...
By now i have read a lot of posts by users who are merit sources and their explanations how they give merit and how their standards will not change etc. They all say they will read your posting history, that you have to have all quality posts... the hell.. everyone who has over 100 posts have some shit in their history.
...
Your argument is based on an exaggeration so it has no substance absent the exaggeration. I'm pretty sure you were referring to a comment made by The Pharmacist:
I got made a merit source this morning, which was a bit of a surprise since I hadn't ever applied to be one and have stated multiple times that I didn't want to be one. However, since Theymos has seen fit to saddle me with the responsibility, I'll accept it and take it seriously.
However, I don't plan to give merits to any old Newbie just for a typical crappy post, i.e., I don't plan to lower the standards that I've always had. What I do plan on doing is finding low-ranked members who actually deserve merits, and I'll pay more attention to noob posts when I see them.
...
Which was in my thread warning not to give merits to newly-demoted newbies if they have lots of posts in spam megathreads. This is not the same as saying don't give anyone merit if their post history is not totally free of shitposts, rather, to not accidentally undermine the goal that the new merit requirement for jr. members is attempting to achieve - namely, to remove the incentive to posting in spam megathreads just to ensure you meet your sig campaign posting quota.