Topic: JollyGood is trusted by - and question. (Read 1698 times)

I suppose it's time to lock the discussion. I don't want it to deviate towards something else. I was curious to know what this alt account, airfinex, had to say about his PMs to several projects owners that I manage, using his cherry-picked information.


In those PMs, he was referring to JollyGood. Of course, JollyGood has never held a favorable opinion of me or my service. He also cherry-picked Poker Player. There is no difference between JollyGood and Poker Player when they are judging me. Interestingly, he was also cherry-picking LoyceV and Suchmoon. Some of their general statements were presented in a way that he hoped it would be effective. Well, who knows, it might have worked for some.

I will see how airfinex responds to the PM I sent. If he has anything to say about it and requests to unlock the topic, I may unlock it; otherwise, let everything be buried. Thanks to those who expressed their opinions and provided some insights into why JollyGood is on your trust list.

This thread has been steered to something irrelevant by you both! Nobody cares what the Quran says or whether you believe it or not; we just care about the topic of this thread. There is no such thing as religion. We're all apes in the eyes of the creator

You brought up a similar remark in another thread that you've since locked, so I'll respond here. I'm not a Muslim, and your holy Quran doesn't hold any significance for me. But since you've mentioned it, I'm curious – what does your book have to say about lying scammers? Are they on the right side of the phone line?

Of course it was better before, for DT members alone, I don't care about the tag, motive and reason is important here, I have already achieved my desired result.

And of course, I threatened all the people and said: I'm a DT member and I am asking you publicly to pay "me" so that I reconsider to remove the tag I never gave you"
That's my type, I just don't know what to do with that money. Anyhow, I have discussed about this matter enough already here and in other thread.

One thing I want you all to know, it doesn't matter if you have green/ red trust, try to live in a way so that when you stand before your maker, you could keep your heads up, that should be the ultimate goal for all mankind.
Be worried about a day where mothers don't recognize their  children and no one will vouch for anyone, no money is used, no backscratchers could scratch, no apologies will be accepted.

There is a verse in holy Qura'n, saying something like this, people in heaven will ask where is that guy I knew on earth? They will tell you he's in hell, then you would make a video call ( no joking ) and talk to him while he is suffering, to tell him, "I told you so".   Make sure to be the guy who has made the call not the one who has answered.

We shall see who was scamming people here, some day very soon.

50% of the people currently in DT probably do not belong there. I disagree 100% with the system as it is now. The old way wasn't much better but it was better. There is a belief that more is better for decentralization, but I think it opens the community up to way more possible corruption as well as way more ignorant users on DT that do not understand how it works.

With that being said, there has already been a discussion on JollyGood. In this thread and in others. Has he gotten some wrong? Yes. Is he wrong more often then right? No. Should he relax and present more evidence before tagging? Probably.

Is this enough for everyone to distrust him? No, until he is making bad tag after bad tag after bad tag and showing he just doesn't give a shit, he will be on DT. Your problem is he tagged you, and you think you will gain support through manipulation.

If you dislike the guy ~Jollygood and move on. That's the best you're going to get here.

Just an FYI, if you feel that I shouldn't be in DT ~yahoo62278 as well. I have already left the system once and could care less about DT. I'm not 1 of these people threatening others for a payment to remove my tag(although I think you mentioned you are that type).

Nope. Unless you checked right before and right after the feedback was left.

Is there any way to find out the time of trust feedback? I mean date and exact time? Because I just found out that BitcoinGirl.Club is right about this person, I strongly believe I got the tag either after or around the same time of this post :
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62899059
Also please read my post a few posts above his post, check post date and time, check my topic on him and it's time and date, if I wasn't asleep I could have seen it sooner and open that topic right away.

To those who support him, this is the kind of person you trust and back him up with inclusion?  If the answer is yes, then you are the same and deserve no place on DT to play with people's reputation like that.

I remember a quote from theymos saying trust system is not to tag people if they disagree with you. So I was also right about a deep connection between the OP of merit source application and JG.

If any of you after seeing over and over that he is misusing the trust system, bullying and harassing others keep him on your list, you will lose your credibility and influence gradually, of course all of us can make mistakes and misjudge  people sometimes, what is important is us trying to fix our mistake and make up for it, that's not showing weakness, it's not considered  accepting defeat, no it shows your maturity, it shows that you can be relied upon and be trusted.

You have brains, you know these things better than me, it's just that you need to hear it from others to be reminded of these already known facts.

As your little brother. I ask you to consider my comment above. Because if we can't rely on you to protect this community from abuse, harassment, scammers etc, then such community will be a lost cause to care for when it's supposedly trustworthy members are indifferent about the things expected from them  to be deemed  important.

It's because I do not have time to continue an argument. I have an honest curiosity though which I expressed in the PM I sent you earlier. Let's just hope moderators do not recognize it as unsolicited PM.

Well, to be honest, I think, just as I've always thought and believed, and still believe that you are doing well, really well even with the few negative trust and stuff..

One thing we must understand is that, what is ours will always be ours, and that which is not meant for us, will always have an or some excuse as to why we can't have it even though we so much desire to have it..

I personally do not see any way JollyGood's negative feedback on your account have harmed your business, you are currently managing a lot of campaigns, I actually think you are managing the most campaigns on the forum if I am not wrong in my assessment, or maybe Hhampuz is, but you are still doing very well ..

I will only advice that you forget about JollyGood's feedback, just focus on being the best you can be in business and in personality, offer the best you know you can offer in your services, work with services that accept your offer and leave those that did not, and whatever their reason be for rejecting your offer, simply just see it that they weren't really meant for you.

Starting with the I really don't have time to deal with this crap....
I went through just about ALL of the feedback he left, looked at who and why and what all of it, took forever. But, since there is so much controversy and I did open my mouth I figured it's better to look and be sure.

In *my* opinion, 90% of what he left was legit.
DID it need to be left? That is also an important question. Some yes and some no. In my opinion.

Now, for that last 10% I would say it's about 50-50 of wrong (once again IMO) and did not need to be left (yet again IMO)

I have made many posts about the failing of the trust / feedback here so not going to dive into that since there seems to be zero chance of it being changed into something useful.

For now I took him out of my trust list, but will probably not matter since at this point with everything else that is going on I think that it's going to get worse with people grouping into their 'gangs' to protect people they like.

If I get tagged down to -30 in trust and booted out of the sig campaign I am in it will not matter. I would still be here posting. If everyone adds trust and I make it to +100 I will still be here posting.

Now I'm going outside to enjoy the weather and not post....

-Dave

It's called an echo chamber...


Let me just quote you on that..


Yes, I've started receiving racist comments too - do as I do and call them and their thin skinned gang members who support and encourage them out.

Fixed that for you.
Sure you have not checked his send feedback page yet. Picking up on members, using the feedback page as his personal note. Feedback left with speculations, bad faith, without good reasons, with less to no facts.

Some feedback he left that has taken from the first page of his sent feedback page.
I am going with you too 😉

So what?
Every person has done some good in their lives, but that doesn't give them the right to abuse anyone and act as a jerk.

I think we live in different worlds you and me.
Millions of people follow instructions from governments, experts and tv programming every day very easy, and they stay perfectly in line better than cows and sheep ever would.
Send any kid or grown man from city to control animals and he will lose them 100%, if they even know what real animals look like.
Anyway, this is way off-topic... I won't post in this topic anymore.

Although some of his feedbacks are crossedlines, we cannot say he has done no good. Credit should be given when due, but this should not prevent criticism when a problem arises.

Visiting the forum on daily is enough good for thyemos


Maybe you're right about paying too much attention to their personal drama, but if it affects the DT system, we have every right to intervene. Regarding the cow story, where I come from, a 10-year-old child can control 200 cows across towns without any of them leaving the queue; you only need a few strategies to do this, but no strategy is enough when it comes to humans.

Yeah I am not so sure about controlling cows, but it's important who controls them, and it's the same with humans, someone is obviously easily controlling millions of people around the world.
I don't think we need to have controllers for anyone in bitcointalk forum, and maybe we are giving this 2 guys more attention then we should.
My advice for Royse is to ignore anything connected with JG, but I said it so many times that I am slowly turning into parrot  

But unfortunately JG does not see it that way.

His understanding of the whole system summarize into [1a.] Support my argument, I will give you merit [1b.] Include me in your trust list, I will try to return the favour and will include you if you are somehow a top rated member.

[2a.] Don't support my argument, I will insult you, call you a troll, keep telling others that you are in my ignore list [2b.] Exclude me from your trust list, I will exclude you or remove you completely if you were already in my trust list.

The inclusion, exclusion data clearly shows that [1.] 20 out of 23 members he added in his trust list is because they voted him in the DT [2.] 50 out of 52 de-vote are the result of the other party de-voted him and he devoted them.

When I read some members are telling that he is doing a good job, I clearly see it a result of a successful manipulation and JG deserves a credit for it.

What lives are you referring to? I'm aware of the arguments between Vod and MoparmingLLC on Discord, and I still have the records. As for the other person being a racist- yep, Vod wasn't wrong, he abused me several times on Discord, and that's how Vod got it off.

Vod has anger issues; offend him on the beach, and he'll log on the forum, neg tag you for abuse with no reference, and block you from PM. He should be 60yrs by now, and I hope he's having fun with his Poker project. We don't miss him at all.

I wouldn't call it "epic". More like it destroyed lives.
Don't go down that road. Using the Ignore button and moving on is much better for something as unimportant as an internet forum.

Mainly his own, up to the point that the forum contributed to a stroke. Ignoring people is so much better.

I know that right! Vod and OgNasty had balls and it got to a point that Vod was writing to the FBI, reviewing OgNasty real identity and even planned a lawsuit, I mean that was epic.

The difference between OgNasty vs Vod and JG vs Royse is that the first were not fighting over feedbacks as they were both abusing that on a daily, they were fighting real course.

Royse and JG are simply shifting blame - That's not a true fight; they're merely misunderstanding theirsives, with which I hope they will come to terms soon.

The reality is that you can't have 10k+ people from diverse cultures and beliefs in the same forum and expect them to have a united opinion on everything. Controlling 200 cows is easier than controlling 10 adults. Trust me 

You think this is long? Use forum search button to find "Vod vs OgNasty". Now that's years of quarreling to research.

Huh, I never noticed that (but even if I had, I've got no faith in the trust system so I wouldn't have cared).  Lack of caring not withstanding, I do find it somewhat interesting if someone excludes me from their trust list.  JG doing it after 1.6 years, though?  Do you really think that's retaliation?  I suppose it could be, but I'd be curious to know the reasoning behind that move, because members are supposed to be excluded from your trust list only if you think their feedback-giving is wrong for whatever reason. 

Since JG and I aren't exactly on bad terms despite me excluding him from my trust list (we've actually discussed it via PM), maybe he's got a good reason for it?  Maybe?  Possibly?

Evidently you haven't had a chance to browse their trust feedbacks to see how devoid of accuracy (let alone a link to a post as reference) their posts have become.

It's more about the thin skinned DT troll gang members massaging each other's bruised egos as opposed to objectively verifying trust feedback entries.

"Do as we say, not do as we do" is their motto.

Why would you want to stoop to their level?

Yes, of course.
I'm also sure there are better examples than Lauda. If we really want to elaborate this, maybe marlboroza is a much better example here.
And marlboroza is still DT (DT2).


Yes, I didn't specify that, maybe I should have worded it a bit better and elaborating it a bit more but since I've just written down some names quickly, I thought it's not necessary. I didn't want to write an extended DT history lesson.  
I've removed Lauda at some point from my trust list as well, so I'm definitely not claiming here that Lauda still is a good DT member. But I would say despite Lauda's bad ending in DT, Lauda has been a good DT member for a long time by tagging a huge number of abusers over the years.
And there's always a risk that accounts will lose all of their red paint when formerly famous DT members get removed from DT indefinitely.


Yes, looks like Lauda lost most support in June 2019 but Lauda still got back into DT from time to time after that, maybe we have some experts on that case, why this happened exactly.
But Lauda's case is very unique in my opinion, where many established members were involved (big clusterfuck) and the distrust between them got too big at some point (and also the issue, where Lauda got distrusted massively, like you've pointed out).
Instead for JollyGood and Royse777 here I believe, a solution is much easier. There's not such a clusterfuck as for Lauda's cases, not even close.
Even in case of OP's negative trust won't be removed, a single negative feedback (or two, to be accurate, there's one from efialtis as well) won't matter much long-term. More positive feedbacks will be added on top and that's it.

---

I'm not sure for which case JollyGood reconsidered the tag because I've just noted in my book that JollyGood reconsidered the tag.
Maybe JollyGood still knows but as far as I can remember it's a case from 2023.

Because most of the time, when someone complains about JollyGood's feedback it's like that: a shitposter has shitposted somewhere and JollyGood has issued a negative (instead of a neutral) trust. The shitposter creates a topic in Reputation, complains and acts like he's completely innocent. And I don't like it at all, when shitposters are playing the victim card.
I've had that as well that some shitposters / abusers complained via PM to me to remove my (often just neutral) trust and there's a clear pattern where shitposters / abusers just play the victim card. They don't want to improve and I've read a lot of such cases being similar for JollyGood, where these shitposters don't show any commitment to improve. Yes, JollyGood has put some negative trusts on these accounts, where sometimes negative trust is not appropriate and a neutral trust should be chosen instead. But still, many shitposters / abusers acted like they are completely innocent. Take this case for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1114408
He complained, lied to DT and acted like he's completely innocent...
And for his case, a negative trust is well deserved after more evidence was presented.
That's why I can understand JollyGood in many cases (not related to JollyGood vs. Royse777 case of course).

Fair point I guess. I was going by the grammar of present tense. If you had used the past tense I wouldn't of said anything. No need to take my dissertation too seriously or personally for that matter, it's been a while that I've read others claiming Lauda is a good DT member over the years - or simply a DT member - whereas neither is currently true, so thought I'd put my correction in there at some point.

I guess over all it's still up for debate whether Lauda was net positive or net negative for DT. Within 6-12 months she'll statistically be net negative at current pace, so until then it's still up for debate. Personally I'd say spending years tagging thousands of scammers only for all your feedback to no longer be trusted by default is not only a massive waste of time but also an epic fail, so it's net neutral at best.

---

I agree with you that up until 2019 Lauda was probably the best example of a controversial DT member, as one of the most controversial. Ironically it would be her downfall in the end.  Can't even remember what the mass distrusting of Lauda was back in 2019, but it wasn't until 2020 that she became excluded from DT for reference sake. She went from 30+ DT strength down to 0-10 in 2019 roughly, then reached -10 by 2020. I think it was around the time trust flags were introduced and she went a bit rogue with it, with Timelord highlighting her numerous incorrect uses of them (many flag references).


Also agree it does take a lot of wrongdoing to get removed from DT if you have thousands of accurate feedback left, but ultimately it's all in proportion. Leave 100 feedback with more than 1 error and you'll likely lose some support. Likewise leave a thousand with 10 wrong and you're in the same boat etc. Introduce trust flags and you give everyone the opportunity to make 2x the amount of mistakes it seems.

---

From what I've seen it's not community feedback that JG listens to, probably as it's not "the community" that maintains his DT status. It's only been those who have included him in their trust list (namely his DT1 sponsers) that he listens to. Otherwise there's basically no reason to listen or consider anything anyone else is saying, as it won't directly effect his DT status. That's my interpretation anyway.

Well, I haven't stated any timeframe in my post.  
In addition, my list was more meant like an overview of controversial DT members, I guess every case will be different from each other.
I can add OgNasty in my list as well, because despite many controversies, he's still one of the most trusted DT members. So, I wasn't planning to publish a dissertation on that issue.

---

For most of the time, Lauda was a DT member until (as I remember correctly), Lauda was distrusted heavily in June 2019. DefaultTrust (Marketplace Trust) existed since 2013, with Lauda first time on DT probably around 2014 / 2015.
Therefore, I've added Lauda to my list. Maybe not a perfect example considering how it ended but until 2019 it's a good example.
But as I've said, I wasn't going to publish a dissertation about how cases are similar and where are the differences. We can probably add some more members in the list and the members mentioned in my list were just the ones coming to my mind when thinking about historically important DT members who have been very controversial while being on DT for a very long time. Because it takes a massive wrongdoing to remove a DT member who has left thousands of accurate feedbacks.

---

That's true, I wouldn't compare JollyGood to Lauda as well, the only thing I wanted to point out is: DT has always been controversial and as we've seen from other cases, where JollyGood is involved, JollyGood also listens to community feedback to solve issues, which is a very important point in my opinion.

I don't know that I've ever seen a thread like the one I suggested about anyone, let alone about JG.  All the "Bitching about DT" threads I've seen are just like this one; "Woe is me, look at what this DT bully did to MEEEE!"  That includes all the ones I've seen about JG specifically.

It always comes off like an interpersonal dispute, and is unlikely to sway anyone's opinion.  Threads like this one never illicit the sympathy or outrage the OP is hoping for, especially when the DT member in question is calculated in his abusive use of the trust system.  More often than not, these threads end up creating even more division in DT by driving people to form cliques of members that agree with each other or have supported each other in the past.  Or, as is being demonstrated in this thread; those who've already included the individual in the past are more likely to feel attacked and called out, and react by digging their heals in and defending their previous choices.  I only need to look at my own behavior to see this play out, I'm human and therefor, not immune.

I am convinced that a non-biased, objective, and very generic critique of JollyGood's trust system habits would convince many to remove him from their inclusions.  Not to mention he has a history of supporting shady services that turn out to be scams.  Remember that virtual credit card scam for which he repeatedly vouched and defended when the line of questioning got sticky?  There are many examples of JollyGood's poor judgement on display on this forum.  Kind of ironic and hypocritical of him to leave the tag he did for Royse, considering his own history.

This thread will not help your clients to have the "correct" idea, is what I'm saying, so you're working against yourself here.


Yet it devolves, as these threads usually do, into name calling and just general bickering between you two. And let's face it, the answers you want to hear are "no" and "no". To get there you need to make a solid case with facts. If you redirected your effort into collecting examples of JG's improper feedback, aforementioned "controversies", etc, maybe you'd have a chance. The two trust ratings against you are about half-factual, half-opinion so it probably won't get JG booted off on that alone.

As a correction, Lauda isn't DT and hasn't consistently been DT since March 2020 - ignoring the few "lucky" weeks here and there - prior to leaving the forum 7 months later. She was kicked off DT long before leaving the forum, in case there was any doubt. Since then Lauda hasn't managed to consistently return to DT status either and has instead been consistently excluded for the past year. She otherwise ranges between Top 10 to 50 most distrusted DT members. In summary, Lauda isn't a good example of controversial DT members, but more so an example of how you can go from one of the most trusted DT members (+30) to least trusted (-10) within a year, which is an impressive turnaround. Lauda remains the greatest example of how not to act when you are on DT if you want your feedback to remain trusted by default.


I am generally in favour of this, it's the kind of solution that would have saved Lauda from being dropped by DT I think. There were only ever a dozen or so invalid feedbacks from her as far as I remember, and she remained too stubborn to ever back down or correct her feedback. Most DT members didn't care for a while as her feedback still remained 99+% accurate with thousands she had left for genuine scammers.

I'm otherwise not intending to compare Lauda and JG here, as they are considerably different. JG has removed or amended feedback after criticism, which is something Lauda would never do. Just thought I'd provide some context regarding Lauda since you bought her up as a "good DT member", which couldn't be further from the truth, at least based on the raw data available regarding DT inclusion/exclusion.

Darling I am not diverting it at all. In fact it's very important to understand the root of the problem. That's what I wanted to show who have him in their trust page.

JollyGood is a DT power seeker, he eat for it, poo for it, sleep for it. He is manipulating the trust system for his own benefits.

He will add those if they are somehow powerful member in the community and will wait for them to vote him back.
He will add those to his DT setting who voted him for DT.
He will remove those from his DT setting who devoted him from DT.
He devote those who devotes him from DT.

Data/statistics does not lie, all my efforts were to show the data.

JollyGood is a prime example of how dangerous it can be if you trust a power seeker. Power seekers use your trust to fulfill their own desires, to justify their wrong. Unfortunately, he is using you too like others.

I am pretty sure, you and those of others who are giving him your unverified trust, voted for him, dare to go against him in a logical argument.

Involve in a conversation which he does not like to go against him, challenge his hunger of seeking power, show some disagreement with him where it is needed, if you are already convinced then remove your vote for him; very soon you will also find yourself lost his vote, he will keep saying you are in his ignore list, he will starts to disrespecting you with insulting language and obviously he will add you back but this time you will be in his distrust list. The whole process may take few months to couple years to make it look genuine.

This is a good example.

In his early days he added TP who is now TSC: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-01-11_Sat_18.59h/1016855.html
But former TP was ugly and badass MF LOL so he devoted him: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-10-10_Sat_05.17h/1016855.html
Obviously he could not remove him immediately, it will look obvious. After 1.6 years he removed TP: https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-28_Sat_05.06h/1016855.html

You disrespect me - now you want me to justify why I trust another user you don't trust.


Figure it out for yourself.

Just spitballing thoughts here, but perhaps you ought to provide projects that you want to work for a much more thorough explanation of why you got those negative feedbacks and why you think you didn't deserve them than you did in Solosanz's thread, because from what I saw your answers there satisfied very few of the members who challenged you.

I'm not saying that sarcastically, either.  If your hands are clean, it should be a relatively short conversation.

You really want another one of those?

I am sorry to give the bad vibe. The answer of the why was already given thoughAfter all I am made with flesh and bone who sometimes surrender to his emotion especially knowing many potential clients are having wrong idea about my business reputation which has been built in exchange of a lot of sweat and blood.

---

I see some of you are misunderstanding the goal of the thread. May be I am not good enough to create a to the point post but the core goal of this thread is to find some justifying answers of the following questions (perhaps next time I can use your answers as a reference to potential contacts who will be too quick to give a bad conclusion about my business because of these negative feedbacks):
1. Do you all still think the feedback deserves to be on the page?
2. Do you all really think a controversial user like JollyGood should be in the DT area?

After reading two references of the first post and some numbers from this post, you all must have a little idea how these careless negative feedbacks are effecting my business reputation (I don't expect to win all the bids I make but I also don't want potential contacts have a very quick wrong impression about my business reputation) although I am happy and proud with what I have now and the projects those are in pipeline.

This and your entire wall of text sounds petty and vindictive and will not get you closer to any sort of resolution here (or answering the rhetorical question in the OP). Not sure why you keep starting these threads and not listening to anything said by impartial outsiders - not talking about myself here; there are respected forum users advising you to lay off the cringy unnecessary drama if you really care about your business reputation. I understand the need to vent sometimes, been there done that, but framing it as an argument against some intentional damage to your reputation does not feel genuine.

Based on this thread alone without any other context, I'd be hard pressed to figure which one of you (JG or yourself) has a worse judgement impairment.

Yes, you are right, I've meant that. Mainly for voting out controversial or very outdated feedbacks in a decentralized way.

LoyceV did it few years ago and the community was generally supportive about it. I've supported LoyceV's suggestion as well and I've also explained why: because as additional argument in favor of that suggestion, many currently active DT feedbacks will have a high likelihood to tend getting inaccurate over time. In such cases, we would need to choose between keeping the account on DT and have an increasing number of outdated feedbacks or we would need to remove the account entirely from DT making ass of his feedbacks untrusted.
Both options are not satisfying.
LoyceV's suggestion is a nice solution.

And disputes could be solved in a decentralized way. Yes, some people would still feel offended by that as well. So probably not really less drama but just a different drama. However, in my opinon, it's definitely worth a try because it migh be a useful feature for various issues.  
OP is one of it, for example.

---

No doubt, some feedbacks are controversial but DT has a long history of that. Like Lauda, marlboroza, TMAN or many more. All of them good DT members and beneficial for the community but yes, controversial.
That's why I've brought up the suggestion of removing certain feedbacks from DT. That way, we could sort out controversial feedbacks in a decentralized way and keep the good ones, where JollyGood is doing a very good job.
Maybe it's time to bump that topic, implement it and we can have a solution.

If spammer blacklists would be applied by Signature campaign managers as a default tool, we could shift a part of that workload for hunting spammers, probably.
Until that, DT is a very helpful position to give shitposters a hard time and for that, one needs to be at least DT2.
Like actmyname tagged a shitload of such accounts.

As I've said I'm neutral on that case (pro and con) and hopefully it can be solved by everyone who's involved.  


That's an issue but mainly that's an issue because people need to take DT seriously and red tags should be applied, especially for Signature campaign enrollment. Like 1xbit's scamming operators are ignoring DT...
Evereyone can vote in DT and if the community decided to have member xy on DT, that decision is final for the moment (until voted out).
Once again, removing certain feedbacks is a nice solution for such controversies.

When thinking about it, I'm getting more and more convinced to start another try to push this suggestion in Meta.

You and I will have to disagree on whether he's good for DT or not, and apparently we'll also have to disagree on whether his feedback is valid.  To me, his most recent feedback appears full of speculation and projections, not facts or evidence.


That's commendable, but none of that is dependent on him being in DT.  There are plenty of folks who are engaged in hunting spammers that aren't in DT, but that hasn't stop them.  The issue with JG is that he clearly WANTS to be on DT, he lusts for the power and he abuses it in situations where he knows he'll get little to no blowback.  It's my opinion that anyone who wants it as bad as JG has no business being on DT.

My main concern is that when people abuse the trust system the way I see JG doing, the whole system suffers by making it less impactful.  More and more people are ignoring DT red-tags because more and more DT red-tags are frivolous in nature.  I'm not saying JG is the only one, but he's definitely one of the more prolific abusers of DT power.

---

I think this is something that DT1 members should do on a regular basis.  I often take the opportunity to go through my inclusion/exclusion lists whenever I fall of DT1 because it's less impactful if I'm only DT2.

---

You'll have to excuse me for calling you out on this blatant lie.  How approachable or open to discussion have you been when I challenge your abuses of the trust system over the last two years?  Don't worry, I don't expect a response since you've been ignoring me whenever I raise concerns about your abuses, and that's not something you can hide.  The evidence of your flat out lie can easily be observed by all.

This road.....

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/notice-from-royse777-ban-for-7-days-5432989




Its common sense - if there is no PM, thread is the only way to pass his message.


Your message was so clear, there is no need shying from it. well, Royse can not play me to do his bidding, my judgement on this matter is unbiased.


He stated his goal on the first paragraph of this thread- he said your feedbacks on his profile is damaging his business and want them gone! (in a cool tone)



I agree that the OP made a mistake by requesting members to remove you from their trust list; that was not an appropriate approach to handle the matter; nonetheless, the OP still wants you to review your feedback on his profile.  

BitcoinGirl.Club and Ratimov have already reached an agreement to settle their long-running disagreement and have moved on! Why are you both taking so long to find common ground? As adults, ignore each other and move on.

What previous experience are you referring to? Which road did he not want to go down again?

How can you state that with certainty?

That is your opinion, you are entitled to it. I have my opinion and I am entitled to it. Since the comment was addressed to Royse777 he should be allowed to respond with his opinion because his opinion could differ from yours or mine. Maybe he should be given time to respond what he thinks rather than others (including you) replying what they think he is thinking, when in the end he can think of the reply himself if he chooses to reply.

You misconstrued my comment, at no point were campaign participants mentioned. Relax

The goal of this thread is/was determined by the OP not by you or what your opinion is. You do not know what his goals are, he knows what his goals and opinions are and he should be given ample time to post them if he wishes to do it because he was the one who started the thread with the intention of creating new drama.

According to you it is to find common ground but according to the OP he started the thread effectively asking for members to exclude me from their trust on the basis he does not agree with a negative tag he received following the lead from a known troll who posts my trust list asking members to exclude me whenever any opportunity arises. That does not help the situation.

As for the second part, you stating the goal of the thread is not for both of us starting news dramas, that comment does not sit right with me and it is insulting to think that you equated the two. My first post in this thread was post #35. There are a total of 41 posts in this thread at the time of writing and this is post #41 which also happens to be just my second post. I added no drama here. That sort of imbalance does not help the situation and I do not appreciate it therefore do not start implying that this thread was created on a equal footing, it was not.

The drama was already playing out by him from moment he created the thread 35 posts before I made my first of two posts in this 41 post thread.

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

I am approachable and open to discussion with anybody on any subject but for now I am out of this thread unless I am advised something significant has been posted that requires my reply.

That IS the point I was making.
Going with what you said, he WAS a great scam buster years ago.

If I am going to have to really start going through all my trust lists from who I added (Either good or bad) and look at all they have done since then it's going to take a while. So leaving it alone is what I (and I am making an assumption here) others have done.

And as you said take a quick or even long look through what he left and it still does look good.

So now we come to the case here. Yes, I disagree with what he left. Do I take him out for just 1 infraction or do I go thought all of them. Then where do I draw the line? 1 out of 100? 2 out of 500? 3 out of 1000?

Going to spend some time looking this coming week and figure it out.

Bit of humor, but... Looking at your feedback we did a trade 18 moths ago. I seriously don't even remember doing it.

-Dave

After his previous experience, I wouldn't blame Royse for not sending unsolicited PMs. He didn't want to go down that road again. His only option was to start a thread.

As a participant in Royse Sig management, the highlighted portion of your post did not sit right with me. You're implying that individuals in Royse's management (we) are involved in a conspiracy and that our judgement is clouded and biassed. It's insulting to think about it that way.

The goal of this thread is to find common ground, not for both of you to start new dramas. Don't you think there's a need to reevaluate your tag if the majority of the DT says it's crossedline?

@BitcoinGirl.Club There is no need for you to add more drama to the thread; you are diverting the thread's objective to something else. If you want to discuss backscratchers, open a new thread and make it rain.

Can we not discuss off topic please?

Cheers,

Please be careful when you are choosing your words.


Quoting everything to keep record.

Do you think to adjust the green color to purple or brown. Sometimes I see it's hard to differentiate between blue and green. It's hard to see difference between two green lines (#50 and #52) and blue line in the middle (#51).

Brown and purple look better for differentiation.

This is so much clearer if you use the BBCode, I highlight backscratchers in green:
I tried 4 years ago, it didn't happen.

If it is not Poker Player being accused of contacting prospective clients telling them to not use his services and him allegedly losing business, it is now allegedly me causing lost business to him.

I guess the previous times set a precedent. Tags are placed but he wants them revised or removed and he gets them revised or removed therefore he thinks he can go after someone every few months trying to get a tag removed or revised. Narcissist is a word that immediately comes to mind.

First, if he chooses to revisit the Bitlucy scam then he should do it with complete honesty and not be selective in an attempt to show himself in a much better light considering what actually took place. As a gesture of goodwill, I will refrain from posting links to comments he made related to the Bitlucy scam.

Second, I am fairly sure he blamed someone else when he said (words to the effect of) previously he was down and out, depressed, suicidal even, before he miraculously recovered and came back to the forum and bombarded every ANN thread he could trying to manage their campaigns. He is now alleging I tried to destroy him. What a melodrama.

Third, the feedback I left was based purely on the fact he was self-proclaimed Co-Partner of Bitlucy as well as Marketing Director of Bitlucy and added to that he was also campaign manager too (and all the associated issues I will not post here) therefore to allude I left feedback for any reason other than his conduct within various roles at Bitlucy is absurd and is an attempt to misdirect from the facts.

Putting cap in hand trying to have members add or remove me from trust lists based on a campaign managers whim (while having the lure of signature campaign participation), is quite insulting. Can anybody here imagine any other campaign manager posting such complete and utter nonsense wrapped in a one-sided melodrama laden with deception all for the sake trying to use any means necessary to try to have a negative tag removed or to render it useless by way of trust exclusions? The two campaign managers that I hold in very high regard would never stoop that low.

Maybe sending a PM to discuss what he wanted to achieve would have been a better start than seeing him starting at gutter level with this thread. I could be wrong but it seems he opted for the latter because he is managing several campaigns and probably thinks he can exert influence over the majority of members who trust a member he does not like.

Regardless, if he had any decency he would have sent a PM to start a discussion in order to get an understanding of perspective from both sides but I guess arrogance and over-confidence was always part of his persona and it grew over time as his portfolio of campaigns increased. He contacted another member that left him negative feedback to discuss the issue but did not contact me, instead he jumped straight to creating this thread allowing a group of trolls working in tandem to post their propaganda whenever they get a chance.

I think he is more into this-
Otherwise, we wouldn't see Royse777 removing these 2 feedbacks. And we all should consider this quote. It's an internet forum after all.

There must be at least one topic on this. I can't remember who created this or am I in dejavu because I had a bad sleep last night lol. However, before discussing a possible implementation, it is worth to discuss the downside of the system.

This is interesting. I guess you mean being able to vote, for example like with flags, but with trust feedbacks. I think the idea is worth to open a thread in Meta to see what people think and try to convince theymos if the majority of people think such an implementation would be useful. However, I leave this to you who came up with the idea or to those of you who are very strong in the trust system.

So, regarding the feedback to be discussed in this thread and other feedback, a more democratic decision could be made.

Since I've been mentioned here but I don't want to be dragged into the drama, please let me explain my position quickly:

Yes, I have JollyGood on my trust list because in my opinion, it's overally very beneficial for Bitcointalk to have JollyGood on DT due to many valid feedbacks left by JollyGood.
In addition, JollyGood is actively giving our shameless and annoying shitposters a hard time. As someone who's very well aware of certain shitposters not trying to improve anything, it's very important to support community members like JollyGood for calling out shitposters and remind them to improve.

No, I don't support JollyGood's negative feedbacks on @Royse777 account and I'm hoping everyone will find a suitable solution. In general, I'm in favor of giving DT a possibility to remove certain feedbacks, for example if at least a net amount of 5 DT1 members would oppose a certain controversial trust feedback, these feedbacks would vanish in untrusted feedback, even if it's a feedback from a DT1 member (like our case here) if enough DT1 members agree on removing it vs. don't agree to remove it.
Such a feature would be able to solve issues like mentioned by OP.

Wow. I kinda feel special now... 

Just kidding, I just saw my name mentioned and had to give it a good read before I fully understood.

Yeah his ratings were a bit too much and too often and causing too much shit-stirring for me to deal with.

Anyhow, glad I understand why I was mentioned now, and no, I don't care at all if he distrusts me, i could give zero f's about this kind of stuff as of late, I'm just too busy.

Allow me LFAO

Let us work with some data to justify some findings 😉 [You are an A**hole to inspire me for spending the last an hour LOL].
You and everyone else, feel free to make your own findings whatever you like from it.

Data collection one: Judgement trusted by JollyGood VS Users trusted by JollyGood

Set A:
1. joeperry (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (327 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. Lauda (Trust: +34 / =18 / -5) (1939 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. allyouracid (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (287 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. stompix (Trust: neutral) (DT1! (7) 4847 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. Avirunes (Trust: +12 / =1 / -0) (466 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
6. DaveF (Trust: +31 / =2 / -0) (5181 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
7. examplens (Trust: +5 / =4 / -0) (DT1! (19) 1464 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
8. nutildah (Trust: +15 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (23) 5940 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
9. yahoo62278 (Trust: +38 / =2 / -0) (DT1! (25) 3197 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
10. LFC_Bitcoin (Trust: +30 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (18) 7528 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
11. Slow death (Trust: +3 / =2 / -0) (583 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
12. Javi_Anibarro (Trust: neutral) (32 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
13. Hhampuz (Trust: +122 / =3 / -0) (5044 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
14. Igebotz (Trust: +7 / =3 / -0) (DT1! (9) 1370 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
15. icopress (Trust: +34 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (21) 5577 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
16. logfiles (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (12) 1454 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
17. tvplus006 (Trust: +14 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (14) 1613 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
18. witcher_sense (Trust: +15 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (16) 3967 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
19. The Cryptovator (Trust: +22 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (23) 2100 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
20. lovesmayfamilis (Trust: +27 / =2 / -0) (3906 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
21. TalkStar (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) (734 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
22. Ratimov (Trust: +24 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (12) 11217 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
23. FatFork (Trust: +7 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (9) 2175 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)


Set B:
1. Vod (Trust: +26 / =2 / -0) (1938 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. DiamondCardz (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (101 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. peloso (Trust: +1 / =3 / -5) (187 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. Coinfan (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (117 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5.
6.
7. digit (Trust: neutral) (10 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
8. Timelord2067 (Trust: +15 / =13 / -0) (DT1 (-9) 1135 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
9. jeremypwr (Trust: +29 / =2 / -0) (DT1! (10) 3320 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
10.
11.
12.
13. dopey (Trust: neutral) (14 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
14. Gianluca95 (Trust: +7 / =2 / -0) (196 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
15. SiNeReiNZzz (Trust: !!!: +4 / =2 / -11) (793 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
16.
17.
18.
19. thandie (Trust: neutral) (360 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
20.
21.
22. s0nix (Trust: neutral) (11 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
23. TwitchySeal (Trust: +6 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (4) 1447 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
24. vlom (Trust: neutral) (113 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
25. JaredKaragen (Trust: neutral) (165 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
26. Jemzx00 (Trust: +1 / =1 / -0) (45 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
27.
28. IconFirm (Trust: +0 / =1 / -2) (74 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
29. johnsmithx (Trust: +0 / =2 / -1) (7 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
30. blurryeyed (Trust: +0 / =5 / -4) (20 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
31. kurian (Trust: neutral) (2 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
32.
33. mosprognoz (Trust: +3 / =1 / -2) (177 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
34. KTChampions (Trust: +6 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (4) 1609 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
35.
36. invincible49 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (255 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
37.
38.
39.
40. darcon_pr (Trust: neutral) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
41.
42.
43. cryptobenn (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
44.
45. 1miau (Trust: +8 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (27) 5985 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
46. Trade Runner (Trust: +0 / =1 / -2) (66 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
47. bitbottrader (Trust: neutral) (8 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
48. zasad@ (Trust: +3 / =2 / -0) (3903 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
49. protrader786 (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (61 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
50.
51. decodx (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (5) 770 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
52. CryptoYar (Trust: neutral) (634 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
53. villain_Mr.Burns (Trust: +0 / =2 / -3) (25 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
54. PaperWallet (Trust: +0 / =1 / -2) (21 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
55. Poker Player (Trust: +1 / =0 / -1) (1777 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
56. wagmi (Trust: neutral) (75 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
57. light_warrior (Trust: neutral) (741 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Ignore data Ratimov, Javi_Anibarro. Hhampuz from Set A. Fill the blank space of Set B. You will have a perfect match.


Data collection two: Judgement Distrusts by JollyGood VS Users Distrusts by JollyGood
Set C:
Fuc*k you all, good luck copy pasting all 2715 members LOL. Go to this page and use your keyboard. Press Ctrl+F and paste a user from Set D. 2 of 2 match means the user exists in Set C.

Set D:
1. HostFat (Trust: neutral) (DT1 (-2) 195 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. TECSHARE (Trust: +41 / =10 / -1) (957 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. Gyrsur (Trust: +1 / =3 / -0) (513 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. babo (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (2753 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. figmentofmyass (Trust: +0 / =0 / -12) (983 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
6. robelneo (Trust: +4 / =1 / -0) (135 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
7. funchiestz (Trust: # +0 / =0 / -9) (92 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
8. andulolika (Trust: # +3 / =2 / -8) (47 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
9. rby (Trust: +0 / =4 / -1) (360 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
10. teeGUMES (Trust: +8 / =2 / -0) (952 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
11. owlcatz (Trust: +43 / =0 / -0) (855 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
12. fuguebtc (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (16 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
13. Vadi2323 (Trust: +1 / =2 / -0) (231 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
14. BenCodie (Trust: +3 / =1 / -0) (357 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
15. mhanbostanci (Trust: +0 / =0 / -2) (511 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
16. Kalemder (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (1219 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
17. BitcoinGirl.Club (Trust: +1 / =3 / -0) (DT1! (4) 1507 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
18. ekiller (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (DT1 (-5) 612 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
19. SpectroCoin_support (Trust: # +0 / =0 / -4) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
20. raiblock Banned! (Trust: +0 / =0 / -3) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
21. TeMHuK Banned! (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (9 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
22. zloy_hulk (Trust: neutral) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
23. coin-investor (Trust: neutral) (56 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
24. xtraelv (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (1792 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
25. crwth (Trust: +4 / =3 / -0) (DT1! (2) 950 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
26. HolyTransaction (Trust: !!!: +0 / =0 / -3) (1 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
27. Vispilio (Trust: +1 / =3 / -2) (1226 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
28. pdogbc (Trust: +0 / =0 / -3) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
29. hacker1001101001 (Trust: # +1 / =2 / -3) (314 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
30. Flypme (Trust: !!!: +0 / =0 / -1) (2 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
31. A_Creature (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
32. Steamtyme (Trust: +6 / =1 / -0) (1928 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
33. translocated (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
34. dragonvslinux (Trust: +2 / =1 / -0) (DT1 (-1) 2062 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
35. Apaxy (Trust: +0 / =0 / -2) (1 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
36. jopen (Trust: neutral) (439 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
37. vycl87 (Trust: +0 / =1 / -2) (620 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
38. huseyin15 (Trust: neutral) (25 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
39. yurez83 (Trust: +0 / =0 / -2) (18 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
40. Nihrupka (Trust: neutral) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
41. miyav (Trust: neutral) (88 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
42. DireWolfM14 (Trust: +20 / =1 / -0) (4088 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
43. HedgeFx (Trust: neutral) (392 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
44. Bitcoin SV (Trust: # +0 / =2 / -23) (233 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
45. John Abraham (Trust: +0 / =3 / -3) (546 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
46. efialtis (Trust: +25 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (4) 1323 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
47. DragonDance (Trust: +0 / =1 / -3) (116 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
48. Goodcat49 Banned! (Trust: +0 / =0 / -2) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
49. Ajay1910 (Trust: neutral) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
50. truth or dare (Trust: +0 / =4 / -3) (15 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
51. ajanwalker (Trust: neutral) (361 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
52. saxydev (Trust: !!!: +0 / =4 / -6) (52 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Ignore data owlcatz, ajanwalker from Set D. Fill the blank space of Set C. You will have another perfect match.

Finding one: Exception is not example. owlcatz, ajanwalker both are the luckiest members who were not distrusted by JollyGood, even though they distrusted him. owlcatz is well known to us but this ajanwalker is lucky until now LOL

Finding two: Sad to see Ratimov, Javi_Anibarro. Hhampuz still haven't trusted JollyGood. Come on brothers! Add him, you already received the reward even before asking for it. Who is Javi_Anibarro?

Source [in case anyone report it for plagiarism 😂 ]: https://loyce.club/trust/2023-09-02_Sat_05.07h/1016855.html

Include JollyGood, sooner or later you will be in his trust list, reward is guaranteed, trust the data.

Dare to exclude him? You will be in his distrust list.
What the fu*k am I shitting? You are already distrusted LOL

Thank your for having me 😉

Maybe it's not such a bad thing you didn't manage whirlwind campaign because jg would probably gave you another negative feedback, and I am sure he won't do that for any other manager for obvious reasons

Just move on, ignore him, and know that you can't get all campaigns in forum, give some space to icopress and others  

No I don't, because he is not using trust system correctly, but I don't really care about broken DT anymore.

This thread sucks.  

Based on the title I thought you were going to make a generic argument about JollyGood's abuse of the trust system.  That would have been a good thread, and you might have actually gotten some of the DT1 members who have JG included to reconsider.  For example, when I recently trolled a troll, some DT members were quick to point out how much they dislike speculative feedbacks, yet ironically they keep JG included despite the fact that his reviews are full of speculations and worse, retaliations.

I don't really care to call anyone out specifically, because when I go through the list of those who trust JG I see a lot of names that I revere, trust, and respect.  Some of them run businesses on the forum, and to JG's credit he does have a nose for sniffing out shitbirds.  That can be helpful to those who rely on the community's feedback when selecting members to hire for a sig-campaign, or they're looking for someone with whom to conduct a trade.  So, I don't begrudge anyone who's got him included, I've done something similar myself by having Timelord2067 included in the past.

Unless JG suffers a short-circuit like the one Timelord2067 recently had, his chances of getting kicked off DT are slim to none.  If getting JG kicked off DT was the goal you meant to achieve by creating this thread, you went about it all wrong.  Instead of pissing, whining, and moaning about the review JG left on your trust wall, make the argument why you believe JG is bad for the trust system as a whole.  A thread like that wouldn't suck.

It appears the negative feedback has now been removed.

I hope you remembered all the sensible things that I published earlier, so you did it (and not because one of the recognized users mentioned it).

Marsel

I just noticed that you have tons of positive ratings after the JG red one, and if that is all organic and unsolicited then you're doing well in rebuilding your reputation. Doesn't seem like you should be too worried about the JG rating. OTOH stirring this pile of poo again and again can only make it worse.

Think about it this way: if someone is really deciding to not hire you entirely because of one red trust rating despite the number of more recent positive ratings, do you really want that business? Another way to look at it is this: do you want to be transparent to your potential customers, or do you expect them to not notice the Bitlucy fiasco if there are no DT red trust ratings about it?

I think all you need to do when someone asks about that JG rating is to give them a 1-2 sentence summary of your side of the story and direct them to one of the threads on that subject for more info. If you feel confident that your behavior in that debacle and afterwards is not worthy of red trust then your potential customers should be able to see that as well.

I never wanted (thought) it to look like you said above and I am not okay to see someone to send unsolicited PMs to my existing clients or potential client telling : "Hey this guy is a fraud, don't risk your business with him". Not when I am handling huge amount of cash (coin) per month, incoming in escrow wallet and outgoing for payments. No one can prove any mismanagement of the funds in my business. You, of course missed the timeline.

That being said, if that negative feedback looks like a feedback for not liking a message from the messenger then I remove it. I really have very little time to go deep into a discussion and prove a point to keep it.

All I can mainly say is good luck trying to get JG excluded from DT as he is supported by many DT1 members and has been for over a year now, since he left you that feedback.



In the meantime the support for his feedback hasn't changed much. It seems pretty clear by now that those who support his feedback aren't particularly concerned about the feedback he left you, or at least where he lost some supporters he gained others. The point is by now another thread about it isn't going to change anything so you'll just have to deal with the fact you may lose some customers because of it.

I'm also not a fan of the feedback, however unless something changes, like more negative feedback towards you or questionable feedback to others from JG, then there's no point in bringing this back up.

Unusual but interesting and a very good question. I don't think (at least, I can not remember asking anyone to write a feedback on the feedback page) I would do such things and ask someone for a positive feedback. Ethically, I think it's not okay to ask for a feedback from others unless it comes organically from them.

Since you asked this question, I may share a bit about this unspoken feeling that I always had in me. When I had my lending business I had many regular borrowers who used to take loan and after few successful payments they asked me to leave positive feedback for them. I always ignored such request, it was like - I did not see what they wrote except in one or two cases, some even went ahead upfront to leave me positive feedback with the hope that they will get a return from it. You can see a few on my trust page.

There were two reasons for me leaving lending business:
- I was in huge loss
- It seemed (never wanted to speak openly) like many people expect they deserve a feedback from the lender especially if the lender is in DT.
At some point I was annoyed having all those requests and ignoring many.

Anyway, after managing so many campaigns I have earned this: +19
May be it that indicates something or may be it's nothing, not sure.

My counter question, mind sharing why would you ask such unusual interesting question?

He also left many tags for people that directly came out of no fact, no logic but purely out of retaliation. May be you did not check his sent feedback section. There is this problem - when you want to check his trust page from Loyce.club or want to check his feedback page, you will see there are so many numbers in the list and since you have this great beautiful memory about him that he is a great scam buster (he used to be long ago), after seeing a first few you feel better to close the page. Have you even ever considered how he insults people on different threads, he does it all the time to the people who do not accept his arguments.

IMO, part of the issue is that JollyGood does have a lot of it right. He also has a bunch wrong, once again IMO.

So, do you not support (trust) him and have his good feedback count less, or do you not have him on your trust list and possibly have someone get away with something that they might not have if JG had not been DT1 / 2.

Obviously I trust you I am in a campaign you manage and are in my trust list.

On that same note JollyGood is in my trust list because he has left some well deserved tags on people over the years that others have not, And, I fully admit I am also part of the problem because I should be tagging people but keep putting it off if I was more active, I think that taking out 'marginal' people would probably come easier to me since I would have already tagged them.

Have to think about the best way to handle it.

This forum needs a copy & edit feedback from another user function....

-Dave

We all want the best for the forum, but we often make decisions based on emotions rather than facts, and most DT find it difficult to fix their mistakes because they don't want to look like idiots, but trust me when I say there is no shame in doing what is right. When the Bitlucy scandal broke, most of us were swept up in the OP story, and even a flag was created against Royse, but when the truth came out, we realised that the customers were not the only victims of the scam; Royse too was a victim.


I agree with NotATether that the second feedback did not justify what really happened, Royse was not in charge of the hot wallet vault and was not given any backend access to the site, from what was reviewed he was only offered co-partner to take care of promotion and ANN management, Bitlucy were so clean that no one could have predicted that they would scam their customers in the future. He received the same punishment as other customers who deposited. It was never his responsibility to refund victims; yet, he tried his utmost to reimburse campaign victims because he personally hired them.

When Luna's investors were burned, none of the Luna influencers, marketers, or promoters were held liable for refunding the victims. Marketers' rights are restricted. Royse has paid for his recklessness and has managed over ten successfully projects afterwards.  Nail him to the cross for one fault out of 100 is just too harsh.

I truly want both of you to finish this drama without causing any further dramas. If I were JG, I would change it to Neutral and rewrite my sentence. The same to efialtis.

JG is someone I respect and with whom I have shared some of my personal experiences, but if he makes a bad decision, I tell him to his face. Only someone who cares will tell you that you have faeces on your teeth. Haters will laugh and turn away.

Just curious, have you ever asked other users to post positive feedback for you? Like your campaign participants perhaps?

I'm not exactly sure about the timeline, but at some point you were part of many allegations and you did collect negative feedback for that. I get that you don't like airfinex sending a PM to your client, but it looks like the message itself was correct.
I don't think this justifies a "trading with the user is high-risk"-warning. See this:
If anything, warning someone against a potential problem could even be considered doing the right thing.

About the wording of your feedback: maybe he did it to cause you financial damage. Or maybe he did it to save your client from that damage. Either way, it looks like you're blaming the messenger for a message you didn't like.

It was lucky indeed for Royse to not manage that campaign, I'm not sure if Royse would have asked the WW to escrow 40k worth of DAI. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)


I'm glad it is sorted out between you two.

This is a credit to you.



I too have long since given you the benefit of the doubt and I'm glad you did. Just to reiterate that I never contacted any of your clients, and, in fact, I thought you had made it up, somehow manipulating the screenshot (I was not the only one who thought so), but seeing according to joker_josue's analysis showing that the screenshot had not been manipulated, I ended up believing that, indeed, a client told you that I had contacted him, when I did not contact anyone.

If it happens to you again, please send me a PM and let's somehow confront whoever told you.

Lastly I wanted to give you some friendly advice. I would spend my energies on building the new and not fighting the past. Continue managing campaigns as well as you do, make your business instead of a serveral hundred thousand a year business, a $1M one. Most likely scenario is that you will continue to accumulate positive feedback and if you get to a point where you have 50 or 100 positive feedbacks, the fact that you have two negative ones from a long time ago will be completely irrelevant.

And since you talked about Best_Change, I think it's a good example, because as of today the only negative feedback and from someone who is no longer on the forum is buried under 25 positives and it doesn't matter.

Visible image



Poker player got the benefit because there was a chance that he did not do it but you can not prove that you did not do it. After going this far, how would you expect I give you a benefit?

The feedback is
To be honest, I provided some hidden service and some consultancy for them but they never wanted me to bring it public because they were afraid that it could give their brand some negative influence (fact is, we can not blame the clients for it, they really do not have any clue what goes behind a negative feedback. A trusted feedback, that's all they see. Of course a little research could prove their idea wrong. I have many campaigns who are TOP brands and thriving in the industry like Sinbad, Yo!Mix, MegaPari etc and they could see these brands are in right direction).

It's very unfortunate that whirlwind.money pulled the scam, I don't think Hhampuz is to be blamed or any of us who helped, deserves a negative promotion. We are just managers, not some people who came from the future. We know nothing more, we know as much as you know from public domain.

It will be a good start if he also removes the feedback he left me, in the form of a personal vendetta.

I can't prove I didn't do it. See my point? You can't disprove a negative.

That was long overdue, but it's a good start. Now let it go.

This was all true. I think I've said it before: You fucked up! But, I also hope you've learned from it: be less trusting and more careful. And there's this:
@JollyGood: I think you should consider theymos' quote too.

I mean, with the way Whirlwind's reputation imploded at the end, it was good that Royse ultimately did not manage that campaign (and have a new scam accusation to contend with).

Didn't Royse777 meant that he would have gotten Whirlwind campaign if not for the negative tag? That means the company told him he is not going to give him the work because of the feedback. I may want to employ a campaign manager, if I see a campaign manager that is having no negative feedback and bad neutral feedback, I will prefer the person to someone that has one negative feedback.

That is not going to be possible. What I see is that Royse777 should settle this amicably with Jollygood and efialtis.

With what I see now, Royse777 is a good campaign manager. This should be settled and the negative tag should be changed to a good one or be erased, but this can not be done with them fighting each other. With what I think, Royse777 does not deserve that red trust anymore.

As campaign manager, you have already paid off all the signature campaign participants (from your pocket) IIRC.

It says you are a co-partner though? If you did not have access to the vault or wallet storing the players' funds, and it was not your responsibility to manage that as part of the co-operation (and you also do not have a percentage stake in bitlucy or derive any profit from it outside of the signature campaign), then you legally have no obligations to reimburse them yourself, as that should've been the bitlucy guy's job but as everyone has seen already, he was a scammer.

But because of this negative feedback it may have lowered his chances of getting more projects. Just like if someone has a negative trust rating from DT when applying for a signature campaign, they will end up not getting accepted.

In my opinion this is likely why Royse brought up this topic for possibly to find a way to settled the situation like from negative rating to make it neutral. If I remember correctly Royse also gave JG a negative rating and as of now it has been removed.

Fact is I am still surviving because of those feedback I earned though my contribution to the forum, these are approval from people for the years of contribution I have in the community. I believe feedback system should be organic.

But these negative feedback from JollyGood are not organic. It's about his personal dis-likeness and he expressed by using these feedback. Something that came out from his personal dis-likeness is hurting my business which I am conducting with the HIGHEST standard (no one can question the quality of conducting the campaigns I have). The monthly transaction volume of my business is minimum $25K, yearly minimum $300K but still I get reasons like "We are not going with someone who have negative reputation". It's not fault of these new people, the potential clients who are overlooking others feedback. They see all but when they see the negative one, obviously it creates a doubt in their mind, that doubt leads a change of mind. I am not saying I will have every projects that launch in the community, the other managers are as good as me if not better than me but when a project miss out of hand just because of the reason of having negative feedback, it's hard to take.

Feedback system especially the negative feedback is not to use against someone who you don't like. You can give a positive feedback to anyone you like, it does not harm but a negative feedback can have many negative consequences and one should not just give it when he does not go alone with others.

There are no question JollyGood is not comfortable with me. It's not complex to understand why he left these negative feedback. It's not just me, you will discover majority of his negative feedback are towards the people he does not go comfortable. Is this a good reason to have him in your trust list?

Conflict with with The Cryptovator, is it about TMAN leaving negative feedback to Best_change because they did not have an escrow? Do you see defending them was a wrong reason at that time?

Look where is Best_change now. They needed this defense from someone (I am glad I was there for them) or they were not here now. If I was joining TMAN and how JollyGood reacts, then Best_change would be destroyed so far and you were not wearing their signature today.

It's easy to support a positive reason but before supporting a negative reason, one really needs to consider so many unthinkable consequences especially when it is about a business. A business is not just a living tool of one person, many people depends on it. If Best_Change was ruined at that time, then thousands of people currently who are depending on them now would have different story.

You have a lot of positive references to your good work in your reviews. Do you consider those people less important than another forum member who left you a negative review? We here on the forum always encourage everyone to do an independent investigation and eventually draw their own conclusions for a solution. Why are your advertisers too lazy to figure it out and take sides?
You asked why JollyGood is on my trust list (I received a telegram notification, and therefore I answered).
Both of you were on my list: JollyGood and YOU, Royse777. But you subsequently asked very much to remove yourself from this list, which I did, but not at the first request. I want to say that I respect both of you, and I respect your opinion and your firm position. Therefore, I will not change anything since you really have an explosive nature; this has been working since the conflict with The Cryptovator, and this may be your main problem with other users who have given you red tags.

After all considering, I gave you a benefit of doubt, it was a huge one and still telling myself it needed a warning but it's okay. I still have enough evidence and reasons to believe that it is you who sent PMs to my clients and eared them negative things not to hire my service. But anyway, I ate it all. Hope next time I will not see and experience any such thing anymore.

I just had a chat with efialtis. It seems he believe at that time he was right and I was wrong, he believes I was supposed to take my decisions based on his warning. It seems he does not understand a situation may take longer time for someone-else to evaluate before making a conclusion.

According to his feedback

I should, If I remember I was bad also towards you too. Sorry for that. Someone needs to be on my shoes before to understand what I was going through at that time.

But anyway, a negative feedback is not a prescription for anger management or I am wrong?

Let's start with the feedback left on you by JG. Reading his feedback the top part is true. Feedback updated: This user has serious anger management issues and avoids answering questions about their full involvement in the Royse777/Bitlucy scam. You let your emotions control you when you were replying in that thread. Might have needed to take some time before responding is all i'm saying.


JG is not the only neg you have either. efialtis has also neg tagged you over the same issue. Just in case you missed that.

I really don't think the neg trust is hurting you all that much. You've picked up quite a few campaigns over the last 1-2 years. I see you self promoting in darn near every new opportunity that pops up. You're not going to get them all, I can tell you that from past experience. You can be the most popular person on this forum and still not get them all.

Jollygood is not going to have 50+ people remove him from their lists. He might be open to revising his feedback on you, but I doubt he ever removes it completely. Is it really worth opening the drama back up?

Pointless drama. I doubt that not even 20% of those who have JG on their trust list are going to change it for this thread. JG has already been talked about a lot in the forum and some people have already excluded him. This thread does not add much more.


Since this thread is not about you and me, I'm not going to respond to what we've already talked about many times.

The feedback left for you is because there are some good reasons for me to believe that you conducted my clients personally and suggested not to hire my service because I have negative feedback. Which was totally immoral and unexpected. You were not able to prove it that you did not do that. All evidences, suggestions lead it to you only.

To be honest personally I suspect you and JollyGood (only you two) are two direct threat for my business, you both intentionally harm it and feel good when you are successful. Difference is JollyGood have this bad ass attitude to do it publicly by manipulating the DT system with his scam busting image and you are coward enough to do it via private communication.

As for not accepting you in signature campaign. Tell me a manager's name who did not accept you for this feedback. I will personally talk to them about it.

Nice thread. Looks like there's an interesting new drama, especially about @jollygood, I'm really excited today

---

Maybe I need to prepare a coffee for @BenCodie, @BitcoinGirl.Club

I don't know why you don't apply yourself. You have a garbage feedback in my profile that you yourself have recognized that it is in a grey area, that is to say, that you are veiledly recognizing that it is garbage. It prevents me from joining some signature campaigns.

Lead by example.

You only see the speck in someone else's eye.

I trust JG among other reasons because he made a perfect reading of the garbage feedback you left me.

So I was thinking just to ignore the feedback left by JollyGood, it's been long days and I thought it isn't gonna matter. I have enough in my portfolio to continue my business without the effect of the feedback. But it turns out I still get refused by clients because of the feedback he left on my trust page.


These clients on the forum are new, they have no idea who left negative feedback for what reason, their only justification is the negative feedback is there and it's visible, they believe a negative feedback is bad for their business (it make sense when there are others who does not have it, it's the first thing that they see before everything else when they do their home work).

There should be no argument that the feedback were left because JollyGood was felt insulted of the response I had when he was trying to show his usual bossiness to me that he shows to other members all the time to destroy their reputation (people who does not go along with him). JollyGood failed to destroy me entirely though but his action is effecting me until this date.

Do you guys (who have him in your trust list) really think a controversial user like JollyGood should be in the DT area?^(Q2)
I will be grateful to hear some justified response from you for the both questions left for you.

Cheers,


JollyGood's judgement is Trusted by:
1. Vod (Trust: +26 / =2 / -0) (1938 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. DiamondCardz (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (101 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. peloso (Trust: +1 / =3 / -5) (187 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. Coinfan (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (117 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. joeperry (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (327 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
6. Lauda (Trust: +34 / =18 / -5) (1939 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
7. digit (Trust: neutral) (10 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
8. Timelord2067 (Trust: +15 / =13 / -0) (DT1 (-9) 1135 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
9. jeremypwr (Trust: +29 / =2 / -0) (DT1! (10) 3320 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
10. allyouracid (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (287 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
11. stompix (Trust: neutral) (DT1! (7) 4847 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
12. Avirunes (Trust: +12 / =1 / -0) (466 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
13. dopey (Trust: neutral) (14 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
14. Gianluca95 (Trust: +7 / =2 / -0) (196 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
15. SiNeReiNZzz (Trust: !!!:  +4 / =2 / -11) (793 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
16. DaveF (Trust: +31 / =2 / -0) (5181 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
17. examplens (Trust: +5 / =4 / -0) (DT1! (19) 1464 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
18. nutildah (Trust: +15 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (23) 5940 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
19. thandie (Trust: neutral) (360 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
20. yahoo62278 (Trust: +38 / =2 / -0) (DT1! (25) 3197 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
21. LFC_Bitcoin (Trust: +30 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (18) 7528 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
22. s0nix (Trust: neutral) (11 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
23. TwitchySeal (Trust: +6 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (4) 1447 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
24. vlom (Trust: neutral) (113 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
25. JaredKaragen (Trust: neutral) (165 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
26. Jemzx00 (Trust: +1 / =1 / -0) (45 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
27. Slow death (Trust: +3 / =2 / -0) (583 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
28. IconFirm (Trust: +0 / =1 / -2) (74 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
29. johnsmithx (Trust: +0 / =2 / -1) (7 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
30. blurryeyed (Trust: +0 / =5 / -4) (20 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
31. kurian (Trust: neutral) (2 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
32. Igebotz (Trust: +7 / =3 / -0) (DT1! (9) 1370 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
33. mosprognoz (Trust: +3 / =1 / -2) (177 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
34. KTChampions (Trust: +6 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (4) 1609 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
35. icopress (Trust: +34 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (21) 5577 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
36. invincible49 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (255 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
37. logfiles (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (12) 1454 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
38. tvplus006 (Trust: +14 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (14) 1613 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
39. witcher_sense (Trust: +15 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (16) 3967 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
40. darcon_pr (Trust: neutral) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
41. The Cryptovator (Trust: +22 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (23) 2100 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
42. lovesmayfamilis (Trust: +27 / =2 / -0) (3906 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
43. cryptobenn (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
44. TalkStar (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) (734 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
45. 1miau (Trust: +8 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (27) 5985 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
46. Trade Runner (Trust: +0 / =1 / -2) (66 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
47. bitbottrader (Trust: neutral) (8 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
48. zasad@ (Trust: +3 / =2 / -0) (3903 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
49. protrader786 (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (61 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
50. FatFork (Trust: +7 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (9) 2175 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
51. decodx (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (5) 770 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
52. CryptoYar (Trust: neutral) (634 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
53. villain_Mr.Burns (Trust: +0 / =2 / -3) (25 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
54. PaperWallet (Trust: +0 / =1 / -2) (21 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
55. Poker Player (Trust: +1 / =0 / -1) (1777 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
56. wagmi (Trust: neutral) (75 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
57. light_warrior (Trust: neutral) (741 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)