Topic: Thread locked I owe it to aew. JollyGood and his Feedback (Read 1354 times)

When I say lazy DT which I meant three times on the thread, LoyceV is in my mind 🤣^{[Yo V! take it easy]}

True but I think a sensible user will not change his trust list every day like somewhere I read someone said waking up, brushing the teeth, check the last posts to see who have disagreed with their arguments while they were sleeping then distrust them. My observation is, LoyceV is one of these few people who understand the trust system very well although in a discussion it felt to me that some of his suggestions were in a gray area but later I decided to take the suggestions seeing there are no better alternative left.

I wouldn't really accept this as a good example. things change, people too, plus some new members are coming. I think that the trust list cannot be made once and for all.
some of the users have never been involved in any delicate discussions, so you can't even know how they would behave in certain situations. especially those with an empty trust/distrust list

I agree that we don't know what's in their minds. LoyceV said, This is the trust he has in them, so he included them on his Trust list. He strongly believes and also posted in public that he has that much trust in them. Nowadays, We use the Trust system to our advantage (Not all of us). Some of us use it to take revenge. If you look at his trust list, He made only two changes in the last twelve months. This could be an example too. Maybe he is one of the wise guys in this forum who uses everything accordingly.

I see LoyceV used his trust list as an example to point that those who are in his trust list will not change their setting no matter what LoyceV does, either trust or distrust. But we don't know what's in their mind. With all due respect, we will not know until we have a secret group to sign a digital terms and mess up with others 🤣. When we mess up big time then this digitally singed copy will save the ass LOL.

Considering how it goes most of the times, we can expect a year long daily soap 😉

I think mindrust is talking about ~ people in your trust list. When you say "exclude" are you talking about just removing those you trust now or ~ them?

I'd say if a couple of DT1 started changing a few of the ones on their trust lists to ~ we would have quite a bit of drama.

If that's the case, you have the wrong people in your Trust list. Here's mine:

I don't expect any of those users to retaliate if I'd exclude them. But I'm not going to "test" this, that would actually be bad behaviour for a DT1-member.

True may be but that was not the intention of the trust system. It was supposed to be to response a users feedback leaving judgement, not you distrust me and I respond with distrusting you or I add you and you response with adding me back. However it is tempting sometimes. The moment you are driven by jealousy or favoritism, you should not be in DT1 list.

This is why I emphasised that I don't see this as malicious, even if not always logical. For example someone distrusting your feedback doesn't necessarily mean that user's feedback is inaccurate, unless they left you some negative feedback that is, then it'd be right to distrust that feedback. There's a difference between trust feedback and someone's overall judgement, not that many distinguish between the two it seems.

This is why I find it more relevant when users reciprocate trust inclusions, because someone's judgement to trust you doesn't imply their overall trust feedback is accurate.

No matter how flawed it may be, it does have some logic: You trust your own judgement, right? When someone distrusts you, it means they don't trust your judgment. Logically, you no longer trust his judgement either.

Of course, this doesn't take into account how the trust system is actually supposed to work, which, in my opinion, is too damn complicated to make sense for the average Joe.

Trust system is all about trust farming lol.

It is probably not going to work now because I am writing this post but test it 1-2 months later.

Distrust everybody in your trust list. Most of them will distrust you back without asking why you did what you did.

He ignores anyone who criticize his recent behavior (including me) so you can't contact him in any way, he said I just want to create drama, and he calls out people who don't agree with him trolls that abuse DT system.
With all due respect to his past of scam busting I don't think someone like this should anymore be a part of DT system, and maybe I don't deserve as well.

Look how many posts he made in all 1xbit topics and make your own conclusion.
He is giving 1xbit a free promotion and always keeping them on top, not so strange when you see him trying to act as a gambler.
I understand people who write posts because they are in signature campaign, but using this to burn other people and constantly talk about 1xbit like a broken record is silly.

I think DT system is broken and we need reform asap, that is why I cleaned my trust list today.

I think he is borderline abuser, but it's not to late to change his behavior.
I will admit I made mistakes in past with trust feedback, but I was willing to listen to other people and make changes.
Sure I still have many members on ignore, but I won't ignore everyone I don't agree with, and live in a bubble like some people.

Personally I thoroughly disagree.

Distrusting someone simply because they distrust you is childish for sure as well as somewhat naive, but I don't see it as being that malicious. Some people are naturally distrusting of others, so doesn't take much (JG is a great example of this). Trusting someone predominantly because they trust you in return is the sort of trust farming that can easily become abuse of the system as doesn't show good judgement at all.

Reciprocation when someone is adding him in their trust list and/or sending him positive feedback or worse supporting his ingenuine twisted arguments
Retaliatory when someone tilde him and/or leave him a negative feedback or worse not supporting his twisted arguments.

First is fair enough although this should not be practiced makes it look trust farming but the second is undoubtedly dangerous.
Both together actually make the DefaultTrust system meaningless.

While I agree with a lot of points you made in your post, I'm still not convinced distrusting someone who distrusts you is malicious retaliation. At least I wouldn't compare it to returning negative feedback to someone, simply because they left you negative feedback. Not that you were implying that, just my issue is it doesn't help to identify the issue by simply calling it retaliation imo. I think this is about reciprocation, not retaliation.

To elaborate, in JG's trust list, there is something very telling about it. Out of 49 members who distrust him, that distrust is reciprocated for 47 of them. He otherwise is trusted by 17 (now 16) of the 19 members he has included. While he's entitled to include/exclude who he likes, I find it shows a lack of genuine feedback judgement if it's overwhelming based on users who trust him. Though when you distrust thousands of users, then I guess it's expected to add everyone who distrusts you as well (I understand that).

It otherwise make me wonder if JG has a habit of removing users from his trust list when they no longer trust him, as it'd generally show a very bad judge of character if it were the case and I think it might be. For example, in 2019 he trusted 50+ users, not necessarily just those who trusted him, but it didn't take long to refine this list simply to users who trusted him (apart from LoyceV ironically), once enough DT inclusions were gained. So the question is: is this really how a trust list is supposed to be built, based mainly on reciprocation? What changed apart from joining DT1 and gaining DT power?

I'm not even claiming it's trust list abuse, as if he trusts 50+ users and then a dozen trust him back, it's his choice if he wants to cut back on inclusions/DT votes. This is about his character, and whether a lot of those inclusions were based on reciprocation, as opposed to being based on someone's trust feedback like it should be. For example, if someone no longer trusts you, does it make their feedback less accurate and trustworthy somehow? If someone adds you to their trust list, is their feedback somehow more trustworthy all of a sudden? I think not, and would instead be a form of trust harvesting for use of a better phrase. But without checking each individual inclusion/exclusion and which came first, then this remains just a theory for now, but I wouldn't put it past him based on how his lists appear.


This is also the general impression I have and have had for a while now, despite being someone who trusted his judgement sometime ago.

My intention was not to twist your words. It sounded to me that it must be in scam accusations aboard. My mistake when I was wording the sentence.

And what do you conclude when one party is explaining his reasoning and other party is silent because they have nothing to say in their defense?

I really want to refrain from getting involved in this drama, but since I was called out by BitcoinGirl.Club I just want to vouch for what she said.  I have indeed, for months now attempted to have a discussion with JollyGood about his use of the trust system, but all attempts have gone ignored.  This includes one PM I sent regarding his tagging of Royse777.  His unwillingness to discuss the subject tells me that he has no defense for his abusive behavior.

I agree that once upon a time he was doing valuable work as a scam buster.  He was among quite a few members who (a couple of years ago) learned that they could build their accounts, and gain some recognition with merits or trust inclusions by exposing scammers, mostly bounty cheaters.  When they ran out of bounty cheaters to expose they started harassing anyone with alt accounts, regardless of whether they were cheating or not.  I suspect that most of these members recognized the folly of going after alts just for being alts, but not JollyGood.  He held onto the power which was given to him for longer than others.  Then he used the 1xbit excuse to spread his abuse of the trust system to any member that posted an applicaiton in their signature campaign thread.  

Many of these newbies were naïve to apply for the 1xbit campaign, but that does not make them scammers.  JollyGood would hold these tags over their heads, making demands of how they behave if he were to remove his tag.  This is extortion.

At one point (last year?) there was a thread in Reputation accusing a bunch of accounts as alts just for having misspelled the name of an athlete in the same way.  In that thread JollyGood said something that I found ridiculous, I rolled my eyes, he removed me from his trust inclusion.  During the recent Royse777 drama, after many ignored attempts to engage JollyGood in a rational discussion, I decided to exclude him from my trust network.  A couple of weeks go by, and he excludes me.  That's retaliation.

It's been made clear to me that JollyGood abuses the trust system.  He seems drunk with the power that he's been granted.  I don't know anything about starmyc's deal with JollyGood, and I haven't had time to dig too deep.  This however, has been my fear concerning many of the newly appointed DT members; i.e. that they'll use their power to harass and intimidate newbies in an effort to either extort them for money, or merely for more power.

Anyone who keeps JollyGood in their trust inclusions needs to know that they are enabling this behavior.

I see you suggest others modify their trust list which is very good. I have checked your trust list and look like you have made only two changes in the last 12 Months (You Included o_e_l_e_o and excluded mdayonliner). That means you care a lot about whom you trust and distrust. I have you on my Trust list and I am curious why don't you modify your trust list and make it bigger so that I can see more accurate feedback? People use their Trust List and Feedback power as daily routine things.

Of course, every coder relies on source code to produce a product. Correct, though completely irrelevant.


Because JG didn't pay for the source code, simple. You get what you paid for, not what you expect to get after paying for something. Basic laws of commerce I think.

Imagine you pay for a generic chocolate bar. Do you have rights to know the exact ingredients and method to produce it, because you are a customer? Should you expect a refund from your purchase of that chocolate bar because the creator/seller refuses to share with you the ingredients and production method? When you bought the chocolate bar, did it come with the rights to know of the ingredients and production method in order to replicate yourself? Do you deserve a refund on your purchase of the chocolate bar because the vendor refuses to provide you with exact ingredient measurements and production method? All of these answers should hopefully be self-explanatory for you, so I hope you see the point here.

Why someone wouldn't want to share their "secrets" is irrelevant to the conversation, unless you paid for this information, rather than the end result: the product.


How do you know this? Why would it not have been an "off the shelf program" that had been modified for JG's benefit?


That's because a big corp wouldn't be dumb enough to purchase software without the source code, this has nothing to do with amateur deals.

---

While I'm not fan of mindust, or mindrusting (no offence) - then this is the point here.

---

Definitely. The coder is under no obligation to share the source code unless it was clearly pointed out in the contract.

So it should have been commonly expected?