Topic: Bitbollo incorrect use of trust feedback (Read 186 times)

I will lock this thread already. I use the distrust feature of the forum to solve my problem. I'm not using this account to deal on any forum businesses.

Thanks everyone.

I will if he will just continue the argument and not use the trust system to retaliate on what I said. He is DT and I'm not. Retaliating trust feedback is useless.
~

He is the one who started mocking on my opinion against his suggestion. He laugh at me while giving a comment on his suggestion.

@Pmalek, Your opinion over my argument doesn't related on my concern. He started the mock on my comment instead of making an argument. How come I become the arrogant here for replying to his mock post. Legendary and DT are untouchable by newbie?

Flow of conversation.

That's a common practice here, using neutral feedback but actually writing it in a negative tone, usually to avoid being called out by other DT members for the incorrect use of trust system.

---

To be honest, both of you should grow a thicker skin. I personally woulnd't leave you neutral (especially not in that tone) for something like that, but to each his own.

Right, How come my inactivity is connected to my opinion.

Not that he applied for a campaign. But sincerely, is that worthy of any feedback? Read the link in my post above and read the neural feedback reference.

Thank you, I have make the corrections. Because of the campaign manager I know it is Blackjack, but it is a mistake. Both are mistakes. I have corrected both. Maybe just how I felt about the matter that caused the mistake. I have said my mind regarding it.

Thanks for all the replies.

My concern is how can I be not trusted for pointing out a valid argument. The campaign is public while I just give my opinion.

I have a thick skin but how can I not be trusted for having that kind of argument. I only emphasize his self interest towards his suggestion to manager at that time for choosing participants.

This means a DT can give feedback like this whoever user that against his opinion? I didn’t deal with him to begin with.

~

I'm willing to apologize if my words was rude to him. But he should do the same for sending this feedback.

You are wrong about two things.

1. Jawhead999 isn't the OP. This is between Xiestar and bitbollo. Unless you have some reasons to believe that Jawhead999 is Xiestar. In that case, Jawhead999's reply would make no sense because he doesn't agree with the OP.
2. The signature campaign in question is not ForjuneJack, it's Blackjack.fun.

Well, the important thing is that it is neutral in color, but the color does not match the last sentence of the feedback " By my side zero trust for any kind of transaction". It is clearly a case of neutral color feedback but negative in spirit. I believe that if bitbollo had spared the last sentence, the OP would not have opened the thread.

Also that neutral feedback is incorrect use of trust feedback. We can all have our own opinion. I do not see how Xiestar offended bitbollo, no trade between them, not that he posted spam. Or is he trolling? I do not see him trolling or doing anything wrong. The campaign, Blackjack is a gambling site campaign and what is bad in saying that? That people that have most merit in gambling section should be considered. It is all left to campaign manager to decide. I too see the idea not good, but that should not be the reason to give someone a neutral trust when not that the person cheat anyone nor being a spammer.

Well it is weird that you would wake up all of a sudden after 3 years of inactivity to make some suggestions regarding how a signature campaign should proceed in the future. If you don't have an alt account in the campaign, why would you care? And why would that topic be the reason you wake up and not something else that's been happening on Bitcointalk? If you do have an alt account in the signature campaign, why not post from it instead and share your ideas?

Having said that, I neither agree with your opinion nor the feedback you posted.
 
Merits collected in the Gambling board alone can't be a measure of someone's post quality. There are several reasons for that. The gambling boards are filled with spammers, and quality posts get mixed up in the mixture of spam and low-quality posting. Many merit sources never even go there and have the section on ignore, which means less merit rewards for those posting there. Because many gambling posters are spammers, they don't earn any merits themselves and have no sMerits to give to others. Therefore, someone's post quality shouldn't be evaluated based on the success rate in one of the worst sub-boards on the forum.

Regarding the neutral feedback, it's not a negative rating. You were king of arrogant, and the offensive remark is surely because you called him a clown. Personally, I wouldn't have given it to you, but I share bitbollo's astonishment regarding why someone who has been away from the forum for so long has such an interest in how a signature campaign should work from a dummy account of his.   

If he was leave you a negative feedback, it's obviously an incorrect use of trust feedback, but this is neutral feedback, so I will not talk too much.

You have a point for saying that, but it's actually none of your business and he got offended from your post. You can't force him to delete his feedback and you're allowed to leave him a neutral feedback too.

I'd say grow your skin thicker or do we need to start a drama?  

For people to understand, this cover the whole picture of it which is the second to the last post on the page 28: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60617349

Campaign manager should be left to this, he should decide what he would use.

I do not think you deserve that neutral tag, you said your mind.

I will be honest, This is my dummy account that means I'm not using this frequently. I'm surprised now that I have neutral feedback for having an argument with @bitbollo while I have a proper justification on my side. He is clearly bullying my account by using his rank and trust system.

I'm not informed that talking with expressive words is worthy to have a neutral feedback. He is using my inactivity to justify his feedback for my argument with him.



He is hypocrite for accusing me for using aggresive words while he starts this kind of conversation.