Topic: Neutral tag about my post quality (Read 578 times)

Thank you first of all for your feedback, as I have made this matter public. I have always been very clear in my dealings with you, as you well know and have mentioned.

When I noticed it, a few weeks after I made the tag, I thought I'd get in touch with you. But, as I don't like to dramatize, I managed not to. Now, when they tell me that this could jeopardize the work I do, I think I should at least act as seriously as possible.

I'm not interested in anything, confusions or misunderstandings that other users have with each other. Everyone must answer for their actions. That's why I didn't create this topic for that purpose! I don't even want to go down that path.


I just want the situation to be reviewed, because I don't think the public remark being made about me is adequate. Although I accept that everyone has their own opinion. But if that ends up hurting me, it's annoying and I'm sorry, because I've never worked with devaluing goals.



I really appreciate this review insofar as it is possible. And I'll wait for that DM I was thinking of writing.


***Topic closed to new information.***

According to the OP, there was communication between himself and Royse777 (the campaign manager) before he sent me the PM. There is a lot more to this thread started than just someone finding it difficult to cope a neutral trust.

Wait for the BitcoinGirl.Club and dkbit98 to jump in to spout nonsense. Any opportunity no matter how pointless or ridiculous, is enough for these two individuals who just feel the urge to comment against me because i did not share their views in the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam threads

As I said, there is more to this thread than just a member finding it difficult to cope with a neutral tag.


Though the OP may not have intended, the thread is being used a pretext to start another drama (as you put it). A campaign manager stating he has a problem with a neutral feedback on the profile of a member yet still employs him. Has this sort of drama happened before?

I know Royse777 tried to get Poker Player to remove the negative feedback he placed because of the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam and he did it by starting a thread After all I miss this board. I am not sure if the tactic is connected by according to the OP both he and Royse777 were in contact about the neutral tag and Royse777 allegedly wanted it removed. Coincidence? Maybe.

This campaign manager chose to select the OP for a campaign even though the neutral tag was there. Then wanted it removed because the campaign manager had a problem selecting someone with a neutral trust. This drama is over something frivolous and it has been manufactured to gain free publicity.

Your advice is perfect, the OP should in future skip my self-moderated threads if he makes low quality posts or drivel. And as deleting posts in self-moderated threads is at the discretion of the OP, he might for one reason or another have other posts deleted therefore he should avoid them too.

I cannot recall the exact circumstances surrounding the neutral tag or deleting that particular post but it was drivel. I will review his tag in a few months time, I will have no problem revising the tag after I read through some posts.

Un-ignored to read then immediately added back to my ignore list. Ah well, it was inevitable, it had to happen because my stalker BitcoinGirl.Club is still clinging on to me. Sending PMs to nearly all members that trust me is another low from a low-life. This obsessed stalker needs to get a life for the sake of their own mental stability

Another member un-ignored to read then immediately added back to my ignore list. The second obsessed stalker who just needs an excuse to jump on the bandwagon  

Yes you are right. The 8-12 months will probably not apply here, I will look in to it earlier than that but not because the OP created a drama with this thread but because I already had a change of mind. It was only when I logged in to write a PM to him that I noticed this thread.

Still, since I am not vindictive I will not let this thread sway me negatively. I will review it earlier. The tag was to remind me that I should watch out for his low quality posts and delete them. He never noticed it all this time then all of a sudden noticed it then sent PMs a couple of days ago mentioning Royse777 effectively has a problem with it.

Your suggestion to lock the thread is the best advice the OP had in line with what suchmoon stated. The OP should lock the thread as it is now serving trolls and attention seekers who have no interest in the OP but will jump to spout nonsense against me whenever they get an opportunity because they have their own hidden agendas.

As you said there is nothing for the OP to be upset about.

The strange thing about Royse777 getting involved in this matter is he did so after selecting the OP to participate in a campaign and then telling him to have the feedback removed.

As mentioned, even if the OP wanted to start this thread for his own purposes it has been derailed by a couple of attention seekers using it to distract as they have their own personal agenda against me from when I posted against their views in the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam threads.

There is no need to be upset about this. Although we would like all feedback to be based on concrete facts, this is unfortunately not always the case. Negative feedback may be based on feelings, assumptions or other reasons that are not necessarily related to your quality as a poster. But one single neutral feedback on your account has no impact whatsoever, let alone that it can jeopardize the quality of your posts. The only person who can damage the quality of your posts is you. As for your participation in sig. campaigns, I do not see a problem since no respectable campaign manager will base their judgment of the quality of your posts on that neutral tag but rather on your previous posting history. I am not sure what Royse777's criteria are, but he obviously felt you were qualified enough to be accepted into the campaign.

I just had noticed JJ posted more than 3x of total post requirement in his current campaign & did the same 2x in Jambler campaign. I can't find any more campaign he was in. Most users here post the exact or approximately close to the required amount of post. If JJ was posting for increasing post count for signature campaign; I doubt he would do more than 3x of required amount of post.

@OP suchmoon gave you a perfect explanation and you might consider locking this topic. No other explanation is going to be better and unless everyone ~Jollygood, he will remain on DT. My suggestion to JG would be that sometimes a user deserves to be heard well before 8-12 months, but if you get so many messages regarding a trust issue then you prob start giving the same i'll review it in 8-12 month response to move on.

Note for self
It's best to use Bitcointalk UserNote script made by TryNinja, for this purpose:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/script-bitcointalk-user-notes-5411599

I see that JollyBad tagged many users in similar way (to himself) with neutral tag, so this sounds more like a Negative feedback from him, that would allow him to get pass other DT members criticism.
I wouldn't worry about neutral feedback from anyone, but you could improve your post quality joker_josue, and avoid posting in his duplicated self-moderated gambling topics.
Some of his duplicated topics probably need to be deleted for breaking forum rules.

Then. But as I mentioned, I only noticed this tag a little while ago, so I don't even remember if it used this in other cases or not.

But taking this one, which does not present any information out of the ordinary and in harmony with the subject matter, I wonder where this really is of low quality to the point of suffering this type of comment.




I am a person who likes to be on good terms with everyone and I don't give importance to this type of interpretation - to each his own. But just as I respect everyone and try to avoid the work of others, I look for the same thing from other people towards me.

This type of tag, despite being neutral, jeopardizes the quality of my posts, which can make people who don't know me at all question my work.
And I think that yes, it's annoying, a person being limited in the opportunities they can enjoy because of someone else's misinterpretation or opinion.

I'm still new to this forum and I don't think my idea would count here, regardless I will say what I have observed so far in this forum. Does it mean that there are set of people who are above the forum and superior; and on the other hand there are set of people who have no say than to submit to whatever treatment given to them and are inferior? I have came across several threads about this tagger and sincerely speaking, the comments under such threads including this one proof to me that the person is above the forum and no one can control him or her. Some of you saying neutral trust is fine, lol it's fine but it is questioning your reputation in case you don't know. In fact some neutral tag is more or equal to negative tag. IMO I will suggest the tagger to be always available to justify and clarify as to why such tag is given. Keeping mum over this type of issues is detrimental to transparent and reputation of the entire forum. I have never seen him/her commenting on threads where his/her respond is mostly needed. We can do better please.

@joker_josue is the post that Solosanz shared the only one deleted by JollyGood, or there were more and after that he decided to leave you a neutral?

Btw, if your post is characterized by JollyGood as a low quality and deleted, what to say about this one, to which your post was reply to? I don't see any quality in this one, yet its still there.



I know that you are upset, but since its just a neutral (even though with negative connotations), I wouldn't stress too much about it since member who left it is known for such things, and with each dubious feedbacks he leaves, he just devalues all the good that he did in the past.

@BitcoinGirl.Club: got the notification, even lots of them, recently. I am going to review, but I'm busy af, right now. If there is valid reason to make changes to my list, i will do it.

How this clown is still in Default trust? I am tried of him and there are nothing left to add about it, just let me quote that had in mind not even a month ago.



Yet I wounder why a lot of member still have him in their trust list? Why would you trust a controversial user who have no interest in bitcoin development and ecosystem but have only interest of constantly insulting forum members left and right, up and down. Obviously you all enjoy looking others are harassed by a clown, don't you?


Can someone answer why the feature report to moderator is in place?

Thanks for highlighting the specific post in question.
But you don't mention that my words were the reply to another user and the continuation of the conversation, here it is:

It may not be anything extremely elaborate, but to say that it has no point is a bit of an exaggeration. Would you like me to tell the history of the club? I think not. But that's ok, it's criteria and I accept it. But it doesn't make sense to say that because of that I'm bad at writing posts, or to let that idea go.

Maybe I missed opportunities because of that, being myself that I appreciated it before.

So here's the post where JollyGood think it's a low quality post.


To be honest JollyGood is right to say your post has a bad quality, your post doesn't contain any points. It's not surprising anymore a bad team can beat a good team especially on football. But if I look the other of your posts, I can say you're not a shitposter, actually you have a good quality post in general.

I wonder does the neutral tag is really need at all? it's just one post from joker_josue but getting such feedback just like saying all of his post has bad quality.

Since it's a self moderated thread, I think it's right for JollyGood to delete the low quality post, not leave the neutral feedback. You could leave neutral feedback but when the user is keep repeating the same mistake.

I'm surprised you got this kind of feedback. I would say that you are very far from those who create low-quality posts. But JollyGood, as always, has its logic, and publication in its topics suggests some incidents. I don't know what he wants to see as quality answers, but I would just skip JollyGood's self-moderated threads.
And as for managers, I think that to evaluate a user by the quality of his posts, it is enough to set aside some time to read his posts and form your own opinion on whether to accept the user into your company or not.

Open your eyes and check again with post quality from @joker_josue, did you see there he has low quality post? I don't know why many people still stand with @JollyGood and always defend him when makin mistake by neutral tag without looking post history.

---

For every one have gambling habit post ignore with @JollyGood and not try to post in his topic at ⚽ English Premier League Season: 2022/2023. However best quality post you wrote he always try to make it low quality post, I checked exactly his post more terrible with low quality and don't use mirror check his fuc*** face

Need you attention check how bad quality post from @JollyGood

https://i.imgur.com/wQiVjki.png

even though the neutral tag in your account is not a barrier for you to register for a signature campaign. but indeed a neutral or negative tag owned by an account could be a consideration for the campaign manager to accept or reject participants.
at least the campaign manager can check the applicant's post history, even though it has a neutral tag, but if you look at the post history it already has an increase. I guess neutral tags won't mean anything.

Likewise with the tagger, can't it be removed when the person who gets the tag changes their habits and also improves the quality of the post? although I'm sure it will also take some time to review.

I know JG has been criticized for frivolous trust ratings, and deservedly so in some cases, but this ain't it. It's a neutral. Anybody can post a neutral for any reason, and using neutrals to comment on post quality is fine IMO.

Having said that, a sig campaign manager can interpret neutrals (or negatives/positives as well) any way they see fit, and a user can choose to join or not to join a sig campaign if they like/dislike that, so it's a non-issue either way. But it would be better to have such rules (e.g. "no neutral ratings from DT members") posted publicly instead of being applied ad hoc. Informed decisions FTW.

In that order of ideas, this type of observation makes less sense. Or else everyone should be evaluated in the same way.

For example, in the specific case, I made an opinion observation and questioned the opinion of other users. That they responded cordially, and that their response posts remained in the thread. That is, the subject raised cannot have been so low quality (based on the type of topic) to receive this type of evaluation, since there was a healthy interaction with other users.

For me it's much more out of topic, while the competitions are on pause, because of the World Cup, these topics are worth World Cup matters.

Either way, I think this type of observation, when unrealistic, can cause misconceptions about a person. And having to keep that tag, even if neutral, for 1 year, for no apparent reason.

It makes no sense. As a campaign manager, you decide who to accept in the campaign and who not. Both joker_josue and NdaMk had a neutral tag on their profiles before signing up for your campaign. If you doubt the quality of their "product", then why did you accept them in the campaign in the first place?


Are you sure this isn't just another drama involving you and JG? You don't seem to mind the neutral tags (with a negative connotation) from DireWolfM14, for example.

looked at your post history and I think your post is pretty good,, I think all you have to do is have a good talk with Jollygood because he labeled you with that neutral tag.

good luck

Whatta kind question to a manager for an obvious answer. This is obviously written on every rules of every campaigns he manage or any campaign manager out there.

so you're just proving that this neutral feedback doesn't mean anything, because it's still firmly in your campaign. I guess the reason is not just because it is from JG, knowing your previous history of conflict. 

As a manager, don't you check the post history, or rather accept members based on the trust rating on their profile?

The neutral tag maybe very annoying, but at the same time it's usually hard for the person in question to reverse his decisions based on the very many past threads about his tags in this board, so I guess you will have to live with that until he decides to change his mind.

I don't know much about your posting quality but if it was just one post then, I think just deleting the post with no tag should have been ok since it's a self-moderated thread. The tag would only make sense if you made many more low quality posts in the same thread after several warnings or deletions.

I am more than happy to have you in the campaign as I told you in the Telegram conversation. There are no complaint about your posts habit and post quality.  In fact, I consider you as the show stopper for the campaign you are now.

But this neutral tag with questioning your post quality is not something I would like to consider in the campaign participants feedback page. It's not a negative tag but it's directly questioning your post quality. The product of a signature campaigner is the posts they make and if the product itself is in question then it does not look nice especially when it's given by a DT status user and showing on trusted feedback section.

In this case it's not fine for the campaign. There is another user in the same campaign who has same type of feedback. I am sure he is working on it too.

Neutral feedback is fine. based on what was written, it seems that you were writing in a self-moderated gambling thread started by JollyGood. He must have deleted some of your posts. somehow I'm not very surprised, because it happened by Jolly, but to be honest all mega threads in gambling discussions are mostly spam and signature quota fulfilment.

I don't think it will affect your participation in the campaigns, at least not in those managed by experienced managers (you mentioned some of them). they will always first trust their judgment by looking at your post history, and only after that, they rely on the assessment of the importance of feedback on your trust page.

Hello everybody,

A few weeks ago I noticed that I had received a neutral tag, which I found strange at first, because I hadn't done anything about it.
When I went to check, I was somewhat perplexed, not realizing why:


When I read it, I thought about questioning it, but then I thought I'd better ignore it.
But, meanwhile, I was informed that the information contained in that tag may be limiting some bonuses in campaigns. Also the managers of SINBAD (my current campaign) are questioning the quality of my posts, because of this tag.

The reason for this tag, I still couldn't figure it out until today. Although the post that prompted this tag was deleted from the tag author's self-moderated thread, the post was commented on by other users and generated conversations appropriate to the topic of the thread.

In this sense, he decided to contact JollyGood via MP, requesting that he review the situation and the possibility of revising this tag. But only the answer, although polite, limited itself to saying that it would only review the situation in 8-12 months, and that this would not have an impact on the campaigns in which it participates (something that it is creating).

I always try to collaborate in the best possible way with the whole community and maintain a good relationship with everyone. And I never needed to make low quality posts to meet campaign objectives, making more than enough posts for the minimum requirements of the campaigns. So I feel a little wronged by this situation.


I would like to know if, among all the campaign managers I worked with and the rest of the community, if they think that my participations are of low value to justify such a tag?

Campaign managers I've worked with (I think that includes everyone...):
icopress / Hhampuz / CryptopreneurBrainboss / Royse777 / Joerii

Thank you for your attention and I appreciate any help you can provide on this topic.