Merit sources have a responsibility to give merits in an unbiased manner but can we really state as a matter of fact that has been the case throughout? We all have seen merit sources give over the top merits (excessive merits) to posts others would find not worthy of any attention and likewise, we all have seen quality or deserving posts being ignored by merit sources whereas others have picked up on them.

None of this means anything because merit sources are not held to account in order to justify their merit distribution, they give merits just as you and I non-merit sources do and they/others could also view some of our merit distribution as dubious/deserving/non-deserving therefore the concept of conflict of interest does not really stand up.

Hypothetical scenarios about manufactured conflicts of interest that do not exist are a topic on their which should be created by those wanting to discuss it.

Time to let this thread be about either supporting icopress because of historical statistical data proving he is an asset to the community or to post here with historical statistical data proving he is not a good candidate.