Topic: AI posts and my feedback on the borovichok account - page 2. (Read 840 times)

If this user was a participant in one of my campaigns and was caught publishing AI-generated posts, I would definitely mark him with a red tag. I also believe that after the introduction of the flag system, both negative and positive tags can be more flexible and cover many issues not related to trading risk.

But perhaps in this particular case, you can change the tag to neutral in the spirit of a second chance (and because the user is not currently participating in any campaign). You will always have time to return to the red tag, but perhaps your flexibility in this matter would show this user another path that does not involve spam.

Based on what you've stated and the few threads I've seen on this case. The red is inappropriate and should not even be debated. If you're unsure of your decision, use neutral ( not recommended though). If you're going to create a thread like this asking for opinions on your judgement, sooner or later the community will start wondering if you're fit to be on DT at all. Alot has been said on the other related threads I've read, you should look them up and make your decision. I'm not sure you'll be able to grab everyone's attention on this one. Unless you prefer being the centre of attention, get it done.

Why not stay on topic and answer JollyGood's question and stop asking me unnecessary questions.

What are you trying to prove?  From what I've seen, almost everyone who has commented in those threads agrees that you're a shitposter.  Are you denying that?

Where is the AI post? So it's suddenly okay for anyone to determine what to write on other people's feedback pages? Without any evidence? I don't have ChatGPT crap or use AI to write anything on my account. (I have thousands of posts.) Provide just one AI generated post in my history to back your tag or are you going to leave another invalid reference link? JollyGood respect goes both ways. I've been respecting you but you ain't doing the same and it's obvious.

They already air their views. You can find them here.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/have-the-rules-of-the-dt-system-and-forum-rules-amended-theymos-5481352
And
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/would-you-tag-these-users-5480825

It is good, the thread is gaining traction albeit slowly. That is one opinion stating that the tag should be removed.





---

The thread will remain open for now.

As stated in the OP, if there is serious debate and the general view (it does not have to be overwhelming consensus) of senior and respected members is that his negative tag should be removed, I will remove it and replace it with another neutral this time to cover the AI but the original neutral tag for spamming and posting replies to himself will also stay.

Moderator deleted the post - another lie from a lie detector.
And I've created only one thread concerning your tag.



I did not disrespect HaI (RIP), but rather took part in the "Running Bitcoin" fundraising event and gave my small portion. I saw there was no discussion about it anyplace on the forum where he spent time and contributed, so I had to share it to raise awareness. If you do not support the Bitcoin community in any manner, do not try to prevent others from doing so.

I'm not your enemy, and you've spent the last three years monitoring my account every morning you wake up? It must be exhausting.

A wall of texts with no AI-generated post evidence? Please don't use my feedback page as a reminder or notepad. Respect goes both ways.

You did not need to write his entire career here just to prove that your negative tag is justified. We all know that the guy became a shit poster just to make some money from the signature campaign and he was posting over 100 posts a week to get maximum payment. If you tag this user for such behavior, you should tag all other stake signature participants because there are a lot of accounts that joined the campaign with just airdropped merits. They do not engage in typical discussions to avoid being caught.

I had a disagreement with BitcoinGirl in a thread because I agreed with you. That does not mean I always agree with you. Your tagging behavior is excessive. Don't take things personally. This guy disagreed/or did not hear you a year ago, and this is the reason you started running after him. The negative tag is NOT Justified. You should remove it.

I left neutral feedback for the “borovichok” account on 22nd February 2022 because of the constant nonsense he was posting in one of my football threads. I received a PM in March 2023 (over a year later) which was when string of nonsense posts were sent to me wanting the feedback removed.

A week ago I gave a negative tag as he has moved on to either AI posts or the only plausible explanation could be that he has given access to the account to other people that have a ridiculously low understanding of English grammar or those that use some form of translator to paste replies for him. And if that were the case, why? After that, there has been a flurry of activity by him trying to get the negative tag removed.

Last year I noticed an increase in activity of this account, posting in threads and boards he would normally not and to me it was clear the intention was to get to a higher rank to join a signature campaign. There is nothing wrong with that but when you conduct dubious activity to achieve it, that certainly cannot be right.

One of the lowest gutter level things that anybody can do here is to use the name of a dead person to try to get as many merits as possible in order to try to rank up. Here is how a spammer and low quality poster somehow overnight manages to become aware of Hal Finney, apparently has photos of him participating by running in an event to raise funds.

Though not a crime for reporting unmerited good posts in associated threads, here he is trying to get more merits on an unmerited post report threads on his own posts that already have merits. He made sure he was using the name of a dead man (the amazing Hal Finney) at the top to get noticed more. He used the  Report unmerited good posts to Merit Source thread by LoyceV:


Now if that was not enough here is again trying to get merits on already merited posts using the name of Hal Finney on 17th April 2023 in the [Merit] Share your best posts/threads with Fillippone to be merit assessed by fillippone:


In the OP of that thread, he wrote one particular point that had something very interesting about it. He claimed to go on fundraising events which miraculously he never discussed before nor did he even even mention the name of Hal Finney or his illness while he was too busy spamming the gambling board. He actually claimed he was in the photos and he was running with others in that event and he covers the lie with other lies as the thread goes on:


The spammer decided all of a sudden to try to hit that 500 merit mark to achieve Hero rank and went in overdrive trying to get there. There are several posts in that thread that show how manipulative some people are and the levels of their character must be so disgusting that they would fabricate entire lies about someone such as Hal Finney just in order to get merits to rank up. This is the part that sickens me.

Please correct me if I am wrong but in all his years of being a member of the forum (since 2017) he made six mentions of Hal Finney (Hal or Finney) and all were miraculously in 2023 between March and April: https://ninjastic.space/search?author=borovichok&content=hal

As soon as he had 500 merits, he was in the Stake campaign and well, that was the end of him posting in Bitcoin discussions. After that all he did was to post in Gambling board and even now, his previous 32 posts are in mixed threads mostly complaining about the negative tag yet before that, going back hundreds of posts almost all are in the gambling board. He started to post in other boards AFTER he received the negative tag. Clearly, he lied to get merits and once reached Hero rank he moved on to the Stake campaign and these are not the behaviours of those with a single account but that is a discussion for another thread on another day.

After ranking up and moving to spamming in gambling boards he did almost nothing except post about football in order to get payments from the Stake campaign and it does have hallmarks of one puppeteer operating several accounts but nothing was proven even though super-spammers "Jasad" and "CryptocurencyKing" accounts were posting replies to his “borovichok” account which was pages back yet they ignored posts that were far more recent and relevant.

He will delete anything that he can think of in order to avoid controversy, including the AI post but it was quoted: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63382470 but that is his regular pattern.

But here is the post he thought he had deleted, it is in shorted format and it is not written by the person that is using the borovichok account to post in this thread.


-------------------------


Now, in your opinion if none of this is worthy of a negative tag but just a neutral tag, it still exposes the disgusting character of the person operating the borovichok account and those dealing with him should keep that in mind. At least this thread exposed how manipulative and deranged he is in his pursuit to reach a higher rank that for the sake of merits he used the name of a dead man and his wife and to claim he went on a fundraising event that was named after the genius that is Hal Finney.

If there is serious debate and the general view (it does not have to be overwhelming consensus) of senior and respected members is that his negative tag should be removed, I will remove it and replace it with another neutral this time to cover the AI but the original neutral tag for spamming and posting replies to himself will also stay.

Feel free to post here, the thread is self-moderated because I do not want the thread hijacked by a couple of clowns that have their own agenda and motives against me who will not add anything constructive.

As always, I am very open to change any positive, neutral or negative feedback I have given to any member. I have modified/edited/removed feedback before and I have absolutely no problem in doing it again as long as that is the general view in this case.

If a precedent for AI posting is made that is always must be a neutral tag (regardless of the number of posts being made) then in future all members should never leave a negative tag for AI posting because this thread would serve as a reference that a neutral tag would suffice.