Topic: Request: Disable JayJuanGee in the Wall Observer thread (Read 1989 times)

Man, this thread is still active I thought it was inactive and OP might have locked it up. OP just lock this thread and allow JayJuanGee to rest, by the way he's heart of WO thread and we all know that. Whatever he says or does is direct and there's nothing behind the scenes.

go get them bob.

With all due respect this is a seniors argument and I'm don't think I have much experience to be talking here, but i think think the best way to solve this problem is to find people posting such and giving them a temporary ban for doing so instead of giving balme to anyone or pointing fingers.
I've been following on up on this thread for a while and none of you seem to have prove that users are using multiple accounts even if we know its true and neither do you know if JayJuanGee has a hand in this too. Its all assumptions cause you have no prove to back it up. And going as far as reporting him or calling him out, isnt that a bit too far.

Again.. Your supposed perception of a problem, your supposed perception of what criteria needs to be followed to send smerits and your supposed perception of supposed ONLY solutions.   You did not even point out the four members nor any of the supposed problematic posts, so how would any adjustments be made if some others, including yours truly don't even know the specifics?  To me, you seem to be just trying to create work for others so that some of us might have to kowtow to some semblance of your smerit sending criteria.. when no such thing actually exists at the moment.. You cannot get theymos to do anything about it in terms of adjusting the smerit sending rules, so then you continue to just throw out vague accusations in regards to your own vision of smerit sending criteria.  


Since you are proclaiming that you are not really even wanting to interact with me, then perhaps your goal is just to harass other members such as me, and then send messages to other members that you are going to harass them too.. so you are seeming to want to bully members into your criteria, and by the way, it does seems that some members do adjust some of their smerit sending criteria from time to time, including yours truly, but doing so merely because another member is whining about it and appealing to the public about it with such spin that he is not even pointing out specific posts and/or specific forum members engaged in the spamming seems problematic to me.. but no of course, I am somehow creating all of this problem because I am so supposedly "generous" with my smerit sending to the undeserving (and you are a party-pooping merit scrooge), and you are even suggesting that I have some kind of supposed bad intentions because I am either not cooperating with your whiny-ass requests or that I am failing/refusing to do as much due diligence as what you believe needs to be done prior to sending smerits.  

Seems like a lot of assumptions, vague finger pointing coming from your end and attempts to impose your own subjective criteria to smerit sending.

And, also one members definition of spam is quite different from another's and did the member provide any helpful information, even if the member might not have provided any of his own words or his own analysis.. but merely provided an image or a link or maybe an image, link and words from the source (that might not even be clear if the words or his own words or coming from the source).  There are newbie spammer, smerit seekers and even more senior forum members who provide these kinds of superficial short posts that hardly have any substance, and sometimes the supposed newbie spammers smerit seekers are providing better posts than some of the more senior members who are on your (nutildah's) not a problem list.   

As any of us likely realize, there frequently can be bits of dilemmas in the sending of smerits, yet I am not going to give any ground to you or to agree that there is a need to follow nutildah's vague-ass checklist, but maybe if you would like to try to contribute something productive to any forum source members who you believe are "overly" generous, you might want to consider providing a checklist of nutildah's smerit sending criteria (wish-list), and maybe at least some of us could get some positive (rather than whining) feedback from uie-pooie about potential positive actionable ways forward... instead of having your dumb ass second-guessing members who are likely already spending quite a bit of time in their own ways of contributing to the forum that just happens to differ from your own wishful preferences of how the world/forum should be.


Good!  At least you are not that fucking stupid, and you realize that there are circumstances in which negative ramifications might end up resulting from your ongoing whining and harassing of mostly well-intended forum members.


Yes, and we know that you would like to disable the sending of smerits in the WO thread too.. but instead, you decide to post about your issue in this particular thread that has my name in it.. which this thread was kind-of, but not really, an exaggeration of your earlier thread that was more supposedly focusing on smerit sending and bullying of smerit sending in the WO thread..

As you can see from your below post, you claimed victory in that earlier thread since you were able to conjure up 38 yes votes and you were also able to get one merit source member (El Duderino in the case of your claimed victory) to agree to try to move in the direction of kowtowing towards your whining about supposed problems.

Well, I don't want to tell people where they can or can't post. I just don't understand the purpose of counting their posts in places where their signature isn't shown. I realize their avatar is still shown. You don't have announce or change anything, but the whole purpose of disabling signatures in that thread is to deter spam posts there.

I don't usually count pictures been sent there as they're indicated on spreadsheet as denied post but to make things easier if the campaign continues all members will be requested not to engage on the thread.

Only you can fix the problem. But you obviously don't care... You will rank up the most useless multi-accounting scammers here if they kiss the center of your b-hole just right, because that is what matters to you most in your forum experience.


"Reporting campaign managers?" You really don't have the first clue about how any of this works. There's no point in wasting any more time on you, so back on ignore you go. None of this is for you anyway, because as you've established, you don't care to change. Its for everyone else to see what's going on and why they shouldn't emulate your behavior.

---

OK. Is there any chance you could consider not paying participants for posting the WO thread? Their signature isn't being displayed there anyway, after all... I really can't understand what BitVest would get out of it.

Some members are writing more than 60 posts for their requirements for the campaign weekly such members don't get their spams counted on this threads while some members their irrelevant replies on the thread are been ignored. I'm actively watching all account and anyone that get tagged for their spamming are getting removed. Just tagged and I'll do the needful. I have warned my participants and anybody spamming the forum won't be part of my campaigns anymore. Tagged (neutral is eligible to get removed, I don't have to wait for negative).

You are already cruel and tacky by making vague accusations, so I suppose it is just a matter of which direction you choose to be vague and tacky.


I give few shits.


Hopefully you have reported me to theymos in order that he can consider doing something about me being the supposed problem, as perceived by you.


Hopefully you are reporting campaign managers who you believe to be too loosey goosey with the posting requirements of their members.


Fuck off with your dumb AF making up of rules in regards to some supposed standard of smerit distribution for merit source members that you believe that I need to follow or any other merit source member who might feel that they have to follow some kind of fantasy smerit sending standard that you wish were to exist.

If you have some more specifics in regards to forum members or posts that I have been meriting that you disagree with then list them here or otherwise, yet I doubt that your mere listing them is going to make too much of a difference, even though it could be possible that I could agree with you and perhaps (at my complete discretion) decide to not send smerits to that member (or those members) any more or some of the kinds of posts that you are concerned about "undeservedly" receiving merits from me and/or from other merit source members.

I took you off ignore to do you the courtesy of at least replying to your question and was relieved to see you hadn't written a novel.

I didn't want to mention them by name. After all, I'm not a cruel or tacky person at heart, even if shitcoining is my main game.

But something I discovered today left me flabbergasted: BitVest sig campaigners are getting paid to post in the WO.

They are, AFAIK, the only campaign that pays for such posts, in that they have no clause that says posts in places where the signature isn't displayed won't be counted.

So they aren't just posting in the WO to collect merits from you, knowing you are by far the forum's loosest merit source. They are also getting paid for it!

Also I just want to point out that this clause doesn't seem to be enforced, whatsoever:


Several campaign members have been tagged as spammers already and their posts deleted.

Just dumb AF. Stop incentivizing them with merits. If you insist on doing that, do it elsewhere.

Sounds a bit vague in terms of the 4 supposed members who supposedly do not deserve merits for some or all of their posts. Maybe you can name the names of these merit recipients who supposedly did not deserve merits for their posts.... to the extent that your ongoing whining on such topic even matters?

I was gonna re-open my thread on the subject but remembered this one exists & is more fitting anyway.

Like, I can't believe the shamelessness of some people.

Some basic stats about the WO thread to highlight the problem

Posts in the last 30 days: 2,410
Posts excluding ChartBuddy: 1,682
Posts written by 4 BitVest sig campaigners: 169 (10% of all non-bot posts in the last month... 1 out of every 10 posts is from a BV campaigner trying to coax merits out of JJG)

BV campaigner #1:




BV campaigner #2:




The other 2 of the 4 don't post nearly as much. They, along with everyone else, seem to have gotten the memo. But not these 2. Whatever I guess.

I think @OP, your proposed solution is no solution at all. Disabling someone that gives just about a single merit at a time on a single post doesn’t make any good to the issue you’re making an elephant out of on the forum.

JayJuanGee remains one popular guy on the forum and that’s not solely because of his patterns to giving merits but also due to the volume of his posts too. He’s no shit poster and you can always find him making constructive arguments, openly expressing his opinions, he stays open to contrary views and ready to agree when he’s in the wrong.

Some old habits die hard and if OP or anybody else would try to link, JJG to any of the shit posting account on the forum, I’ll be in shock, iced in my core. I don’t see how such a quality poster would be reduced to reposting tweets and laying out just few words to a post, nope that ain’t JJG.

Right on Track...

Someone brings a match, but whether we allow ourselves to flare up largely depends on us too.


Reasonable. It's time for me to retire from this topic for a while.

But I like him in general so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. Much as I like you in general and want to give you the benefit the doubt.

One of the issues all three of us have along with dude any loyce maybe 15 of us total is we have tons of merits given out.

I don't want to think that of the 15 top merit givers 2 or 3 or 4 of those people are dropping merits for profit in a back door deal.

@ who is John Galt I think it is tongue in cheek but that anyone does know merit farming has

occurred time and time again. I guess this thread will be some what funny and ironic while vaguely disturbing which knowing the op is what he was looking for.

That's part of the problem, especially if you are telling jokes about other forum members rather than some other possibly more neutral topic (even potentially controversial).

For example, if you are telling jokes about some kind of a system, or politics, religion, sex or even bitcoin versus shitcoins, you might not even need to show whether you are joking or not because of the subject matter of the joke. 

Actually, in recent times, I have been doing this quite frequently with certain topics, including telling someone to buy a shitcoin (usually by agreeing with their seeming pumping of a shitcoin).. which surely is the opposite of what I think, and sometimes I might even feel badly about going that far with my joke.. or at least torn about if some members are going to take me seriously and buy the shitcoin.. but that does not cause me to necessarily explain the joke... just leave it and let whatever readers of the post decide what they will do... I already suggested what I think daddy dildah should do...

If this is an example of some kind of post-irony, then I’m pretty bad at understanding such deeply veiled jokes. But now I will definitely look ridiculous and funny, regardless of who was joking in this situation and who was serious. Because explaining any jokes is definitely not what's fun.

nutildah was definitely joking.

I also hope that you were just joking as part of some post-irony, because the discussion of trading likes is somewhere beyond my understanding. This cannot be discussed in all seriousness! But it looks so convincing that if this is complex humor, where the reader must believe that it is serious, then you guys have succeeded!