merit system is very simple: Meritorious posts earn merit.
That may have been the stated intent. But is it generally true?
Some meritorious posts earn merit. We can agree on
that. Certainly, not all meritorious posts are even noticed, let alone merited. You have to wade through a lot of shitposting in e.g. Bitcoin Discussion to find quality posts, and regarding sMerit, I suspect that's not where peoples' energy is going.
It's natural for merit to be concentrated in Meta, too. "About the forum" sections tend to be the most community-oriented boards out there. And at its core, merit seems to function like a social media "like" button. I don't see how you can stop people from meriting posts they
like or
agree with, just as they do with "like" buttons. But something you find
agreeable =/=
quality or
noteworthy or
deserving of merit. Not by definition, and not by the stated intent of the system.
I'm not too concerned either way, but I think it's a tad dishonest for us to act like post quality is the only determining factor -- or even the most dominant factor -- in deciding merit. It's just not logical. There are social/psychological dynamics that are going unconsidered.
I've raised the matter in Meta a couple times, but no one responds. They just continue to cheerlead, "The merit system is working so great!" Well then, let's see some statistics, please. And a handful of anecdotal data points about "exceptional posters" isn't nearly enough (IMO) to start actively penalizing most forum members. My sense is that there's too much passing around of merit within social circles and not enough given for thoughtful posts.
And you can be damn sure that no matter how meritorious a post is, you will not receive merit if your opinions are not agreeable. Nobody hits the "like" button when Debbie Downer is bringing everyone down. But this is a fucking
forum. How popular you are (or the extent you're willing parrot popular opinions) shouldn't decide whether you can display a signature. It's fundamentally problematic to penalize people on such an uneven, subjective basis. That's the opposite of what a forum should be.
Do you want people to freely exchange ideas? Or do you want to create incentives so they post when they don't want to, and express ideas they don't agree with, just to make sure they crank out enough merit?
Merit can (and is being) gamed, and winners and losers will be created -- and not clearly as a matter of post quality. That's okay if the result is an unevenly distributed impediment on the ability to rank up. Big deal, right? But I don't think it's okay if we're talking about stripping basic forum functionality from most users. Fuck that.
I do understand your point. I did try and make the requirement as minimal as possible for this reason. One Merit in the last two months doesn't really require being that active. Also, it is only tempory as the signature is only hidden until they do get a merit point.
What's your basis for saying that? Your anecdotal experience in the context of the initial sMerit distribution? There are millions of forum members.
Something like users must earn 5 merits a months for their account to display a signature
I really hope theymos doesn't stand for this kind of bullshit.
I suggest prohibiting signature campaigns entirely as an alternative.