Re: A possible improvement to the merit system (my thoughts)
⭐ Merited by Ambatman (1)
Really, the only intention of this post is to reflect my thoughts, as the title suggests, understanding the collective mindset of 'if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it'. It’s 100% valid and logical, but it’s also true that even if we don’t want change, it’s always good to debate these topics.
I don’t know why some people think this is based on an idea of some kind of karma system, when the only thing I proposed in the thread was to stop showing publicly who sends them.
Some others think that certain merits given are not subject to ideological evaluations, but rather to posts with quality content. Example: users with thoughts like 'if you support what I think, I’ll give you merits,' or 'giving merits because I support their stance'.
+5 merit:
I don't get what you mean
Regarding the abuse of merits, I don't believe that hiding who grants the merits necessarily fosters the abuse of them. This can be mitigated with more consistency through the use of codes. It would even be more effective than a user (human) manually reviewing names and posts.
Codes can be created to identify scenarios of merit abuse that often follow this pattern:
If this pattern of the orange circle repeats, or if the majority of the merits do not go beyond the orange circle, it would be considered a possible merit abuse, which is then reported to the staff for evaluation.
I don’t know why some people think this is based on an idea of some kind of karma system, when the only thing I proposed in the thread was to stop showing publicly who sends them.
Some others think that certain merits given are not subject to ideological evaluations, but rather to posts with quality content. Example: users with thoughts like 'if you support what I think, I’ll give you merits,' or 'giving merits because I support their stance'.
+5 merit:
As the prefixes become smaller, you actually introduce a greater margin of error because the probability of collision or selecting an incorrect value increases.
I don't get what you mean
Regarding the abuse of merits, I don't believe that hiding who grants the merits necessarily fosters the abuse of them. This can be mitigated with more consistency through the use of codes. It would even be more effective than a user (human) manually reviewing names and posts.
Codes can be created to identify scenarios of merit abuse that often follow this pattern:
If this pattern of the orange circle repeats, or if the majority of the merits do not go beyond the orange circle, it would be considered a possible merit abuse, which is then reported to the staff for evaluation.