Stuck at 2000 activity

[dragononcrypto]

activity freeze is what makes ranking harder, without activity freeze the post count would be the only factor

Does activity freeze exist on any other count or only in 2000?
Should we expect more surprises? 

I recommend you propose to the senate that d team and/or senators are exempt from activity freezing. I'd actually support that, as users who contributing to the forum by reporting spammers etc, as well as representatives of the community, shouldn't fundamentally have their activity frozen imo. I'd also say that should be true for Royalty and upwards, rather than just the Lucky Pass that looks like a lottery.

You're probably not going to like what's in store ahead otherwise

[bitmover]

i will not go in details what these conditions are, to avoid users cheating their way through activity freeze
but in general what was mentioned multiple times before applies:
- including online presence (how often you visit the forum)
- other factors that i prefer not to disclose

SO I understand now.

There are hidden rules that no one knows, only the admin.

Ranking up can be considered "cheating" the system? I don't get it... If they rules are clear, completing them is not cheating, but accomplishing.

Maybe something silly like sending 3 PM in a same day is a rule and I froze because of that. Makes zero sense to me.

[Lucius]

@bitmover, as I wrote to you in the chat, and the admin confirmed it - one of the important factors is the time spent on the forum - you have "only" 7 days, I have 17+, @examplens is on 16. It might seem a bit complicated, but remember how you became Legendary on BTT - you have the lowest and highest possible activity that can enable you to do that - someone is lucky enough to achieve it for 7xx activity points, others are waiting for 9xx activity points. The difference is literally in a few months.

[bitmover]

So basically to summarise the info you provided there (nice work with that):

- Hasn't posted enough for activity to unfreeze (1400 would be my guess if so)
- Hasn't been online enough (7 days compared to 11 is a huge difference)
- Didn't reach 2000 activity before the ranking requirements were changed

So this isn't "punishing random users", there are three clear reasons why bitmover could be stuck at 2,000 activity.

Personally I like the mystery of it all, as it does avoid users gaming the system more than usual.

The information you posted  is wrong.

There are users with less posts than me who have unfreeze activity.

The "clear reasons" are just false. Post requirement isnt 1400.

We don't know if the online time is 7 or 10 or 5, because it is a hidden and unknown value (only known to the admin)

As rules are not clear, the reason might be something like sending 3 private messages in the same day, or opening 10 pools, nobody can really know for sure. The only thing that we dont have is a "Clear reason"

[Freemind]

The information you posted  is wrong.

There are users with less posts than me who have unfreeze activity.

The "clear reasons" are just false. Post requirement isnt 1400.

We don't know if the online time is 7 or 10 or 5, because it is a hidden and unknown value (only known to the admin)

As rules are not clear, the reason might be something like sending 3 private messages in the same day, or opening 10 pools, nobody can really know for sure. The only thing that we dont have is a "Clear reason"

It's not about hiding things to make everything more difficult, it's about ensuring that users do not abuse the system. Lucius told you as is, and I have also told you in another of my posts, in another thread.

What is the difference between a user with an activity of 2,001 and you?.

Your total time spent online is not hidden, you can find it here: User statistics for: bitmover.

Anyone can view a user's statistics, you don't even need to log in to the forum.

The 3 PMs you sent have nothing to do with that.

[bitmover]

Your total time spent online is not hidden, you can find it here: User statistics for: bitmover.

What is hidden is the online presence requisite. Nobody knows if it is 5 day, or 10 days
This is what I meant.

As rules are hidden, it could be sending 3 pm a day. Anyone who says it is not is just lying, as admin already said that the rules are hidden.

[Freemind]

What is hidden is the online presence requisite. Nobody knows if it is 5 day, or 10 days
This is what I meant.

As rules are hidden, it could be sending 3 pm a day. Anyone who says it is not is just lying, as admin already said that the rules are hidden.

As I already told you, although this requirement is "hidden", as you say, the answer is simple and there are several users who have given you clues. The answer is in the question I asked you in my previous post.

There are things that cannot be said openly, I repeat, to prevent users (some) from abusing the system.

I would also like to repeat that ranking up is not going against the system or cheating the system, but not doing it correctly is cheating the system in a certain way.

Just because the administrator says the rules are hidden doesn't mean you can't see them. No one has ever told me about those rules and I have been able to see them over time, it is as simple as comparing profiles.

[bitmover]

As I already told you, although this requirement is "hidden", as you say, the answer is simple and there are several users who have given you clues.

So you know the rules which are supposed to hidden from everyone?
This looks now even less fair system now.

I am impressed by how the community is just not caring about such basic stuff.

[Freemind]

So you know the rules which are supposed to hidden from everyone?
This looks now even less fair system now.

You shouldn't let your frustration cloud your mind. You're taking things out of context and bringing them to a point where no one benefits and no one learns anything.

I don't have more information than other users (including you) but I do have the patience to observe.

I'm not here to argue badly with you or anyone. Please read my posts again.

And above all, you must know that I am here to help.

Thanks.

[admin]

As I already told you, although this requirement is "hidden", as you say, the answer is simple and there are several users who have given you clues.

So you know the rules which are supposed to hidden from everyone?
This looks now even less fair system now.

I am impressed by how the community is just not caring about such basic stuff.

simply put
whenever there is a monetary incentive there will be abuse
all the hacks in the blockchains and projects, proves this point
the hundreds of farm accounts that we took down, and the thousands of such account that signup on altt and btt, are exactly what we are fighting

this is a community, not a task list
once ranking up becomes fully transparent, it becomes a task list for users, and it will become a sheet code for farm account to rank up the accounts
again this is a community, we expect everyone to interact in a normal way not in a way to just increase rank (same on btt, why burst posts are rejected by bounty manager)

[admin]

Your total time spent online is not hidden, you can find it here: User statistics for: bitmover.

What is hidden is the online presence requisite. Nobody knows if it is 5 day, or 10 days
This is what I meant.

As rules are hidden, it could be sending 3 pm a day. Anyone who says it is not is just lying, as admin already said that the rules are hidden.

to avoid a surge in useless mail
sending pm is not involved in ranking, following topics or sections is not involved either
friend/ignore list not involved either

[examplens]

again this is a community, we expect everyone to interact in a normal way not in a way to just increase rank (same on btt, why burst posts are rejected by bounty manager)

The burst post is something completely different. It happens here because that's the only requirement for a rank upgrade, and it was the same on Btt until the merit system was introduced.
The managers don't approve it, not because of the forum rules, but because it is less effective for the campaign if the user writes 25 posts in a couple of hours and fulfils the weekly quota. The campaign aims to get as much visibility as possible, and a burst post does not help with that.

[admin]

again this is a community, we expect everyone to interact in a normal way not in a way to just increase rank (same on btt, why burst posts are rejected by bounty manager)

The burst post is something completely different. It happens here because that's the only requirement for a rank upgrade, and it was the same on Btt until the merit system was introduced.
The managers don't approve it, not because of the forum rules, but because it is less effective for the campaign if the user writes 25 posts in a couple of hours and fulfils the weekly quota. The campaign aims to get as much visibility as possible, and a burst post does not help with that.

agree
so apply the same thing to ranking up
user 1: logs in , writes 3 posts in 15 minutes, logs out
user 2: logs in , reads , interact (total 3 posts), logs out
In this case, it is logical that ranking up should be easier for user 2

now imagine i give these details:
to unfreeze activity block 1, you'll need 30 posts and 24h of online presence

user 3 (account farm): know now the formula : can create multiple accounts, burst post in a couple days to reach 30 posts
then keep the website open on a browser for 24h - logged in, or use a browser extension to simulate interaction
voila ... hundreds of account farms will be created, and they will take a big percentage of the bounties and subscriptions
if it is automated and involved AI, in a clever undetectable way , an account farm can take most of the revenue and leave almost nothing for others

[examplens]

agree
so apply the same thing to ranking up
user 1: logs in , writes 3 posts in 15 minutes, logs out
user 2: logs in , reads , interact (total 3 posts), logs out
In this case, it is logical that ranking up should be easier for user 2

now imagine i give these details:
to unfreeze activity block 1, you'll need 30 posts and 24h of online presence

user 3 (account farm): know now the formula : can create multiple accounts, burst post in a couple days to reach 30 posts
then keep the website open on a browser for 24h - logged in, or use a browser extension to simulate interaction
voila ... hundreds of account farms will be created, and they will take a big percentage of the bounties and subscriptions
if it is automated and involved AI, in a clever undetectable way , an account farm can take most of the revenue and leave almost nothing for others

I understand the problem you're talking about. Although I think it's wrong to freeze activity for Legendary members (like the bitmover case), and it certainly has no impact on account farmers.

In order not to be exclusively critical, here are a few suggestions that could perhaps influence the improvement of the ranking system.
I would consider what already exists on Btt, a maximum of 14 activities in 14 days. Even if you write 100 posts in two weeks, the activity can only increase by 14 points.
Also, add the condition that the user must be active for at least a few days during that period. Even if he writes 14 posts in one day, he must log in at least 3-5 more days in that period.

What I would introduce would be specific to this forum. activity points to have a different coefficient. So for example, trash post '1 activity *0', posts in bounty threads would have a very small value, so each post would be '1 activity *0.1'. Further, I would increase the coefficient according to the sections that require higher quality writing, for example, technical discussion '1 activity *1.5'
OK, this is just a suggestion, the numbers are arbitrary, I'm talking more about the concept. In the end, I don't even know if it is technically feasible

I think that this could be more efficient than the previously proposed badges according to the quality of the posts.

[bitmover]

I understand the problem you're talking about. Although I think it's wrong to freeze activity for Legendary members (like the bitmover case), and it certainly has no impact on account farmers.

Punishing legit users to try to catch abusers is clearly a bad rule.

Innocent should never be punished when trying to get abusers