Topic: Assessment, user JollyGood (Read 807 times)

it cannot be objective if you write lies.
You say "But so far there are all cases answered, and most of them repaid or explained." but here at first glance in the scam accusation section, I see something completely different. Check here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/1xbit-scammed-me-for-124851-usdt-video-proofthey-refused-to-give-and-deposit-5363791
it would really be better to do your job and settle your obligations, and not to look for the "enemies of your enemies". it will not mitigate what you are doing.
(Sorry but we can't trust you when you say "This user was paid out and should have recorded his withdrawals on his other accounts too. " to someone else yes, but not to you after all)

quoting for reference

Would you disagree that our statement is objective and belongs to this discussion?

Cut all BS.
You don't care about the community but your business only. Your problem is not to be transparent. Even after all these years your business conducting in the community is still shady. The forum does not run by your rules, but it runs by its own set of rules. Go and cry some other places where people care for you. Unless you show respects, unless you take care of the accusations against you, you will need paid guys SmokerFace to shill for you. You get nothing from it.

I can not remember the Russian sportsbook who bought an army of accounts in the forum but did they get anything at the end? No.

We couldn't have avoided this topic since this question was started because of us.

There are a lot of doubts about 1xBit activities, and we don't expect anyone to like the way how 1xBit operates. But so far there are all cases answered, and most of them repaid or explained. Also, there were no straight proofs like it was with adkinsbet or yobit.

Still, JG decided to put 1xBit in his "list" of proven scammers, and all players who support us too, even if they don't wear our signature or tell about 1xBit in any other topic except our ann thread.
We'd like to tell about such case in particular.

This user encountered an issue at 1xBit, and posted it our thread.
He claimed that he had successful withdrawals of sums about 10 BTC from 1xBit, and was asked to sign his transaction.
That wasn't done, and he received a negative trust from JollyGood.

A few months later he had another issue, and when describing it he revealed his balance on the video, it was about 7 BTC: here

We think this was quite a proof, so we decided to notify JollyGood, telling him that he might want to reconsider this user' rating - it was over a month ago. So far nothing has changed.

Hell no, I'm not looking for any praise in this thread.  But nor am I here to bash you, just to give my honest thoughts about your feedback-giving habits.  I happen to respect your efforts to protect the forum from scumbags (of which there are many), but as I said I think you're overzealous with the red paint.

It's also possible to like and respect a member yet exclude them from your trust list--like the situation between you and me.  You're a good poster and, the way I see it, an asset to the forum.  Yet I've excluded you from my trust list simply because I don't think you're using the trust system properly in a lot of cases.  That's a lot different than not trusting you to be honest if we did a deal together, but I'm sure you know that.

What I find the most ironic thing in this entire topic is that, among all users which would be more entitled to debate, hacker1001101001 found his way here too, to yell his hate about JG, which has nothing to do with OP's allegations, but with hacker's historic hate toward JG, marlboroza, Lauda and some other (ex-)DT members which framed him a while ago, in a topic where hacker almost tried to prove that white is black, to say so, denying the obvious.

I am not against the idea that every person has the right to express an opinion, but in some cases this becomes hilarious, such as this case. Indeed, he tried to tie his reply with the idea expressed by OP, but the truth is his reasons have deeper roots, in the above mentioned topic.

Other than these, I was amazed recently about the size of JG's (dis)trust list, as I never saw such a long one before. Later, LoyceV confirmed that's biggest one ever (with one exception, of someone blacklisted from his statistics), reason for which I tend to agree with the ideas expressed above by suchmon and LoyceV.

You are saying that I was lying when I responded to dkbit98 a few days ago?

Make him happy and he will include anyone to his trust list. Aren't you JollyGood?

---

You have not defended yourself yet on how 35 times out of 41 you got them distrusted after they distrusted you first? Oh yes! Not retaliation, it's just co-incidence, am I correct?

You are trying to turn the table to me now and starting to accuse me by throwing stones in the dark with the hope of something might bring out from it instead of accepting the fact that you are overzealous on your feedback leaving. In fact you are misusing/misinterpreting the feedback system as well as the trust system. Admit it!

This same structure has been repeated an exhausting number of times; only the players' names change.

Both negative and positive feedback have reduced value, by way of the linear calculation (as opposed to the old exponential) and by dilution from the increased number of DT{1,2} users.
In the past, it would have been apt to exclude and retag redundantly. However, flags are supposed to be the primary system of consequence. Given loose negative/positive feedback behavior, the best one can ask is for JollyGood to remove any excessive tags (as should be standard given any user with DT power), and for users to exclude JollyGood if they believe he is acting beyond a reasonable measure of excess.

Ideally, I would ask that the users who exclude DT feedback to ensure that legitimate and pragmatic negatives are left on users. However, since flags are supposed to be b_^et_^te_^r, we can simply let people shift towards use of this system: redundant support is a fundamental aspect of flags, and thereby allows individual exclusion from the DT network without suffering any significant consequences.


In some ways, this is better. Ensuring that visual/direct indicators of scam/negative behavior are locked behind multiple users prevents any single party from exercising a nuclear option. (Note past drama in the closed-circle DT system)

In other ways, the execution could be improved. Apropos to those specifics, that will probably take another year or so for the next major BCT update.

For what it's worth: I comment was about leaving (negative) feedback, not about excluding users.

I would like to feel that I have contributed positively to the forum. Being neutral (no pun intended) I would say my heart is in the right place too therefore thank you


You are correct about the 1xbit scammers, I am trying to keep posting at least once per page in their threads in the hope that newbies or those unaccustomed to what 1xbit actually are - would see it and avoid them. Having said that I have not been active in the Scam Accusations board as much I would like to and would be returning there at some point but for now and for a long time have concentrated on posting about other issues across the forum.


The OP has had something against me for a long time for reasons I was never told. I never paid much attention to the OP after I felt their dislike, I had to un-ignore the OP just now to read their posts because my name was mentioned the in the thread title.

It is quite possible there is an ulterior motive behind this facade/thread but whatever it is I would not consider it being created for the good of the forum when something like this would be created by someone that I do not engage with. I think the few times the OP posted about me or to me was something designed to let me know their dislike therefore I did not pay much attention to their posts.

The only time I recall that I engaged with the OP was with their alt-account when their main account was hacked and I was offering moral support to them and chastising the hacker but that is a different matter altogether. I think I added or re-added the OP to my ignore list after a short time their forum account was regained as I did not see any improvement.

The OP excluded me around the same time that mass signature campaign cheat (figment) who operated farming accounts and maybe still has them, had not been exposed by nutildah at that point (excellent thread). Figment sent PMs asking users to exclude me from their trust list, at least one of them directly told me so they were asked/told to exclude me otherwise figment would exclude them. Later when the farming accounts and signature cheating was exposed, I realised I must have tagged several of his sleeper accounts red therefore hurt his account farming and he was trying to affect others in to excluding me.

I am not saying the OP and the figment signature campaign cheat and farming account operator are connected in any way... nor am I saying the OP was or was not influenced in any way by the figment signature campaign cheat and farming account operator - I am just saying the timing of both acts seems within close proximity.


Dave, if the signature website you promote started scamming I would probably start a thread asking all campaign participants to kindly stop promoting a known scam, similar to this one I started for the 1xbit signature campaign participants: REQUEST FOR ATTENTION OF: All 1xbit Signature Campaign Participants

... and this one I started about the Yobit X10 scam: YOBIT SCAM: x10 Banner Promoters Will Be Tagged For Promoting a Ponzi Scheme

That same principle would apply to other campaigns too and I would be hoping for members from across the forum to start tagging those accounts because in the end the forum is used by too many scammers as a vehicle to steal from people and to fool them.


Yes I am reading this, I found it a while ago after I read my name in the thread title and am trying to pack in as many replies as I can in one post  

Put quite simply, from my side there is an element of respect towards you as a result of your posts and I trust you therefore I see no reason to exclude you from my trust list regardless of which list (if any) you add me to, or remove me from. Surely you would not expect me to heap praise upon you in a thread that has been created to drum up an anti-JollyGood agenda, would you?  

Slightly off-topic, it is also possible to trust and like a forum member without adding them to a trust list as much as it is possible to distrust and dislike a forum member without adding them to distrust or exclusion lists but I tend to update my distrust as often as I can.


I honestly have been multi-tasking including typing away trying to make this post shortly after the Liverpool vs Manchester City game ended. I just checked the time, I think it ended well over over 3 hours ago and between other tasks and writing this post - I did nothing else.

About the previous users I excluded or those that excluded me, I have no comment to make, it is that simple. I mean, after checking the latest list, it seems I added 20 users to my distrust between 25th September 2021 and yesterday (2nd October 2021), I probably cannot recall any of those 20 off the top of my head but if hard-pressed maybe I could name one or two but without reading the feedback (which is not always left) I might not be able to elaborate. After reading some post history I might be able to pinpoint the reasons but I do not keep a personal log with reasons. If it is in the feedback then all can see, if it is not in the feedback but the member has been excluded how am I going to elaborate on certain exclusions when I cannot explain just the 20 or so I added in the previous week?

These are my exclusions over the past month:

2nd October 2021: 2323
25th September 2021: 2306
18th September 2021: 2260
11th September 2021: 2259

Dave, I think that is around 64 members I added to my distrust list in the past month. I have no idea right now if any of them excluded me and if so, who excluded who first. As for the motives may be behind the exclusions, the trust should state it unless I also did not leave any and excluded them on the basis of what I read in their posts or existing feedback from other members. There are several cases where I excluded a member but I did not leave feedback based on what they wrote and how I interpreted it... whether any of it, part of it or all of it is retaliatory is debatable because the answer depends on how the person reading it defines it. Those that are on my distrust list and have been excluded along with those that have received red tags will probably see it different to a member that has left me positive feedback or added me to their trust list.

You may well be right but in the following example I was not trigger happy at all. For example I wanted to exclude efialtis, I thought I did a very long time ago after I read a post that showed duplicity and made me feel he is not trustworthy. I looked at the profile, saw the link to his website and took a look at it, I was not impressed with the potential scope of conflict of interest and add to that what I saw as the duplicitous nature of some posts I found him untrustworthy. Somehow, I forgot to add him to my distrust list and time went by.

It so happens that they made a post recently which in my opinion was a nonsensical piece of attention seeking theatrics based on a false belief of their superiority. I read it, (cannot be sure if I had to un-ingnore), had as chuckle at what I was reading then promptly checked if they were on my distrust list (as I do with members from time to time) and that was when I realised they were not. I decided I would not add them until a few after the thread associated with iv4n was concluded because I was going to start a thread asking for the views of the forum members about how we should approach members that claim to give honest reviews on their websites about various gambling or gaming websites including casinos but have affiliate hyperlinks as well which would bring them an income if a user signs up and plays at that particular game.

It just so happens that the OP mentioned earlier that efialtis excluded me, I checked this and it is true.

Now, since I intended to add him to my distrust list months ago and thought he was already on it, when can I do it and not be accused of retaliatory distrust or exclusion? Say after 1 week, or 3 weeks, maybe 26 weeks? Does the fact I stated I thought he was on my distrust list count for anything or will a retaliatory tag be associated?

I think JollyGood is a bit too trigger happy on the negative feedback. I thought the same about Lauda back in the days. In both cases, many of their feedbacks are justified, but not all.

I try to be very conservative with feedback:

For what it's worth:
theymos' take on the Trust system
LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system (in 17 languages)

I think so too But that doesn't mean his feedback can't damage users and the Bitcointalk ecosystem.

I'd say stop searching for scammers, that must give the impression almost everyone is a scammer. I don't mind tagging obvious scammers when I see them, but I don't actively search for them.

Do you think the community is safe? I don't! 1xbit is still scamming, bounty spammers are still spamming, and people still lose money. This post is something to think about:
While "we" tag the small scammers here, the big scammers took off with billions upon billions of dollars in ICO-scams, currently being replaced by the no doubt scams called "DeFi" and "NFT".
If a Newbie asks for a $10 loan, he gets tagged. But if a newbie wants to sell 500,000 Bitcoin, his account stays clean. Something doesn't add up!
I really like eddie13's take on this: if someone is willing to risk their own money to a Newbie: let them! I don't tag Newbies for asking a loan, I don't tag campaigns for not using an escrow. It's a free market, and anyone should be free to risk their own money and time as they please.
The internet isn't safe, Bitcointalk isn't safe. Magic internet money is a magnet for scammers, and people should realize that instead of being naive and trusting anonymous strangers.

That's not necessary to leave positive feedback:
I never left theymos positive feedback, but I wouldn't be here if I wouldn't trust him. That doesn't mean I'm going to hand him my money, part of my trust in him is the fact that he doesn't need my money.

I think this explains the mutual exclusions: JollyGood usually excludes users from his Trust list at the same time he tags them. I don't think it's retaliatory. The tagged user most likely disagrees with the rating, and some of them exclude JollyGood from their Trust list. The result is they exclude each other in the same week. Only a small percentage of the users excluded by JollyGood excluded him too.

Been there, asked that:

I really dislike retaliatory exclusions. This makes it about the ego and hurt feelings and not about what's best for the trust network and for DT.

Having said that, there are simple solutions to that:

• Include users that you think JG excluded unfairly, if you actually trust those users.
• Exclude JG if you think JG's actions are not fit for your trust network.

Looking here: https://loyce.club/trust/2021-10-02_Sat_06.08h/1016855.html
JG has 2323 people on his distrust list. So it's not like he just distrusts certain people.
The next question after is it retaliatory, is how many of those 35 (or 41 depending on how you want to look at the numbers) did he not even care about till they distrusted him.
Unless he chimes in, we may never know.

Of the 41 you listed personally I would not trust over 35 of them. The others I either feel neutral about or disagree.

Which goes back to two questions, once again just my opinion:
Is it retaliatory? <-- Probably
Does it matter? <-- Probably not.

More of my opinion:
I put people in my distrust list for a number of reasons, I don't do it a lot but when I do there usually is in my mind a good reason.
I can see several users here that put people in for reasons that I don't agree with. BUT: I agree with the distrust.

As of now unless JG chimes in I am going stop commenting. Why? Because if he does not then it shows that he does not care and is going to keep doing his thing. Which is 100% fine. If people want to ~ him that is also fine. But as of now looking at the list you gave of 41 people since I do agree with over 75% of it I am fine with trusting him.

Also going to see if I can spend some time this week when I am not working on a laptop with a small screen and counter some stuff that I 100% disagree with. It's just going to be easier on 2 big screens then 1 13" screen to flip though browser tabs.

-Dave

The forum isn't dying as far as I can tell.  I'm curious as to what makes you say that.

Yep, that definitely looks like retaliatory exclusion to me.  I'm not exactly sure why he hasn't excluded me from his trust list, but it could be because he knows I don't have anything against him aside from the fact that he's overzealous with the negs he leaves--and I've communicated that to him before.  I believe I even told him I would reconsider my exclusion of him if he modified his feedback-giving habits, which he hasn't.

JollyGood, if you're reading this thread (which you probably are), you should weigh in on this.  Otherwise it's just going to be a discussion about you without hearing your thoughts, and that's kind of lopsided. 

You said his characteristic...
There is nothing to relate with his characteristic. Everything is about his egoism. BTW, if you examine the lists, you can learn one thing about him also. for that, just look into the list how many accounts belong which local board. He is approaching like enemies to a local board.

There is nothing to say too much. Forum rules has some black holes. And forum administration can not be found for a long time. Forum is dying and no one doing anything. I can talk about these issues so much but in the end, talking will be manipulated by some groups account. So you should take what you can for a while. Soon there will be nothing to talk about soon.

Maybe this will give a good insight to all. It took me freaking half a day (yesterday evening) to do all manually LOL. Please pay attention for the sake of the time I have invested 🤪. Besides I think this is very important.


Maybe we can go further. We can randomly select two or more users and can check their trust list updating habits to see if it looks normal when we will check the result against JollyGood. I propose check the list of The Pharmacist, suchmoon, maybe mine too, dkbit98, DaveF or anyone else.

I wish BPIP would helped. LoyceV and other few guys are good in this kind of data diravation. Maybe they can give us a quick statistics.

*BPIP used to be good at this page https://bpip.org/TrustLog
Now it seems you can not get everything in one page filtered by a user. It was better before and was surving the purpose. WTF BPIP team! 😘

---

It's not about Iv4n drama, it's about overall JollyGood characteristics. Iv4n drama was just another incident of many so far. For the record, I do not have any personal aginst JollyGood nor I am driven by my ego here. Don't you find unsual against him yet?

When you are forcing against something to make it right, you must know that something was wrong already. I guess?
PS: DaveF is not a F*****g shitposter LOL. Keep it up!!! 🤪

I was not going to reply here, but I keep winding up in a loop thinking about the entire thing.

Some people have the attitude of 'I would rather 10 guilty people go free then put 1 innocent person in jail' Other people have the 'Kill them all let God sort them out' attitude.
I think the majority of us are somewhere in the middle.

Do I think JG is a bit overzealous? Yes.
Do I think it matters? Not really. <-- And there is the issue that I think a lot of people miss.

There are 2 places where negative feedback matters.
1) When doing trades with people
2) If you are in or want to join a signature campaign where the manager excludes people with negative trust.

In case #1, you really should read peoples feedback anyway before trading to see why the numbers are what they are. And then make your own decision. If you just look at the numbers without doing some other form of checking then well IMO you are on your own.

In case #2, most campaign managers are going to do a bit of research. If they just see the 1 negative from JG and do no more research about the applicant, that is up to them.

But, I would also say that if the company whos signature I am wearing now goes evil and starts scamming people I would expect a negative tag from JG it's just who he is. Would not want it, don't think I would deserve it, but would expect it. Now, if the next manager that I apply to just looks at that and not my 4000+ post history and all the merit and other positive trust. Well, IMO they are going to loose a good participant in their campaign. [Sound of Dave patting himself on his back, yes Dave you are a good poster, keep it up]

The problem comes back to this:


So in that respect, yes he should be leaving more neutral.
BUT for whatever reason, theymos never added a separate trade vs general feedback number. So, you are always going to have people who need negative feedback but strictly according to the rules should be neutral. That does not work some people need negative numbers in their feedback not neutral.
Is the amount of it that JG is doing making it better or worse. IMO it is making it very slightly better. AND having all the drama around it, helps make people aware of what is going on so that is not a bad thing either.

Just my view as always.
Enjoy the rest of the weekend people.

-Dave

You think that everyone who gave theymos positive trust feedback all traded with him?
I think it's nothing personal with Jolly hating anyone, he is just over zealous giving negative feedback to anyone who is related with any scam projects.
He changed latest feedback to neutral so I see no point in creating this topic now, unless if you or your ego have something personal against him.

This is exactly what JG expects most of the DTs to get trapped into.

I remember once I even tried contacting him in the most friendly manner I can through PM to explain him my real situation.

He never replied !

I am sure he has done the same with many other innocent users around here.

My answer is YES, he should be on the DT.
Also i was following him on one case where he turned the trust into neutral.
All i know is that he is doing a very good job in helping the the community safe from 1xbit scammers and promoters.