1./ saying it works is not the same as demonstrating it does work optimally or even near optimally.
I have said myself the merit system works in some ways. That does not mean we can not improve and leverage merit to be a far more useful tool in several ways and more balanced system.
One improvement could be for you to stop hoarding those unicorns.
I can think of a few other improvements too, like actually using the tools already available while we wait for theymos to
implement changes, which could take years. I'm truly amazed at your ability to find so many things that are wrong while excusing yourself from any actual effort. How about some balance here too.
Just try to be more positive.
Theymos has actually said there is no harm in discussing new techniques and ideas to implement. I mean this is meta right?. I have no idea why you are so negative about things. Saying a car from the 1990's can be improved upon and even suggesting sensible methods of improvement and possible advantages is not negative or simply finding problems as you are trying to suggest.
You have proven previously with statements that you refuse to accept are ludicrous that you are not a person whom I would really care to to try to reach a sensible and well reasoned solution that was anywhere near optimal. Not in the state you are currently operating. You need be more open minded. Contain yourself to making accusations and statements you have thoroughly thought through and can answer questions on rather than ignore or pretend you did not say and also not get aggressive when you are tired out.
I would rather ask you now to tell me some valid reason to not discuss the ideas I have just proposed. I mean list now some possible flaws/disadvantages compared to the system we have now. I am sure there are probably some good ones else Theymos will have implemented this by now. I would expect he is probably quite well versed in game theory and things that can seem a great idea to a someone who is not may have actually suggested something with gaping holes and leave the board open for greater exploitation than it is open to now.
I sometimes think it is better to spend time discussing and perhaps contributing to make larger changes that will once implemented could save a lot of effort that is being spent now. That we are not approaching improving things for the board in the same way does not make either one less valid.
I mean I notice you said in the 2.5 Million users thread that you hope it took another 25 years for the next 2.5M to join. Now I understood what you meant by that but I think if we put systems in place to filter the net negatives out or hold them in sub boards away from contaminating the net positives then we can deal with a far greater number of new users without needing to expend so much effort (which i admit you are putting in). We just need to make sure the huge influx of new financially motivated posters who don't care about anything except gaining money are held contained with only those of their own kind where they can do little to no damage.