Topic: Low quality posts or abuse of trust? (Read 525 times)

No _blackstar, you're cool.
Atleast for the fact that you have worn some tenderness just after the time you weren't sure wether or not you had abused the merit system; ^{so you made a post on meta for clarity}

The adjectival phrase that has the word 'worse' has made the whole story gleam. Honestly,I didn't mean to taunt you.
I was only trying to make it exemplary; that jollygood could probably be careful when sending tags just as you are now.
Infact, I respect how you go extra miles to confirming any illicit misconduct before passing on judgements.

There's nix to worry about 
Cheers,
Sandra👩‍🦱

You mean?

Is it because I tagged some alt accounts with neutral tags, or because I tagged many 1xbit campaign participants with red tags that you think I'm worse than you think?

I just don't understand what you mean, I hope I can get a little explanation here.

I wrote neutral feedback before to some members, and believe it or not, I sometimes get a private message from that member asking me to please remove my neutral feedback.
Maybe for some reason members are considering neutral feedback to be slightly more negative than positive.
I personally wouldn't be against canceling neutral feedback, but they can still be useful.

BitcoinTalk User Notes is perfect solution thanks to great work from TryNinja.
I think there is still a need to sometimes write neutral feedback to member when you are not sure if you should give negative feedback or not.

It is very good that Jollygood is doing its duties diligently in the forum. No one here wants scamming calls in the forum. And other DT members who are doing the duty are very honest and very good hearted. I know they are joining this forum with faith and they are very knowledgeable so they are taking great responsibility of the forum.

Loyce,
yunno in real life setting, everyone understand things differently; infact that's why alot of scholars in class raise thier hands in the air to a question and ends up answering on the contrary. They ain't denied of thier prerogatives yeah? So maybe,this is his but, it is misconceived.


Jolly is good. So I'd say he be careful. I mean,in adding references like this one to proving any point on the DT.
_Blackstar had a problem worse than this one. So he simply applied some tenderness and overcame paranoia. He is good now I guess.

Cheers ,
Sandra👩‍🦱

Why would it be a compliment? It's a neutral statement, and that's fine:
It's not Trust abuse, it's a neutral opinion.

@JollyGood: I know you've read [Script] BitcoinTalk User Notes, which I think is a better solution instead of writing "Note to self:" on someone's feedback page.

I think the OP rightly cares about the future. He's already told you about it. After looking at JollyGood's account, one can really understand that this guy is very harsh with his tags.


The next step JollyGood can take is to change the tag from neutral to negative. After all, you yourself showed an example of how, over time, he changed his assessment.


 I don't think Jolly will follow them, but there is a warning, and it is advisable not to catch his eye, no matter how funny it is said.

@OP
After reading your headline, one could have the impression that someone has caught a negative trust but it's just a neutral one. 
No need to worry at all.
A neutral trust doesn't do any damage to your trust score, only negative trusts will. So, it can't be called abuse.

When getting a neutral feedback for spamming Bitcointalk, very often due to paid signature campaigns, it's time for such accounts to stop producing low quality content. If you don't want to get such feedbacks, stop shitposting.
A neutral trust should be considered as an heads-up to review the own behaviour / posts and to increase posting quality. Of course, DT needs to provide sufficient insight, why the neutral feedback was given.
In case spammers are admitting their mistakes and improve posting quality, there's also a chance to get it removed, depending on the DT member.

But complaining and whining about a neutral trust will just get your account into more problems as you are showing no signs of self-reflection.


In addition, it's interesting to see a Newbie bringing that up, LOL. 
Got your main account tagged?
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

When you talk about the possible abuse of the trust system by JollyGood then you have to understand why JollyGood tag them with a neutral tag even though it is possible for him to give all those accounts red tag.

But you're not referring to abuse but rather to compare the quality of posts between users who you think don't deserve to be called spammers and are tagged. I've seen actmyname have a lot of neutral tags for the same reason, so why do you just think JollyGood does it and leaves you so paranoid about getting hurt in the future?

I know that trust systems are not for dealing with spammers, but neutral tags are great for forcing spammers a bit to change the interest of their posts to higher quality. Every user you mention in the thread has the right to ask JollyGood to remove or consider the tag, so I don't think it will make you feel intimidated to speak up and post anywhere.

No. I expected you to quote the posts that were in Jolly's reference, so we can evaluate his decision. Although, now that I have looked at the deleted posts, I think his assessment was justified and he has every right to delete such posts from his thread.

Second, you failed to mention that, for example, Daltonik and ololajulo were already tagged by other DT members as spammers a year ago, or, for example, that ololajulo already has 198 posts deleted by moderators, which definitely puts him in the spam category. If you are going to accuse someone of trust abuse, at least do some proper research.

So you're expecting me to use like 3 pages for my post? Like I should present all their posts before you can accessed? This is ridiculous!

You cherrypicked one post from each member and you expect us to make a conclusion about the quality of their posts? That is not how things work.

JollyGood expressed his personal opinion through those neutral tags. That is his right, no matter how you feel about it, and it is not trust abuse in my opinion. If you do not agree with his use of the trust system, you exclude him from your trust list, and that is it.

---

Why is this a contradiction? Everything is already archived and all posts are readily available in external archives if you know how to use them.

You were eager to respond and you don't read to understand, I don't even know if you really read before making this comment. I will refer you to the post again but read with full concentration this time around and you'll find an answer to what motivated me to care about those 5 accounts.
I actually care because I might be a victim some other day hence I want JollyGood to give examples of how a quality post looks like. If you read my post very well from the beginning to end all these your questions have an answer in the post. I don't know JollyGood or heard anything about him. I also stated clearly in my post what prompted me to check his profile. In fact, I admire JollyGood and even proud of him having such reputation in the forum but this particular attitude of him deserves attention and need for him to change.

I HAVE THESE TO SAY:

The real problem is not if the users you mentioned above are quality posters or not. The problem lies on whether it is right to leave a tag to anyone whom you feel made one or two low quality posts among 100 good ones he made.

Another issue for determination is whether what JollyGood left is actually a tag?
Personally, that is not a tag. First the writeup said "Note for Self" which  means there is a need for the forum to provide a means for users to take note or a user need to take note with a bookmark.
Secondly, it is a natural note(tag).
Now, the question is, is it right for a user to take a note on someone's trust feedback?

A big contradiction in the side of JollyGood is deleting the evidence of tagging someone and still pointed reference to a deleted evidence without archiving it.

I understand that JollyGood is running a self moderated thread in the gambling discussion board. In that board what appears to be a quality post could be totally off point to complete signature quota. Only sports men will understand what I mean.

I don't know what makes you so motivated to care about neutral tags on that 5 accounts by JollyGood, in fact I didn't even find any of the accounts you mentioned ever complaining on reputation boards because of neutral tags.

I wonder why you care about that neutral tag while previously JollyGood also tagged some other accounts ^[spammers] with red tags?
See the references in some of these accounts if abuse of trust systems is an excuse for you.
1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=466116
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=955510
3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=944497
4. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1153164

I'm starting to think the OP is the owner of one of the accounts he cited in the thread, that's likely what made him start this thread.

I believe those who've received tags, whether from Jollygood or any other user, must be feeling downcast especially if the tags were on an accusation of producing low quality posts. That isn't even why the trust system was set up by the forum, I don't think that's an angle to it. Tags are meant to look into scam activities and related matters but I get to find some members misuse its application. Tagging a user because of perceived low quality posts, whether neutral or not, it's not a good way of handling such. We should encourage one another to be better instead of disparaging or putting another down simply because we feel they don't meet our set standard.

Trust isn't moderated. Jollygood is overzealous in some cases with his tags, but in this particular case neutrals are fine. He isn't red tagging users for what he deems low quality.

BTW why do you not consider these posts you mentioned "low quality"? Just because there are a bunch of words? So if I post,



blah blah blah blah blah bitcointalk blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bitcointalk blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bitcointalk blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bitcointalk blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bitcointalk blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bitcointalk blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bitcointalk blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bitcointalk blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah bitcointalk blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bitcointalk blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bitcointalk blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bitcointalk blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bitcointalk blah blah blah blah blah

it's ok because I had alot of words and mentioned the forum? Or whatever the subject is that i'm supposed to be talking about?

We all have different ideas about what is good or bad quality. Noone is ever gonna think the same way. We might agree from time to time with each other, but we all have different ideas generally about quality. Instead of making a post on someone because they neutral tagged people. Message the user and ask him personally why he considers the posts low quality. He may or may not respond(likely will not(, but at least make an effter before calling someone out on their opinions IMO. If no response, try to appeal to the community.

Another question, why do you care? Are you one of these accounts? Are they your friends? Are you just generally interested in Jollygood? Do you have a personal vendetta against Jollygood?

It's not seems like good but the thing is that since you have being a negative tag and it confirmed that the negative have to be changed to neutral, he will do so by turning it neutral. Given someone neutral stand as a warning by telling the user that is about to do or what is doing is absolutely wrong, so that's the essence of neutral tags as a reminder.

Correct me if I wrong, I saw post made by @NdaMk can't said as low quality post depending he talk with player statistic on primer league until running several games. He has give fact about how many goals scoring by Haaland, Firmino, Salah and he talk about Liverpool losing Sadio Mane in this time window transfer.

I don't know what his reason claimed another post always low quality.

You're displaying an excerpt of that user's post, which has nothing to do with what is marked by: @JollyGood.

He doesn't care that your post quote, @JollyGood, is known for his aggressive nature, he tagged the user based on his own results, as below.

You must take from the trust neutral the Reference in that user's profile, for your clarification purposes.

example:
1. Daltonik
• https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60892937

2. NdaMk
• https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5275303

The problem is because @JollyGood, giving neutral is not your quote, but based on the Referece in the user's profile, what you argue has nothing to do with your quote, you have to refer to the Referece.

If you don't want to deal with @JollyGood, don't post in his thread, if you don't know about gambling or sports, lest you get labeled a low quality user.