Next scheduled rescrape ... in 1 day
Version 1
Last scraped
Scraped on 31/08/2025, 20:28:26 UTC
I've gotta say, I'm slightly surprised (in a good way). I mean, I figured people would just point out flaws and "boo" this one into oblivion (and while that's mostly what is happening, it's not to the extent that I imagined it would be).
Especially since you were previously against any form of a De-merit function (not to mention a stern one). To what extent did you place your imaginary line Gloves? Quote
(*) I think 0.1 is somewhere in the ballpark of a merit-to-post ratio that should be exceeded if someone's trying to grow their rank.
So, this isn't some generally-relative solution for problem solving against spam, but an active check on a user's merit-to-post ratio? Cause not everyone is trying to grow their ranks. You do know, just like I do that the forum has a different approach on meritocracy on the higher levels (I'm talking of the 1ks, 2ks and 3k score limits/gangs) right? If I've been fighting hard to rank up all the way to the top, why do I need to strain to retain the achievements? I mean, this has nothing to do with post quality and impactfulness as there are a thousand and one prerequisites to earn merits, and at what level it can be the most essential; as an additional cherry on top of the ice, people are not supposed to be controlled/ given directions on how to spend their merits/ whom to merit Ffs!
I remember how I got into a very heated, but critical arguments (metaphorically) with Jay and Malek (and this is one of the reasons why I picked an interest on this) on the issues of long-standing members getting more attention than newbies, which I thought wasn't right at all; I still stand by that till my dying day.
Quote
If all I wanted was to drive up the forum's signal-to-noise ratio while not really considering where this might leave people who depend on the forum for some amount of their income, then I'd be tempted to set it much higher (like 1.5, which while 15 times greater than 0.1 and completely unrealistic-seeming to most, is still ~6 times lower than my own merit-to-post ratio).
Or maybe just ban signatures on the forum and leave the ranks in place?Quote
As with everything Bitcoin(talk), I'm pro-freedom. As in, if you want to make 1000 posts that the community is effectively "telling you" (by not leaving you any merit) that they don't appreciate, then that's fine, and you should feel free to keep doing that.
So what happens in this case? Does the algorithm on the "carry" database understands this?Quote
(*) It's natural for me to consider things in very abstract ways and to keep my mental "wavefunction" from collapsing around concrete details that aren't central to the "shape" of whatever it is that I'm thinking about. But, I know that that's not how everyone thinks, and some people prefer a style of thinking where concrete details dominate their analysis of something. In my experience, it's very frustrating trying to transmit ideas across an abstract-thinking vs. concrete-thinking "impedance mismatch".
Neil deGrasse Tyson's quote of unchecked uncertainty says thus; "One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong". This is not about whether you're wrong or right; this is about accepting an open criticism as part of an undebatable protocol in cases where only a unanimous decision is made to function... But what do I know? I may be wrong..
Quote
Basically, what I'm saying is, I'm not very attached to any given detail in the OP, and I only really have a sense that something like what I've suggested could be made to work.
So what was your motivation at first Gloves? No, like seriously..Quote
So, it's inevitable, IMO, that any rank-hardening adjustment made at this point, even one that manages to "thread the needle" just so and long-term improve the forum's signal-to-noise ratio without causing too many casualties in that pursuit, will, at the time of its proposal or implementation, be met with some amount of, wait for it... "Why change this? FFS, I liked how it was before!" 
Don't get me wrong, I've always been in support of any form of adjustment-- even a yardstick against spam, but if Theymos had an intention of demoting users, the first set in his consideration plan would be users with airdropped merits (like one of those users that you brought up, who has earned only 36 organic merits or so)[Was this supposed to be some kind of auto-moderation function?]
How about a new rank "Shitposter" that is skipped when ranking up, i.e. can't be reached by "normally" ranking up? But you can be de-ranked into it! This rank, once reached by enough shitposting with PowerGlove's proposal, would put severe limitations for those who become de-ranked into it. The details of such limitations are tbd.
Users with rank "Shitposter" will likely simply abandon their account? Not sure about that.
um.. challenge accepted?Users with rank "Shitposter" will likely simply abandon their account? Not sure about that.
Original archived Re: Ranking up/down
Scraped on 31/08/2025, 20:23:12 UTC
I've gotta say, I'm slightly surprised (in a good way). I mean, I figured people would just point out flaws and "boo" this one into oblivion (and while that's mostly what is happening, it's not to the extent that I imagined it would be).
Especially since you were previously against any form of a De-merit function (not to mention a stern one). To what extent did you place your imaginary line Gloves? Quote
(*) I think 0.1 is somewhere in the ballpark of a merit-to-post ratio that should be exceeded if someone's trying to grow their rank.
So, this isn't some generally-relative solution for problem solving against spam, but an active check on a user's merit-to-post ratio? Cause not everyone is trying to grow their ranks. You do know, just like I do that the forum has a different approach on meritocracy on the higher levels (I'm talking of the 1ks, 2ks and 3k score limits/gangs) right? If I've been fighting hard to rank up all the way to the top, why do I need to strain to retain the achievements? I mean, this has nothing to do with post quality and impactfulness as there are a thousand and one prerequisites to earn merits, and at what level it can be the most essential; as an additional cherry on top of the ice, people are not supposed to be controlled/ given directions on how to spend their merits/ whom to merit Ffs!
I remember how I got into a very heated, but critical arguments (metaphorically) with Jay and Malek (and this is one of the reasons why I picked an interest on this) on the issues of long-standing members getting more attention than newbies, which I thought wasn't right at all; I still stand by that till my dying day.
Quote
If all I wanted was to drive up the forum's signal-to-noise ratio while not really considering where this might leave people who depend on the forum for some amount of their income, then I'd be tempted to set it much higher (like 1.5, which while 15 times greater than 0.1 and completely unrealistic-seeming to most, is still ~6 times lower than my own merit-to-post ratio).
Or maybe just ban signatures on the forum and leave the ranks in place?Quote
As with everything Bitcoin(talk), I'm pro-freedom. As in, if you want to make 1000 posts that the community is effectively "telling you" (by not leaving you any merit) that they don't appreciate, then that's fine, and you should feel free to keep doing that.
So what happens in this case? Does the algorithm on the "carry" database understands this?Quote
(*) It's natural for me to consider things in very abstract ways and to keep my mental "wavefunction" from collapsing around concrete details that aren't central to the "shape" of whatever it is that I'm thinking about. But, I know that that's not how everyone thinks, and some people prefer a style of thinking where concrete details dominate their analysis of something. In my experience, it's very frustrating trying to transmit ideas across an abstract-thinking vs. concrete-thinking "impedance mismatch".
Neil deGrasse Tyson's quote of unchecked uncertainty says thus; "One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong". This is not about whether you're wrong or right; this is about accepting an open criticism as part of an undebatable protocol in cases where only a unanimous decision is made to function... But what do I know? I may be wrong..
Quote
Basically, what I'm saying is, I'm not very attached to any given detail in the OP, and I only really have a sense that something like what I've suggested could be made to work.
So what was your motivation at first Gloves? No, like seriously..Quote
So, it's inevitable, IMO, that any rank-hardening adjustment made at this point, even one that manages to "thread the needle" just so and long-term improve the forum's signal-to-noise ratio without causing too many casualties in that pursuit, will, at the time of its proposal or implementation, be met with some amount of, wait for it... "Why change this? FFS, I liked how it was before!"
Don't get me wrong, I've always been in support of any form of adjustment-- even a yardstick against spam, but if Theymos had an intention of demoting users, the first set in his consideration plan would be users with airdropped merits (like one of those users that you brought up, who has earned only 36 organic merits or so)[Was this supposed to be some kind of auto-moderation function?]