I have involved in this type of debate in the past, but I was told that the reason higher ranked members are given higher pay is not necessarily because they make better posts, but because they have higher number of posts made in the past.
You mean an open debate of some private conversations?
Because I understand that most people outside the forum, when they look inside, they capture an image of the highest ranked members despite their posting quality.
In my opinion, the merit system is not a panacea, but it's the best measurement to determine the posting quality of the members.
Even though it may seem arbitrary, I 'd say that perhaps a merit/posts ratio would be a good indicator. Wouldn't it?
I am sure that many campaign managers use these ratios already.