Topic: Obsessive Conduct by "BenCodie" Over A Neutral Tag (Read 548 times)

Maybe you have checked it out by now. When someone says they are convinced something is a scam yet want to promote it for money and no other reason, there is a problem. Had he backed it up with another nonsensical statement stating the same, it would have been a negative tag. He reluctantly started twisting words and trying to make it that he did not mean that therefore it was a neutral tag.

It is laughable but I am not surprised by his conduct.


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

The post deleted from PytagoraZ is here. Let him make his signature quota elsewhere unless he posts something worthy of not being deleted.

It will be locked as I created it 14 days and posted three times 14 days ago and and not again till now. I basically allowed others to post their views though I did expect at least one troll appearing. Anyway, this thread can remain as a reference for the obsessive conduct by BenCodie after he received a neutral tag.

And let this thread be yet another reminder how a troll is still trying to attack me by using the Goebbels doctrine of propaganda: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it". Pathetic but not entirely unexpected conduct by BitcoinGirl.Club again.

Common bro, this is serious but you make it look like this is one silly show you do watch... Funny though.

---

I really don't know why we do have all these negative trust or feedback coming up any how.
Is it that the power given is being abused or what?
I don't know how this work but all I have to say is, let those who knows or those who gives these negative trust or feedback leave their emotions aside. If some have any issues with anyone you settle it amicablely not because I call you a d*CK head you just drop me one hell of a tag no, guys we should be professional (I mean you guys at the top)
If you find someone doing wrong treat it as it is, don't use because of anger or something you have personal against the offender to drop a tag.
I think you guys know how it works so let's make it professional. From what have read above some of the users don't think it's necessary @JollyGood so if you know what to do to make it right is up to you. You're doing a great job but don't let your emotions cloud your judgment.

So we can expect Jollygood's tag on Satoshi's feedback page. Something like "BEWARE: This user cannot be trusted. Satoshi created Bitcoin, and after that, he left the forum leaving many questions unanswered. I will revise this feedback if he comes again and provides some answers."

Or should we still start a request from theymos to open a new board next to Reputation "JollyGood's tags - Revisions and appeals"

I think this is what causing all confusions and constant drama in the reputation board. Sometimes a user ABC is creating a topic and sometimes JollyGood is creating topics such as this one.

Long ago when I was investigating the case of starmyc [he personally wrote me and complaining], I went through many feedback he left and my conclusions were

[1.] Most of the neutral feedback he lefts are kind of personal notes but when he writes the notes he is basically publicly insulting and devaluing the person. Problem become bigger when a person is on the forum from long ago and JollyGood was not even existed or a person is somehow established a good name for him on the forum from years of activity. To be honest, no one likes these types of feedback on their feedback page. If something you need to remember about the user then maintain a private note.
[2.] Most of the negative feedback are backed with very less facts than speculation and his personal thoughts. Even most of these negative feedback he left are more appropriate with neutral feedback but better to have private note.

The feedback on BenCodie's feedback page is a prime example of an unnecessary feedback that led him to create the topic and he was trying to justify his feedback. The worse is, he is not even making any statement even after a lot of people left their opinions because none of the opinion seems gone in his favour.

Problem with JollyGood is, that he thinks he can write anything to anyone's feedback page and no one should speak against it. If anyone does, he will just ignore to response and if that does not work then he will start insulting the person and keep telling others that they are in his ignore list.

Loyce, you are a great member to this forum and I believe that you contribute to it with the greatest efforts, probably in the forum. I believe in this so much that I ask for your feedback and direction when asked for. Your judgement for the forum and its development is exemplary....but that means that my judgement toward you is default...and if this is a reason to trust your judgement, then shouldn't everyone have you in their trusted judgement list? I know it's earned but...that would mean that you would have default trust (no pun intended). So you're not there not because I don't trust your judgement, but because I am not for default trust to a single user. TLDR: It's only for the sake of decentralization. It's not personal. I definitely don't distrust your judgement and I do trust your judgement for this forum.

With that, the only other person I would have in my judgement list with you if it weren't for the above, is TSC. I have nodded my head in agreement with TSC's judgement countless times throughout the forum. The post he made back to this thread is a good example that his judgement is better than mine. He approached the situation accurately, and fairly to both parties.

It was only TSC's expression of judgement that clearly helped clear the fog between myself and JG, hence the thread has been inactive since my post 6 days ago (until now). The drama ended basically after TSC's post, and my final post. I don't think the drama would have ended if TSC didn't post, and if I posted the exact same reply.

Edit: I've changed my mind after giving it more thought. I figured that I don't think my list matters enough to care about the first half of the above

---

I agree.


I explained my thoughts on everything. I was not meant to come across as complaining. JG can leave his feedback there. I don't care. I believe if he continues carrying on the way he is carrying on, it won't be permanent anyway.

In terms of insults. If you quoted every single one of my comments, none were foul or harmful to users nor did they include hatred. They were quite light. For example, low IQ. It was just saying that the posts were unintelligent with some emphasis when you boil it down. That got blown so way out of proportion by Shishir99. What was directed at one or two posts turned into a full blown thread that ended in labels of narcissism, hypocrisy, and that I was someone who didn't care about the forum.

Anyhow, I apologize if anyone cried themselves to sleep over my comments. I highly doubt that anyone did.


Agreed.


Ironic and not surprising. It's not a reason to give a tag in my opinion, but what authority do I have


Since this was just bought to my attention by examplens's post - just to clarify: I never changed my words. I have said multiple times that "time" was never considered in JG's judgement or feedback.

JG, I've said this multiple times in other words, but I'll try say this again since I am a lot calmer and careless about this situation.

I applied to the WW signature/review campaign with no red flags in mind, then over weeks and months these red flags slowly arose. At no point did I have evidence to support any claims, however I did voice some concern early on in WW about their mixing algorithm (which was far from superior or advanced as they portrayed in the beginning, no one seemed to care about that observation though).

You have not considered the progression described above at any point. Not in your feedback, not in our discussions, despite myself highlighting it on multiple occasions. You've instead portrayed that I knew about WW being a scam at the time I applied for the signature/review campaign (when it first launched) and also expects/blames me for not sharing red flag theories that don't have a lot of non-theoretical evidence.

If I need to get post links to support the above I will. However I feel that this is pointless considering that I don't care about JG's feedback and I believe that this drama ended when TSC posted.

I have read almost everything in this thread, and I have the feeling that nothing is still clear to me. What seems to me to be the conclusion of the whole matter is:
- The neutral tag that Jollygood left on the Bencodie account is completely meaningless and unnecessary. It seems more like a personal note about a user, but unfortunately visible to everyone.
- Any complaints from BenCodie about this feedback or similar is also nonsense. At the time of the "drama" that Jolly is talking about, Bencodie was quite aggressive and argumentative, with serious insults to the other members. That's why I'm surprised that he complained about the neutral tag at all, while at the same time challenging the others.
- Now this thread as well, as a complaint about Bencodie's complaints regarding the neutral tag. Insanely. Jolly, if you had the need to open a special topic and write two long posts to explain your tag, maybe you should accept that it is not the most ideal way and the tag as such is completely useless to all other members.


Do you really think that the fact that someone is not humble, because you think they made a mistake is a reason for any kind of tag?

I believe that you remember one discussion that you started quite aggressively, and for which it turned out that you misdirected the next scam accusations. Then I warned you where you were wrong, but you never humbly confirmed it. Later it turned out that I was right. So, is that a reason to give you a tag of any type for that?



He kept the only The Sceptical Chymist on the list, I guess because of the comment above, where he didn't criticize him but Jollygood in some way.

So, you abuse the Trust system, ask for my feedback, "take it into account" and then stop trusting my judgement:
Lol.

Hi Jolly

I actually made an effort to make sure that I didn't directly relate to our drama, so that I could still explore my curiosity without causing further drama.

I asked @LoyceV prior to this thread being made about some feedback. He gave me some, I took it into account and I had then told him I'll make adjustments in due time. For now I am too busy.

One of my adjustments is the feedback I left you with better referencing but instead a neutral feedback.

I will let the community talk on this thread and have their say on the matters, I on the other hand, have already moved on and have no more energy to defend myself from your attacks, or engage in anymore worthless discussion.

I will only refer to this as it is a major accusation:


Just an important detail that was missed (standard from you Jolly) these were for cheap torrent accounts and for the most part everyone was satisfied with the service, even hilariousandco bought from me with no problems. I helped everyone who used the service, some of those ratings are trolls or competitors I believe. As you can see there is no reference.

Another thing, torrent account selling was fine in the era I did it. In case your or anyone else is confused, it had nothing to do with bitcointalk forum accounts as it seems you are suggesting.

---

You've been ignored for now Jolly. If any member PM'S me as there is something I should urgently respond to here, I will come here and do so if I see fit after reviewing the posts.

JollyGood, to be fair you did attack his reputation even if it wasn't a negative feedback.  I don't know the circumstances behind the neutral you left, as I haven't looked into it yet, but something like that would probably ruffle the feathers of quite a few members who've been around since 2014 and have a lot of positive feedback.  And you know as well as I do that this isn't the first time one of your feedbacks has drawn some controversy--there have been numerous examples of that, and it's why I excluded you from my trust list a while back.

BenCodie appears to have the type of temperament that members like TECSHARE had, where he would defend himself against any slight, however minor and no matter who it came from.  If you're going to continue to leave neutral/negative feedback for reasons like BenCodie's case here, you've got to expect some blowback.  And your best course of action is probably to NOT escalate the issue by creating threads like this one.  He's got a decent reputation and a track record of positive feedback with supporting reference threads; you're a relatively newer member with some positive trust given for your efforts to call out the bad actors here, but no trade history that I could see.

So I've got no issues with either of you, except that you might be just a tad bit overzealous in your crusade to clean up the forum (which I myself appreciate, btw).  But again, I haven't looked into the details of the reason for your neutral on him, the issue with Whirlwind--but I will check it out.

Now, after a deeper look the feedback history of BenCodie it seems he has been selling stolen accounts in the past. Granted it goes back to 2016 but he also has accusations of scamming.

For those who might not have seen it, it is an apt time to mention I created a thread in June 2023 that is worthy of a read because of the very many good ideas put forward by members of the community during the discussion: Tagging Accounts Sellers And Tagging Traded/Sold/Bought Accounts

**
This is a copy of the post I was typing up to put in the Whirlwind thread when I was about to give a negative tag to BenCodie on 25th August 2023. Instead, I decided to make the above post instead hoping he would at least reflect on how wrong he was thus avoiding a negative tag. Had he re-affirmed the unacceptable stance I would have edited/modified the text below and completed it adding a bit more information before posting it and subsequently leaving a negative tag. Even though never admitted it again at least he claimed he never said it, therefore I left a neutral tag on 27th August 2023 after I read his reply.


I have been in the forum quite some time and never recall reading a post from you until a few days ago and all about the same sort of subject. As you spoke with a form of moral authority I decided to look and was surprised to see your account was registered in 2014.

What struck me painfully was the moral high ground you took with the first post below but you absolutely destroyed your own credibility with the second post below. For example, you are right it is not your/mine/our responsibility to keep the forum safe and yes it is optional but the way you are phrasing it seems you are bigger than the forum and have some form of seniority complex over the rest of us. That is narcissism.

I have (probably) been the biggest vocal critic of 1xbit/1xbit1. The REQUEST FOR ATTENTION OF: All 1xbit Signature Campaign Participants thread was created because of the number of complaints made against them very early on in their presence in the forum. Such was the scale of complaints against them I and several other members began tagging signature campaign participants in order to create a deterrent. My mindset was that if nobody tried stopping them from using signature campaigns innocent/gullible people could lose money be being selective scammed. If I had kept my opinions to myself not created the thread or tagged 1xbit/1xbit1 signature campaign participants and instead applied to join their very-well paying signature campaign, it would have been a dereliction of moral duty.

I am extremely disappointed any reputable forum member would have the duplicitous and shameful mindset that you evidently have demonstrated to possess. You have effectively stated you were convinced Whirlwind was a scam and have given the reason and the 12% APR was another flag you mentioned but none of that stopped you from applying to join a signature campaign for what you were convinced was a scam. You are morally bankrupt as far as your presence in the forum is concerned.

The third post below clearly demonstrates by adding to the general matter your characteristics the profanities, insults and name-calling. BlackHatCoiner has been here since 2020 and TryNinja since 2015, both have contributed immensely with positivity in this forum but (providing the account has not changed hands) what have you brought here to the forum apart from trying to sell the diced.io domain, apply for a loan as collateral using that domain but it was declined by Darkstar_ and apply to join signature campaigns.

self-moderated to keep this thread clean from trolls, attention-seekers and signature spammers

I have no idea what BenCodie was thinking when he created this drama under the guise of a rational thread to invite discussion. Here we see another example of somebody who has received a neutral tag and has decided to try to have it removed. What does he do? He decided to create a thread and dress it up as an outlet for intellectual debate when the intention was simply to gauge whether or not he could get some momentum behind him which (he hoped) would pressure me to removing a neutral tag.

Can you imagine that? All that effort, skulduggery and scheming on part of BenCodie for nothing except a neutral tag. Rather than post in that thread, I have created one to express sentiments regarding his obsession with the fact he received a neutral tag. I usually try not to respond to unnecessary drama or make threads to stipulate my position when it comes to members complaining about tags but once in a while someone comes along who seems to be posting directly, indirectly or subliminally in multiple threads making comments that can continue to be ignored or some response can be made. I have decided to post a response just for those that might be curious.

If (as expected) you read posts from BenCodie regarding the neutral feedback I left for him, this thread can be used a reference for those interested.

Apart from the above mentioned thread, I see he has been busy in other places, some links below:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62782318
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62796140
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62800923
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62802613
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62803109
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62803861
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62806038

What is clear, after he realised the comments he made in the Whirlwind thread including those when he insulted at least two very knowledgable members (after he stated he was convinced Whirlwind was a scam but applied to join their signature campaign because he did not want to miss out on the opportunity to get the weekly payouts), he tried repair the damage by posting anywhere while trying to get to that 1000 merit mark. Basically, I have no interest on whether he manages to get their or not but it obviously means a lot to him therefore the campaign against me started just because I left him a neutral tag.

After posting those unacceptable comments in the Whirlwind thread and then going on the offensive against some forum members and attacking/insulting them rather than being humble and withdraw his comments entirely, he allowed time to pass then sent this PM on 27th August 2023.  Still, full of pumping adrenalin and a larger-than-life-ego, he did not apologise but chose the I did not say that stance and has maintained it ever since.

For those that know me and have conversed with me via PM, you will attest to the fact I do reply. I think there have been just a handful of unsolicited PMs where I have not replied but the stance that he took in the PM was enough for me to not consider giving a reply, I thought it was highly condescending considering the fact it is the first (and only) time he sent a PM but you can come to your own conclusions.


For those not aware, I had to ask BenCodie several times to explain fully what he was stating when he stated he was convinced Whirlwind was a scam yet did not raise it with anybody and instead applied to join their signature campaign and not only that, he stated he did not feel it important to tell anybody. Those of us that read the posts in that thread know what he stated but I still hoped he would withdraw the comment because I did not want a drama such as this being created. Even though I did not leave a negative tag, the drama has still unfolded.

He is heading towards Legendary rank therefore that milestone could have played a part in this sudden burst of activity regarding the neutral tag. Yes ladies and gentleman, all this drama over a neutral tag. There was a trend when alt-accounts operated by account farmers were creating threads asking for negative tags to be removed but those days have long gone, it has been for far too long about neutral tags.

In a nutshell, BenCodie received a neutral tag for stating he was happy to take money from a signature campaign of a what he was convinced was a scam because he should not say no to money coming his way and because he did not feel the need to raise his concerns with those of us who thought they were promoting a genuine business.

Here are some ironies:

The first here that in retaliation for a neutral tag he has responded with an unwarranted and undeserved negative tag. Adding on to that, there are some trolls who have a habit of following me around (somewhat obsessively) and at least one of them has been reported to have added BenCodie to their trust list simply because he gave me negative feedback.

Some of the trolls have made fleeting comments but one of the trolls has even resorted on some previous occasions to posting all the names of those who have added me to their trust list effectively asking them to remove me by using some subtle and not-so-subtle mannerisms. How ironic (if true) that same member deliberately adds to his trust a second member who has given me negative trust purely on that basis and for no other reason therefore the troll is effectively pointing a neon sign on to himself asking to be excluded from members trust for applying incorrect use of the trust system. The irony.

Another irony in this situation is that BenCodie had (I believe but someone please correct me if I am wrong) given negative tag later revised to neutral to just two members of a seventeen member strong team of the bc.game signature campaign participants, on the basis the company allegedly had excessive scam accusations against them. With which logic did he apply by being an upstanding member of the community he can select 2 members from 17 to leave neutral tags. For obvious reasons the campaign manager (icopress) was not tagged because one day he might apply to join a campaign but what is not so obvious is why did he think 15 other members doing the same thing did not warrant the same tag. On the contrary, he supported icopress when he asked to be Merit Source

Another irony is that Shishir99 created a thread named Super High IQ BenCodie vs Low IQ forum posters about gambling. because the OP was condescending with his alleged higher IQ to those he concluded had lower IQ to him, therefore five days after the thread was created BenCodie left him a neutral tag for (effectively) daring to question him. How ironic he is upset that he has received a neutral tag from me.

Anyway, after several prompts from me, the OP decided to reply to my question about his disingenuous behaviour in the Whirlwind thread. After he semi-retracted with a "that is not what I said" comment rather than be humble and accept he made a mistake, I opted to leave a neutral tag **

I waited patiently for the OP to reply, if there was malice on my part I would have simply left a negative tag immediately. I gave multiple opportunities for him withdraw or retract his comment before placing the tag. From his side it seems it was a carefully thought out reason (related to signature campaigns, increasing to Legendary rank) which saw him semi-retract the comment but now he has tried to find ways of trying to have the neutral tag removed while citing even stronger than before that he never said this and never said that.

There is nothing wrong with my post but it did not warrant a reply from BenCodie:


The final irony is advice for myself and a suggestion for others to consider without prejudice. If any member posts they are happy to promote what they believe is a scam because all they want are payments (and they go on to apply/join what they believe are signature campaigns promoting scams and even go as far as to state it is not their job to effectively protect forum members by raising alarms and could not care less if forum members get scammed by services they promote), just tag them with negative trust when you see their post.