The problem is really that the top merit hoarders are hoping somehow to becoming merit sources, DT members and MODs. This is leading to a centralised power here that should be prevented before it goes to far. Already they are close to such a goal.
According to who? Is theymos telling you some secret criteria he uses to pick mods? Can you provide evidence of a single case where a member was added to Default Trust or chosen to be a moderator based on their merit score?
would I need to provide that.
I said they are hoping to be
Look at the proposed new mod suggestions draw your own conclusions.
@suchmoon
"Meaningless without providing those two user IDs. Seems to be based entirely on your allegation that top 200 merits and Meta merits are not indicative of post quality, not to mention the unclear definition of "better poster".
LOL I mean the entire fact you want a definition of "better post" or good post or it is meaningless completely substantiates my claim that you can not take merit at all as an correct measure of some objectively derived quality and is meaningless there is no objective criteria/definition given for its basis. The fact you can not see this is quite funny. Your entire statement is a only valid in your own mind to be anything other than word salad. I mean you just proved my entire point without even bothering with the data that demonstrates to anyone considering the fact that if you remove just 0.13% of users merit given that that same 0.13% is crushed by over 80% is well......
As to your other points which are nonsense I have answered I am responding to those directly posting nonsense as an explanation or bringing me up personally to discuss what I apparently predicted without stating my full criteria for those predictions then apparently proving me wrong whilst actually proving my predictions were quite accurate. Anyway It seems I was pretty near the mark so no need to discuss further.
Thanks for posting.
We can leave it there unless people want to continue discussing.