Quote from: Xiestar on Today at 11:31:13 AM

Yes it’s not the highest but still they are one of the highest merit count than most of the participants

It proves me right, Check those accepted members merit history. Does the thread where the merit acquired looks familiar to you in relation to this topic? Wink

Extra: those that applying typically just the merit jerker buddies. They just recycling merit through themselves on merit thread.

Look at the quantity of merits that this thread got: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5542027. It is much less than D5000 posts often get. It is not even a substantial thread. Cheesy

Most of that user's posts are shit, it is clear that they helped him rank up fast to join campaigns. This doesn't mean that he wasn't better than other applicants though, I have not looked into that. That's besides the point anyway.

Quote from: Xiestar on Today at 11:31:13 AM

Notice that these guys rarely send merit out of their circle.

For reference, from the whole list of merit senders in the example thread only Halab sent me 2 merits once. Some forum data magician could probably do a good analysis of these claims, but the results would upset a lot of people. LoyceV? Tongue

Quote from: joker_josue on August 27, 2025, 10:37:17 PM

In the end, what I see is not a problem with the merits, but rather with the benefits that some users with low-quality posts have in campaigns here on the forum. Perhaps what we should be discussing is how managers analyze their user choices and retain those users in campaigns.

Sure, there are only two ways of going about it. At the merit source level or at the campaign level. I don't mind your suggestion either. However, I can already foresee some people giving excuses how managers can do whatever they want and whatnot. A fairly sized block of DefaultTrust members could solve this situation in a few days. However, it seems primarily to me that network aims to preserve the status quo and tries to avoid making changes policy. The lies that we tell ourselves about allegedly decentralized systems are just sad.

Quote from: Xiestar on Today at 11:31:13 AM

I’m too tired to fight this merit jerker. Merit system is now use to carve an easy path for a guaranteed signature campaign spot for farmer since normal user that using forum having a hard time to
get merit without merit buddy unless they are initially good on Bitcoin technical discussion while this jerker just post hype bitcoin post and received tons of merit.

Some would argue that it is a supply and demand problem, but that is a symptom not a cause. Yes, managers need more quality posters to employ in their campaigns but they are not available. This is where this user makes a good point. When the situation is like this, it is hard for normal people to earn merit if they are not able to provide very substantial contributions or very technical contributions. Their contributions have to be several magnitudes better than the shitposters from these circlejerks to earn the same quantity of merit. Their decent posts get hidden in the crowd, and they have to make extra effort to try to earn some merit such as applying in those report your posts threads.

Both ways of approaching the problem will have their respective downsides. For example, if you push the campaign managers to reject all these posters then there will be a period during which they will not be able to fill their campaigns.

Quote from: JollyGood on Today at 08:39:40 AM

Another suggestion could be rotating merit source automatically on a monthly basis similar to manner DT rotation takes place, is another idea that could be implemented. It would be better and more inclusive to the two-tier merit source system currently in place. A merit czar could be overlooking how these rotated merit source are giving merits and hold them to account. If merit abuse collusion is discovered, the merit czar can permanently ban that member from being rotated on to merit source again.

I understand the issues that you are trying to solve, I just don't see how your ideas would help for the other issues such as the one that I am writing about. If anything, making everyone a merit source would amplify the power of the abusers and the farmers. I think that such a system would need much more oversight and require frequent and severe punishments to have any chance of deterring cheaters.