Topic: Request to The Pharmacist regarding Lutpin's trust score. (Read 321 times)

You'll also find the alt of the OP will quietly join the discussion with rhetoric concerning Lutpin around the second half of the first page...

I "know" lutpin for last 3 years and I would trust him with my funds more than I would trust some other user with "higher" reputation (trust comes with signed message, of course  )

So, if all participants have been payed (even with delay because of lutpin's laziness or maybe some off forum problems), negative should be revised to neutral. I just don't see Lutpin as someone who can scam, his moral standards are very high.

OP:

From personal experience I have found Lutpin unreasonable and unapproachable. It saddens me that others have had similar experiences with Lutpin over time.

I am willing to bet the OP is either an alt of Lutpin's or at least a friend. People around here are generally too self serving to bother with this kind of thing.

It could be that Liptin's EGO stopped him from doing so from this many days and some people here looking at his profile from long time would probably be concerned and can rise a issue on it. I don't think its bad to rise a issue about others rating, which is from a DT anyway.

If Lutpin wanted his rating adjusted or removed, he knows how to PM on this forum. You should worry about yourself and let Lutpin worry about his profile.

Form the overall behavior and contributions of @Luptin to the forum, I would say the tag should be resolved or made to neutral at least. This would surely be a good step towards theymos's views of forgiving attitude over the forum.

Anyways yaa, I known @TP, is surely a good hearted guy and has the greatness to forgive.

When I was joined this forum, Lutpin was very active against scammers. His behaviour encouraged me about expose scam and work against scammers. And personally I like him as well. But I don't know what happened after few days. He became very inactive and irresponsible about campaign those is managed by him. The tag left by The Pharmacist is quite reasonable that time. And we have seen Lutpin handover his all campaign to other managers. I don't know if he done it because of negative feedback's, but likely he doesn't care about feedback since we have not seen any reaction from him. There is still not enough reason why feedback should be remove although its depend on The Pharmacist. However, if The Pharmacist like to remove feedback then he is free to do it, but I think at least neutral feedback should remain there. It will be reasonable if you consider his previous contributions, at least Lutpin had not scammed anyone as far as I know. So neutral is appropriate on current situations. It would be turn negative again if he behave like before in the future.

I'd say keep it, perhaps add a neutral if you feel like you need to add something. Actually anybody can add a neutral or even a positive rating if they feel like it. But there doesn't seem to be any reason to remove a solid factual rating that is relatively recent and relevant to Lutpin's current activities.

Not speaking for anyone here. But why should it be changed. This is legitimate feedback that was left after a prolonged pattern of negligence. The rating isn't even a year old, and serves as a warning in case they begin handling campaigns again. It by no means takes away their right to manage a campaign but instead might allow users to pressure them to escrow funds as opposed to trusting a veteran.
Lutpin is lucky really that this happened before flags were introduced, those don't go away just because you eventually clear things up. There is truly no excuse for handling peoples earnings in the way it was. Life problems happen bit you should step away from responsibilities you can no longer handle.

Wow so you PM'd them and didn't get the hint lol.

Edit: saw you replied. My opinion if not clear us that it stands as a solid feedback, to an even I still feel was recent enough to remain relevant. This does not take away anything from their personality, just accurate feedback on how they managed campaigns.

I'm reasonable and would like to hear the community's opinion on this.  However, the neg was for how he was handling things at that time and all the good stuff he did before that did not (and IMO should not have) factored into my rating.  I haven't seen him around much at all lately--just to clarify: he's managing one campaign total now?  How long has he been managing it?

I've never had a problem with Lutpin personally.  In fact, I actually like him based on his posts and how he presents himself here.  I absolutely did not want to give him a neg at the time but felt it was the only thing to be done.  Those campaign participants were getting screwed royally.  So I'll perhaps reconsider my position, but I'd like to hear what people have to say.

Ref : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=520313

I agree that @The Pharmacist's neg rating got all the meaning and I guess only that might have pushed @lightlord finding a new manager for their both of campaigns. (Now, it seems that neg. trust had served all its purposes).

We cannot forget Lutpin's contribution to this community. They fought against scammers (including alt accounts) and against spammers with SMAS initiative. We may remember those time as mexxer2-lutpin-shorena era which might have been an inspiration for Lauda later on.

The only justification for not taking care of campaigns could be getting busy in real life but that could be avoided with proper steps in predetermined way but not sure why they ignored or where was the actual problems persisted.

But, that action cannot be a scam hence I think that negative trust could be turned to neutral at least.

I wonder Lutpin definitely could convince Pharmacist with couple of PMs explaining their situation to remove that neg. trust but not sure why they are not finding time for this too.

We can notice that Lutpin is not taking new campaigns but managing crypto-games campaign without any hassle. It means they might have only very little time for this forum (and this maybe the reason for not bothering their trust score).

I like to request The Pharmacist to consider all these so that they may change their trust into a neutral one.

Why I am posting this:
Usually concerning people do start this type of topic. There is no rule which preventing a third person to speck for a situation and for a balanced environment. I just come across Lutpin's trust score and from that I derived this as my free time allowed to do so.