Some interesting questions. I guess I can get around answering them.
Would you say that you are a part of any Clubs, Groups, or indeed Gangs here on Bitcoin talk?
For one, there's certain behaviors I consider admirable. For example, being helpful, analyzing information on bitcointalk, creating tools for the community and more.
Things I don't like include unfounded drama, baseless allegations, but also allegations where the complainant isn't the harmed party. It seems that in some cases bitcointalkers are especially passionate about digging up dirt on each other. I had written about this more extensively in my post here.
[...] We don't need guidance from an authoritative figure or a high priest to figure out what's right and what's wrong.
What would really help is a change in sentiment. High ranking members of this community find ways to accuse each other, and when so many man hours end up being spent trying to find faults in each other, it ends up just being disappointing. Most saddening part to me, is that members of this forum tend to take sides when a dispute arises, even if it's about the most minuscule things and it's obvious that the accuser tries really hard to build an accusation even though there might have been no harmed parties forming an accusation.
How about, next time there's a spat between two forum members, they get no attention unless evidence is presented? In my very humble opinion, biased reports formed out of spite should result to shunning, with the accuser getting out of trust lists. What's currently happening in my view, is that other members form bandwagons by picking a side, with huge arguments going on and bloated threads over minuscule points related to relatively subjective matters such as ethics, laws etc.
[...]
Aside of that I wouldn't say I have any favorites or least favorites in terms of users,
Clubs, Groups, or indeed
Gangs etc..
Do you feel that you are unbiased?
In terms of bias towards users of bitcointalk; I'd like to believe that over my last few years here I haven't contributed to any major drama by taking sides. In terms of impartiality in general now... I think the ideal way to judge content on bitcointalk by is to look at the content first and consider its own merits (or faults). Then consider motives and give the least amount of attention to who's producing the content. People with bad trust can be capable of producing high quality content, just like how previously highly trusted users can be implicated in controversial dealings.
How would you distribute merits? One per post? Ten merits per post? Some skewered in one direction, but not another?
I think there's a standard set of values that can make posts merit-worthy here. Quality, effort, research, presentation, informativeness, sources and more... Most can go without saying if you're talking to a member of the forum that's been around for years. The more a post ascribes by those values, the more merit it would be worth receiving. As I teased in the OP though, sometimes I think that on-topic replies, albeit short sometimes, can be worthy of some merit points. This category could include (without being limited to the cases mentioned), banter, case-specific and unique memes, short but on-point answers and technical insights that are short but point to the right direction and could be of tremendous help. More so, I consider the impact merit points can have to also have value, so I like to be especially rewarding to new members (and anyone below 1k merits really) who put out their best efforts to make good posts.