Proposal: Karma requirements for ranks

[God Of Thunder]

Introducing requirements for ranking is no different than the Merit requirement we are all familiar with elsewhere. We will start seeing abusers as most ranks can send karma just like we see on the other forum. We will see people giving karma for nearly everything to increase their friends or alt accounts.

But unlike the other forums, the admin and the president of the forum often check the abusers and tag their accounts with some kind of badge. So, this is not going to be a heaven for the karma abusers. I myself reported a couple of my locals who teleported their accounts here and were doing abuse to rank up faster; now, all of them have a red dot in their profile, and they had to leave. So, even if the admin decides to accept the proposal, then very small numbers of abusers would dare to abuse the karma system. For me, I support the idea of preventing shit posters from ranking up. It will reduce spam as well.

[Jokers]

The situation when it can be clearly seen why polls don't show how the situation is. If we don't see who and why voted one way or another... Yesterday there was one situation and now it is totally the opposite, but if multi account farmer would decide to vote in some poll then which point will he choose and from which number of accounts?

Anonymous votes when every newbie multi account can vote...

[julerz12]

With just 90k+ members and probably less for those who are actively engaging in this forum, I'd suggest holding off on implementing a karma requirement for now. This feature would probably be useful in the future when this forum is flooded with new users and has gained significant traffic but for now, it might just hinder this forum's growth—just my two cents.

[Ammonites9999]

With just 90k+ members and probably less for those who are actively engaging in this forum, I'd suggest holding off on implementing a karma requirement for now. This feature would probably be useful in the future when this forum is flooded with new users and has gained significant traffic but for now, it might just hinder this forum's growth—just my two cents.

I agree with what julerz said, we should consider users who still have a lower ranking like me to stay enthusiastic being active in this forum. If we talk about spammers who often appear, this can be one of the tasks of the moderator to remain active in the forum.

Apart from all this, if this decision is implemented, the worst thing is that this forum will be deserted by visitors and only a few certain people will be online and that's boring.

[Freemind]

It looks most reasonable: why do we need to demote anyone? No need. If there are low quality posters, there is a corresponding badge. So right, the implementation of new requirements should be done for new rank ups, not retrospectively. If someone got the rank and will misbehave, there are enough negative badges for all of bad actors!

I agree with you. In addition to having the necessary tools and badges for users who do not comply with the rules, a rule could be created for those users who persist in their activity of acting against the rules with more than just badges, such as, for example, demoting them to a previous rank in case of (I repeat) continuing with an activity contrary to the forum, although I do not think it is necessary when the previous measures are applied.

But I think the most important thing would be to set a specific date to start applying this.

With just 90k+ members and probably less for those who are actively engaging in this forum, I'd suggest holding off on implementing a karma requirement for now. This feature would probably be useful in the future when this forum is flooded with new users and has gained significant traffic but for now, it might just hinder this forum's growth—just my two cents.

It may be an option. In any case, we haven't talked about dates, so I think it would be interesting to have the rule ready when the right time comes, and not have to do it later due to the large number of users.

[AB de Royse777]

I guess I was one of the first one who read the topic, I already wrote a response but forgot to post that day LOL

Considering ranks above and equal to Legendary, I think these ranks need to be difficult to achieve like some said it should be a privilege. Right now there are many Legendary+ members' who really do not deserve the rank (sorry if that sounds hurting for some). When I review post history of the members in my campaign I feel like many of them are spamming. Users who will be Legendary+ should be have responsibility and they should come forward to show more dedication, quality time to providing value to the forum.

I will be happy to see demotions for many members who are currently Legendary+ which means my preference is the Proposal C.

[dragononcrypto]

I will be happy to see demotions for many members who are currently Legendary+ which means my preference is the Proposal C.

So do you think you'd end up changing any rank requirements if this proposal was implemented, due to the decrease in number of higher ranking members? Only I notice a lot of your campaigns are currently Snr+, which would be 25 karma, and so do you think more of them might be open to full members and members if changes were made? I'm just trying to understand how this would directly impact bounty campaigns,, and whether it could create as many opportunities for lower ranking members as it takes away, and therefore there would be more opportunities for those with higher karma than those with less.

As otherwise, there would be the concern that there are not enough higher-rank members for such campaigns, even given the number you currently run at the moment. I'd assume that if we were talking ~80% demotions for Full to Senior members, due to lack of karma, that this would translate to many of your current participants no longer being eligible for certain signature campaigns. I guess the relevant answer for many users would be how would this change how you (and others) would run your bounties, if at all.

[examplens]

@dragononcrypto, what is the lowest rank who is allowed to vote in this pool?
It seems that users with a lower rank still do not want additional conditions for rank upgrades, although the karma requirements are quite low.

[Jokers]

@dragononcrypto, what is the lowest rank who is allowed to vote in this pool?
It seems that users with a lower rank still do not want additional conditions for rank upgrades, although the karma requirements are quite low.

A big bunch of votes against the proposal was given at the same time, so I'm not so sure that we have a group of different low rank users and not one farmer that don't want any complications in ranking up of his multiple accounts.

[bitmover]

Personally, I think this proposal will not achieve its objectives.

Karma is just one of the requirements to rank up.

For now, I am stuck at legendary and with frozen activity for hidden reasons, nobody knows why (just the admin).

Many people made many speculations for that reason, most of them wrong (like badges, post count, etc...).

Until rules are transparent and redefined, I see no reason to enhance other rules. We have a famous quote for this in portuguese: wiping ice (enxugando gelo)

[Lucius]

Personally, I think this proposal will not achieve its objectives.
Karma is just one of the requirements to rank up.

I think you're wrong, because regardless of someone's activity, without enough +karma you can't reach a higher rank - which means you can shitpost as much as you want and you'll still stay at the bottom of the pyramid. Merits on BTT have brought more benefits than harm, right?

For now, I am stuck at legendary and with frozen activity for hidden reasons, nobody knows why (just the admin).
Many people made many speculations for that reason, most of them wrong (like badges, post count, etc...).
Until rules are transparent and redefined, I see no reason to enhance other rules. We have a famous quote for this in portuguese: wiping ice (enxugando gelo)

We've all tried to explain to you that the reason you're frozen at 2000 activities is because you have very little online activity, which is currently only 8 days and 4 hours - and just these days I saw someone unfreeze and move on because they reached 10+ hours of online activity.

[bitmover]

We've all tried to explain to you that the reason you're frozen at 2000 activities is because you have very little online activity, which is currently only 8 days and 4 hours - and just these days I saw someone unfreeze and move on because they reached 10+ hours of online activity.

Unless you received an admin message, you are just speculating.

Just like you or some other suggested before more posts or more badges or whatever.

And online activity makes zero sense. So if I keep the window open I can just rank up? What an idiot rule lol I refuse to do that

[Freemind]

A big bunch of votes against the proposal was given at the same time, so I'm not so sure that we have a group of different low rank users and not one farmer that don't want any complications in ranking up of his multiple accounts.

There have been several multi-accounts that have cast those votes, and although I have a slight idea of ​​the usernames, I have doubts for other reasons, but I could barely identify them.

Personally, I think this proposal will not achieve its objectives.

Karma is just one of the requirements to rank up.

For now, I am stuck at legendary and with frozen activity for hidden reasons, nobody knows why (just the admin).

Many people made many speculations for that reason, most of them wrong (like badges, post count, etc...).

Until rules are transparent and redefined, I see no reason to enhance other rules. We have a famous quote for this in portuguese: wiping ice (enxugando gelo)

Again?. Lucius tried to explain it to you, and from what I see, he's done it again. I tried to explain it to you and you closed the thread... Reading between the lines is not your thing. No one is conspiring against you to keep your activity frozen, it's something all users go through.

43 hours bitmover, you need 43 more hours.

[bitmover]

43 hours bitmover, you need 43 more hours.

I refuse to let my computer in this page for this, counting away time  ;

I really doubt this is the reason. This is just speculating,  or you guys have access to hidden rules, making rankin up less fair

[Freemind]

I refuse to let my computer in this page for this, counting away time  ;

I really doubt this is the reason. This is just speculating,  or you guys have access to hidden rules, making rankin up less fair

And who told you to leave your computer on this page for that? Stop and think...

Doubting is good, that makes us think and improve as a species, but thinking that there are hidden reasons why only you do not exceed the level of activity is like trying to stop a train with your hands, it makes no sense...

Think what you want, imagine what you want, things are as we have explained to you, if you don't want to accept them it's no one else's problem.

Have a nice day