I think people are missing the point of the merit system. It's to stop the worst of the worst from ranking up just by posting rubbish, not to punish higher ranks. If you write complete trash then you don't get merit. Stick to claiming bounties. If you want to be able to earn by posting then I think you should have to be qualified to do so and I think getting ten merit would be a good aptitude test for that. One isn't, especially some of the crap people are getting merited for.
This is why I'd prefer a higher merit requirement to get a signature. Anyone can get a solitary merit whether they beg or buy or trade it. It's real risky giving one merit to someone because that's all they need to be able to earn here and they could be a colossal shitposter who just makes one half decent post or has in fact copied it from somewhere and that's something you've sadly got to be aware of. Requiring ten merit would lessen the chances of this abuse happening and them luckily getting one or two merit in whatever nefarious way won't matter too much, but when it's just one it's Christmas come early for them if they can get it.
I think Theymos has mentioned that he might create another rank above Legendary in the future. "Mythical" perhaps?
He has said he may do that, but he also put my suggestion for a new higher rank in the "no or net yet category" (though he also put the one merit requirement there so I have hope).
Bitcoin and Alt coin Discussion are both colossal shitheaps and trying to find a merit-worthy post in there is like trying to find an AIDS-infected needle in a fetid, decaying haystack. I hardly even bother posting in there because any half decent post is just drowned out by streams of crap from sig spammers and that's something that needs to change. As long as ICO campaigns can get away with paying people to post crap then nothing will change, especially not a mere one-merit requirement. To make a difference here we would probably have to remove signatures completely from everyone until they've actually earned a good bit of merit. Then we really would notice a difference in posting because if you haven't proved your worth here then you haven't eared your right to earn via posting.
Wat? So you're saying pretty much 99% of my posts are useless and shouldn't be merited? 99% of my posts are in Meta and half of them are probably suggestions of how to make this place better, one of them which was implemented recently, so I'm not sure why my contributions should be discarded or not be meritable.
With the new changes I had to add another criteria a day ago. I will merit newbies only after at least 20 activity, once I clearly see that they are "humans", that they haven't spammed nor made activity rising one-liners and that they are trying to learn, help others and following the basic rules. At least I will make sure that newbies have given some value to the forum and at the same time they are encouraged by the built-in "gamification" of the forum ranks.
This is why I'd prefer a higher merit requirement to get a signature. Anyone can get a solitary merit whether they beg or buy or trade it. It's real risky giving one merit to someone because that's all they need to be able to earn here and they could be a colossal shitposter who just makes one half decent post or has in fact copied it from somewhere and that's something you've sadly got to be aware of. Requiring ten merit would lessen the chances of this abuse happening and them luckily getting one or two merit in whatever nefarious way won't matter too much, but when it's just one it's Christmas come early for them if they can get it.
I see no point in giving merits to legendaries.
I think Theymos has mentioned that he might create another rank above Legendary in the future. "Mythical" perhaps?
He has said he may do that, but he also put my suggestion for a new higher rank in the "no or net yet category" (though he also put the one merit requirement there so I have hope).
Yes, some of the section where there are multiple merit deserving posts and quality contents are just very low in the list.
I think this sections should have more merit circulation than meta
1. Bitcoin Discussion
2. Alt-coin Discussion
3. Development and technical discussion
This is the biggest flaw of merit system until now because the main reason of this forum is to discuss about the bitcoin and new crypto projects but meta and local board have more number of merit circulation that the main discussion board so still we need to make some tweaks in the merit system.I think this sections should have more merit circulation than meta
1. Bitcoin Discussion
2. Alt-coin Discussion
3. Development and technical discussion
Bitcoin and Alt coin Discussion are both colossal shitheaps and trying to find a merit-worthy post in there is like trying to find an AIDS-infected needle in a fetid, decaying haystack. I hardly even bother posting in there because any half decent post is just drowned out by streams of crap from sig spammers and that's something that needs to change. As long as ICO campaigns can get away with paying people to post crap then nothing will change, especially not a mere one-merit requirement. To make a difference here we would probably have to remove signatures completely from everyone until they've actually earned a good bit of merit. Then we really would notice a difference in posting because if you haven't proved your worth here then you haven't eared your right to earn via posting.
And also merits distributed in META were totally useless in my opinion so I am asking theymos to remove the merit button from the meta section then we can concentrate on the bitcoin discussion of our forum. 
Wat? So you're saying pretty much 99% of my posts are useless and shouldn't be merited? 99% of my posts are in Meta and half of them are probably suggestions of how to make this place better, one of them which was implemented recently, so I'm not sure why my contributions should be discarded or not be meritable.