I still think that merit system is kind of flawed in some way since it's not defined by any rules then just:"Give to what you think it's meritable", so with that if a threat requires for a specific answer, first 'correct' one should be merited and threat locked, but just take a look at those threads with 3 pages of dogshit information and the answer given in the second post.
It would be difficult to define other people's opinion by setting rules determining what should be merited and what shouldn't be. If this was ever to be the case, them users should not own smerits, an algorithm could be used to give merits to those posts which reach the criteria.
The human touch is what the merit system has, it may be flawed in some way but it doesn't need to be changed. Much less by adding an upvote or downvote system.
That's what I'm saying, it can't be because objectivity, but up/down vote would be a more realistic display since let's say 10 people find one comment helpful that person would receive one merit.
To receive merit, your post must look constructive to those who have merit but not necessarily to those who found it helpful.