Quote from: boranes on March 16, 2018, 10:26:46 AM

Your definition of spammer is someone who has never been merited. Shocked

That wasn't quite what I meant, I said they were easy to spot because most spammers have not received any merit. That's not the same as everyone who has no merit is a spammer.
So if my suggestion was implemented^* it would not be saying that anyone whose signature is hidden is a spammer, just that they didn't do enough to earn the privilege.

I did say this earlier but it is worth repeating and expanding on a little. This forum is pretty unique in allowing members to benefit from being given some advertising space under their posts. That's a privilege, not a right and it's given in return for providing content to the forum. I think it is pretty reasonable theymos brought in the merit system as a way of trying to halt the influx of spammers that have taken advantage of this generosity on his part. Of course, you can argue it is not a perfect system, it can be gamed (for a while), some deserving people miss out.... etc. But can you devise a better way? Or even if you think you can, then remember that theymos is the boss here and we are his guests, so just accept this is the way he is doing it.

theymos has already said that if the merit system fails to stop the shitposting then the next step he will take is to remove signatures altogether. I think that is punishing everyone for the actions of some and I think my suggestion reduces the collateral damage. I can't devise a system to completely eliminate it but if anyone can I'll listen to it.

Quote from: boranes on March 16, 2018, 10:26:46 AM

Do we have statistics about:
How many accounts are unmerited?
How many accounts have never merited any one?
How many accounts merited friends?
Bought merits?
Exchanged merits?
Sent merit to alt accounts?
Sent merit because someone said something against person they don't like?

The first two will be answerable with a bit more work. People like LoyceV have started on that sort of data. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3078328

The next 5 questions pertain to abuse of which there has been much. But that is a big part of why I came up with this idea. Having an ongoing requirement to keep signatures on display would force them to use up all their sMerit and at some point in the future, they'll be f***ed.

The last question follows into this:

Quote from: boranes on March 16, 2018, 10:26:46 AM

How many merits were sent because 2 persons have the same point of view of certain things? Do you have an example where someone has sent merits even if they disagreed? If you don't agree with someone you won't send him merit, that is how merit works in 99.99999% situations.

I sent you merit because you made constructive post, but I don't agree with anything written in it.

Hurray! I am not spammer any more! THANK YOU JET CASH! Cheesy

This is one of the imperfections, people will use it as a 'like' button. But is anyone really alone in their opinion rather than opinion being split and there being people on both sides with merit to give?

I do hope as time goes by that the supply of merit is increased substantially and all constructive posts receive merit. Until then we have a tight budget and many will go unrewarded but I don't think it will always be that way.

* It won't be, so no need to worry. The only staff member to reply is SaltySpitoon and he is against the idea.

Edit:

Quote from: boranes on March 16, 2018, 10:26:46 AM

Do you have an example where someone has sent merits even if they disagreed?

I've noticed Foxpup gave me 6 merits for the OP of this post and also gave merit to 4 replies including this from SaltySpitoon https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3122415.msg32297210#msg32297210 and this from squatter https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3122415.msg32334973#msg32334973 both of disagreed with me. So I don't know Foxpup's view but he seems OK with giving merit to both sides of a debate.