But isn't this attitude counter-productive? We're meant to be rewarding users who make decent posts and if a user makes one then that post probably should be merited. I get your logic though ~
But on the other hand I'm with DdmrDdmr too:
~A decent post does not make up for a lame prior posting history. ~
I'm mostly in DdmrDdmr's camp, too, but I also get the point hilariousandco is making. If newbies haven't made at least a couple of decent posts in the month since the new requirements for jr. member took effect then it's probably safe to say they will never get better. Conversely, if a former shitposter/bounty hunter has managed a few good posts in that time then I am less opposed to meriting them. I, personally, won't merit anyone whose post history mostly consists of bounty reports, but that's just a personal preference and, like I said, I see the point hilariousandco is making w/r/t encouraging those users who (might) have realized the error of their shitposting ways.