Topic: My honest two questions to Royse777. (Read 762 times)

Yes, it is true that I use these types of resources. But one thing has nothing to do with the other.

Thankfully these tools exist to help us communicate with each other. This has never been an impediment to understanding. Interact with dozens of users and never had any problems.

Really, I apologize for my English. I've always made that clear to everyone and I have no problem saying it. Could it improve? Yes, it's a personal project that I haven't been able to move forward with yet.

So I don't see that as a justification for that kind of tag. But like I said, that's not a problem for me.
People draw whatever conclusions they want from my contributions.
I will continue as best I can, as I have done so far.

Well, I can see where the "incoherent" part of the neutral tag on your profile is coming from.  

I understand that not everyone is proficient in English. However, it's fair to say that some members may find it challenging to read your posts and may have trouble deciphering your messages. This can be a common issue when using translation tools like Google Translate (I don't know if that's actually the case here, but that's what it looks like).

Keep in mind, while you may be a top-notch poster in your local community, that same level of recognition may not extend to the English section of the forum. If I were you, I'd definitely brush up on my English skills or check out some resources that can help me with better syntax and grammar in my posts.

I don't think the issue with getting neutral tags should be a concern must than expected except for the negative tags, there's a way to make it simple, which has to be from the campaign manager to engage his organizations on the relevant meanings to each of the tags present, it's also a thing to consider that much of the bounties campaign participants where believed to be spammers which is wrong, at least a campaign has criterias for selection and i believe they wouldn't want to employ a participant who is a spammer, in the same view, any signature campaign does not go against neutral tags except for the negative one, so to me tags should not be much considered than what the user's profile represent itself.

When in December 2022 I received this neutral label, I found it super strange because it doesn't correspond to reality at all. Initially I thought of questioning the author of that tag, but then I chose not to. Although I never agree.

It is true, that after a few weeks, and having been asked about this situation (which explained the logical reasons to me) I decided to contact the author of the tag, and later expose the situation to the community. After these contacts, the author of the label decided to withdraw it and inform me about it. After a few days, he put the tag back on without saying anything to me.

He continued to find that label totally disproportionate and that nothing corresponds to reality, taking into account that I am the top5 of users who post the most in this forum. I don't need to post to count for campaigns.

Give my share, my work here speaks for me. If people still think that I post just to count in campaigns, it's to be regretted, but friends as before. If you're a campaign manager, like I am, great. If you don't want to, patience and friends as before.

Despite everything, I still think it's highly unfair to have a tag (even though I'm neutral) raising the suspicion that I'm making low-quality posts, just to meet campaign objectives. This doesn't make any sense, when I make more than 70 posts a week. Give my share, I did everything I could. Each draw their own conclusions.

The way the italicised words sound, and even the statement made by other users, it looks as if a user has the power to remove the tags on their pages themselves.
Tbh, I know how difficult it used to be for people to convince someone like JG to remove a tag.
Besides, I don't think it's even necessary to remove a neutral tag. When a neg tag is harsh, the victim begs or makes a case and such a neg tag would be removed or revised to neutral tag. In my opinion, I think neutral tag is something that will likely remain their because it doesn't pose much threat.

You forgot to response my second thought LOL

You and me in sexual relationship? No way, I understand with age women miss their memory. I hope your husband is still alive and he still gives you pleasure at least once a month according to your desire 😍. You are not the coward it's those who are requesting you to do their dirty jobs.

It make sense now. So you are doing your job and expecting all of us to support you free? I want my share 🤣

Is it one of the condition of your job?

Did you change to male now? Stay away gayboy, eeeewwwwwww!

If asking a question over PM is unsolicited then the feature of PM should not be here at all.

I don't know. He is here for years and he knows what is good for him and others. I am not a babysitter and I don't get paid unlike you LOL
What is your stress?

I also do not see anything particularly positive or negative here. It is certainly unusual. I trust that Royse meant well, but I am not so sure about his methods. It is my belief that the management of a bounty campaign should have discretion in their decisions, unless it impacts the larger community. Sure, the manager can choose whoever they want for the campaign, that is not the main issue here.


I have no idea what ulterior motives you suspect him of having. Do we know what kind of neutral tags he asked to be removed? I cannot find such information, and unfortunately, trust feedback is not archived anywhere.

That part does not make much sense to anybody. The only thing I can think of is it being something related to Royse777 using it in future to have another attempt at having their own feedback revised.

The common sense approach would be to simply ask applicants that were on the verge of being selected for campaigns but refused because of negative or neutral tags to simply try to have the them removed then re-apply to join campaigns.

Apart from having ulterior motives for selecting participants then asking/forcing them to ask members to remove tags as a prerequisite to stay within the campaign, nothing else comes to mind and this is yet another error of judgement in a long line of errors by Royse777.

The problem can be seen as a complicated one or can be seen as no problem. I think that both approaches are incorrect.

As somebody said, neutral tag (should) bear no meaning. It's not negative tag. But.. But there can still be problems.
Neutral tag for spamming should be a warning exactly for bounty managers. Of course, a bounty manager can accept even a spammer and not count (and even report!) the spam posts; this could even act as a lesson.
Also some write neutral tags in the way they're clearly negative ones; those may be seen as negative.

Then somebody also rightly said that tags are difficult to remove and I agree. I had a neutral tag many years ago from the mighty Vod. It took me years until he got indeed convinced I should not be tagged, even with neutral.
And tags can no longer bear meaning. A Jr. Member can be easily shitposting because of his lack of knowledge (one has to have a certain level of knowledge to understand how little he knows), and he may have become a decent poster by reaching Sr. Member level. Still, he may have a neutral tag.

I don't say it's the case, I came with hypothetical cases.
All I say that it's not OK to generalize. Every single case (user, manager, campaign) can be different.

I also don't say Royse did good or bad. I think that the measure of all this should be the quality of posts in his campaign(s). If a spammer is allowed to spam, then yes, the complaints are more legitimate. But until then, all this is hypothetical at best.

I read this from one of the campaigns he manages. Maybe they have a pre-agreement before being accepted. Every manager has their style of management. If anyone doesn't like their style of management of campaigns, then why bother applying or complain about it? Just ignore and move onto the next one.


About getting the neutral feedback removed. It's hard to pull if off. Some DT members are way too rigid and don't even think about second chances. I think when it comes to feedback regarding post quality. One's recent post history should be more than enough to judge from if they are still spammers or not. Past feedback about post quality can be misleading. Most members start out as shit posters, and then they go on to improve.

No record

Girlboy, if you don't already know what I am capable of, why am I in a sexual relationship with you? I wouldn't allow some goons sway my choice; I'm not a coward. Are you aware that in divorce, the division of property is 50/50?


Yes, just tell me! You have run 100 advertisements since I started offering my services; you don't need to write a book to admit that I am terrible at attracting clients.. BTW if you get a client who can pay me $200/week i will gladly take it ( that's the min i can go).



The topic he opened in reputation saved his ass.

One would think that, but when you look at it a little bit closer, you will notice that almost every signature campaign (especially the newer ones) have at least a couple of shitposters.

Situation changed drastically (combination of more signature campaigns and fewer active members) in the last few years and now there's more signature campaign spots than decent posters which forces managers to lower the bar and this lowering of standards came up to the point that even shitpoters can make $75-$100 per week.

---

I have to agree that what he is doing by accepting members and then asking them to have neutral removed doesn't make much sense to me, but what I would like to know is are those members kicked out of the campaign if they fail to get neutral removed, or they are kept and that's just some sort of reminder for them to ask for it since many probably don't even think that its possible to remove it.

Thank you, yes, I am.


Side idea: I am thinking to launch a bitcointalk campaign management course. You will be learning:
Chapter 1
- How to approach to a client
- How to plan your sales pitch
- How to follow up
- How to close a deal

Chapter 2
- How to make up-sales
- Report handling
- How to handle unsatisfying clients
- How to continue good relationship with your client and become useful for their business

Chapter 3
- Recruitment training

Chapter 4
- How to manage your team
- How to train your team and bring the best out from them

Chapter 5
- Personal development training
- Personal branding training

12 weeks course. Each week 10 hours, total 120 hours duration. One to one tuition. You will be with me on Telegram chat, and everything will be done by texting, no voice, no conference. Per hour rate: $35

For OP 50% discount, limited time offer.

Terms: I may change my mind, I reserve all the rights to accept and deny any application.

/Sarcasm

I was remember with joker_josue's case get neutral tag. Even he's already ask the DT user which give the neutral tag and the community, the tag is revised but it doesn't removed.

We need to being honest here, does we (I, you and everyone else) read someone post and then check the neutral feedback of the account? For me, no. I don't really think a user received neutral feedback is a scammer or someone I need to avoid. It's different if the user receive negative feedback or he's wearing 1xbit signature, many people will judge they're a scammer, even though not all user receive negative feedback is 100% scammer.

What do you think about this one? he's okay to accept a user who receive negative feedback than the user who receive neutral feedback.

Well, i agree with your point of view that people need to improve first and then convince to remove the negative / Neutral feedback, but in both cases, they have to send the PM to the DT member to bring this matter to their attention. So when a few genuine people (who have improved their posting habits) will PM DT, at the same time a lot of others will PM too who haven't improved.

A shit poster can improve and can become better while a good poster can be at times becomes a shit poster. Ideally, when we give feedback to anyone about their posting quality, it should be checked after 3 months or 6 months to see if he has improved. Since people usually forget after giving feedback, so the only option left to the people is to PM the DT members. I would not call it begging because it is the only option if you have improved yourself and want to bring attention to the DT member.

Ahhh.....that's a different thing entirely, and if that's what he's doing--which I've no reason to doubt after the clarification--then that's just wrong.  For one thing, it causes more drama with members trying to get neutral feedback removed, and for another it's squeezing free advertisement out of members who likely will never have a shot at getting paid because they won't be able to get feedback removed.

I'd prefer it if Royse777 just didn't accept members with neutral feedback attesting to those members' lack of post quality instead of letting them in contingent on them getting whoever left the feedback to reverse themselves.  The chances of that happening are usually small.  There can't be that much of a shortage of applicants, can there?

Here we go 😉

My one honest question. Why are you so concerned about it?

My honest thoughts 🤣
1. You have been rejected in one or many of his campaigns and felt hurt
2. One of the participant or many are pissing you to remove the feedback you left. [Solution: You can ignore if you do not agree]
3. One or many participants are too coward to ask it by themselves hence they requested you to create the topic. [Sub question: Why you?]
4. You have problems with Royce so you found a chance to discredit him [although I do not see how you are discrediting but it sounds like you are at least trying]
5. Royce is secretly paying some of you to keep him always in the mind of everyone. [Another sub question: How much if you don't mind?]
6. All these accounts are his alternative accounts 🤑
7. My brain needs a surgery before the sex change 🤪

Another honest question. Did you PM him about it and asked personally first?

I wonder any of us even have the right to discuss about it and give a set of rules to a manager [LOL]. A manager have his own rules, whatever he does or does not it's between him and the people working for him. I am f**king no one to tell him what to do and what not to.

Update
The subs above are bug 😂

Yes, change is constant, but the users stated above are still posting crap. For example, the first user has roughly 10 proof of authentication posts in his most recent 20 posts. Now tell me how the DT is expected to revise tag on such a person.

I have only two honest questions in the OP, if you found something extra its a bug