Topic: Thread locked I owe it to aew. JollyGood and his Feedback - page 2. (Read 1342 times)

Like I said, It should have been discussed beforehand.

I don't think Microsoft is amateur enough to hire coders without making that clear. If the employee don't want to share his work with MS, then he'll get the boot.

Idk man..
He was hiring him to make a program, not buying an off the shelf program..

What would be his reasoning for not providing the source code?
Would it be more work?

I can’t imagine apple or Microsoft hiring someone to create a program and not expecting to receiver the source code..

Providing the source code to the employer needs to be discussed separately before the job begins. The freelancer may indeed provide it if he wants to. If he doesn't then you can't force him to do so. The employer is free to find another coder.

If the contract between the two parties says the employee will provide the source once the work is finished, then he should do that. If there isn't anything about that in the contract, then well... the employer should have asked about it.

You want a product, you get the product.

Every time when you buy something from Microsoft or Apple... do they give you the app's source code for free? I don't think so.

Not speaking if this situation, but JG is pretty snappy with that red paint I agree, but I feel a big difference between the way he is and the way Lauda was..

Long story short, Lauda was the epitome of the entrenched financial game around here running crews of campaign management/escrow organizations, would stand up and destroy the competition at any chance, but at the same time skate extremely close to and cross the line themselves and defend very shady actions of their clients and compadres..
aTriz, mosprognos..

JG would just tag them all.. Not financially motivated that I can tell..
Keeps all them types in check..


Explain to me the source code deal..
Would he not have had to make/have the source code to produce whatever product he gave him? What would be his reasoning for not providing the source code?

I have a tendency to believe JG over that coder guy..

You think JG is hostile and unrelenting now, just wait until he has DT red and really doesn’t give AF anymore..





OP, what was your motivation to take up this battle?
Royse shit?

You remember that Lauda was accusing many scammers and cheaters for plagiarism and in the end someone discovered several plagiarism cases in his own account.
If you start mass producing negative feedbacks left and right, it's almost certain you will make mistakes and accuse innocent people in the process.
At least Lauda had the balls to quit and left the forum on his own terms, so people remember him for good things he did.
I doubt same thing will happen with his copycat.

This looks like borderline scammer or blackmailing behavior, provide source code or you will receive negative feedback.

I wouldn't worry about this neutral feedbacks.
People can easily search other side of the story and make their own conclusion.

No longer applies until next opportunity and next victim he finds.
I think everyone should reconsider if they want to keep positive feedback on JollyBad profile, including you FatFork.
This kind of bully behavior witch hunting is not bad just for him but for whole bitcointalk forum.
I would also suggest ~ him because of his repeated behavior and ignoring suggestions from other members.

Don't twist my words. I never said "always".
You said: "I am thinking a way how to correct it and also use appropriate reference...", I suggested an appropriate reference.


From my perspective, that's just more hearsay. My thinking is more in terms of credible evidence.


Each of us should check any trust feedback manually (if needed) and draw our own conclusions based on the evidence presented.

Kiss my ass rusty 😉
It's sad to see some people made the DefaultTrust as their own property. I feel the sigh came out from ETF's response.

If you can’t code your own online casino, you shouldn’t be running one imo. That’s all I understand from this case or anything similar happened before.

Take a look at freebitco.in. It is 2-men operation and has been working flawlessly for years (5+)

Running an online casino without knowing how to code is like running a restaurant without knowing how to cook.

It may seem to go fine for a while but sooner or later that damn day will arrive and you’ll have to cook yourself.

Jolly, Royse, Pammy why don’t you all kiss each other and be friends?

You are right. Now it can be changed and I tried to make it closer to accurate. As LoyceV suggested now it's two separate feedback with separate reference also added starmyc so that his feedback can be visible as trusted feedback.

Where did you get this idea? It does not always need to be on the scam accusation board.


Your answers are here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60714131
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60714605

If we are talking about a lesser evil we are going to agree on this, but my point is that if you don't have proof you shouldn't write that someone is untrustworthy, a liar and has mental problems. You'd better keep your opinion to yourself and not write it on someone's trust page.

This no longer applies because his feedback on your account is neutral.
An appropriate reference for negative feedback would be the scam accusation topic. Did you ask starmyc why he didn't create a scam accusation against JollyGood if he felt cheated by him?


Again, the situation would be resolved much more clearly if starmyc made a proper scam accusation and provided all relevant evidence. The way things stand, you seem to be taking sides based on the word of one party, despite the fact that neither side has provided credible evidence to support their claims.

It should be red if he can back it up with a proper Reference link with proof. Without that, it's just his opinion. He's entitled to have one, and I prefer neutral over red for it.

Neutral works de-escalating. Other than that, when I read feedback like this, I simply ignore it. But usually it makes the person who wrote it look bad.

Sure he can, up to 5 posts.

It doesn't.

There is a widespread idea in the forum that neutral color can be used for anything. And I don't agree.

If I write a neutral color feedback saying: "Scammer. Don't trust him even for $10 transactions."

That should be written in red. If I don't write it in red it's because I know what I'm saying is false or I don't have proof, so I shouldn't write that.

Yes it is changed to neutral 🤣


Even though I provided full reference of the accusations I made against him he is considering they are baseless. But interestingly it seems he received all my pathological reports from my doctor.
He propose:
I am a compulsive lair
Mentally unwell
Serious anger problem
I have delusions of grandeur
I have overinflated ego.

How even a neutral feedback applies here? My trust page is not for him to write my pathological reports.

Update:
Thanks, you were just earlier than me to post it 😉

I do not agree with this.

Only the color has changed. Saying that BitcoinGirl.Club is a liar, that he cannot be trusted and that he has mental problems, should be written in red.

I'm glad to see JollyGood changed his tag on BitcoinGirl.Club to neutral:
I consider this correct use of the Trust system (independent of what it says).

I did not look into it that way but gave a thought for few second. I am still not convinced that if I should do it. If I do then it feels like I am changing my setting only for a particular user. On the other hand starmyc is not someone who left many feedback and I can consider the judgement of most of his feedback are accurate. I will give more thought before to take your suggestion.

Like I said on my last post an employer thinks that they bought the freelancer and use them as their own property. JollyGood was demanding unnecessary additional job resulting not paying him for the 2nd job but inappropriately he was asking to refund for the first job that was done successfully. He was simply denying to pay for the valid job.

Let me share the last PM from starmyc

The point is that it's more accurate

I checked JollyGood's feedback on starmyc, and I'm surprised he tagged the user saying:
Meanwhile, his own Reference link shows he didn't ask for source codes, and I think it's unreasonable to expect free source codes after you pay someone for a freelance job.

I agree in separating two parts. But since there are no point (at least this is how I looked it) to leave one neutral and another red so I decided to have all at once.

Few weeks ago may be months, I saw DireWolfM14 somewhere said he sent JollyGood a PM about some feedback to discuss or something, I can not remember it clearly.
These days I am more in reputation board, I was noticing JollyGood creates unnecessary arguments and insults others who do not support his arguments, likes to show off he has an ignore list, disrespects senior members who were producing babies even before his birth to this forum. He can not tolerate when someone say he is wrong in something. All looked to me an attitude problem.
So I wanted to see how his inappropriate attitude reflects on the feedback he left. He has many pages of feedback which was impossible for me to check one by one. So I was quickly scanning a few of them before I found the case for starmyc and NEMGUN. NEMGUN case looked to me the same as Royse777 but starmyc case looked to me very straight forward. So I sent a short PM to starmyc:
I saw starmyc had everything good even a good feedback from another DT member for his work. But since JollyGood left the negative feedback, starmyc tried to resolve it but eventually gave up and slowed down in the forum.

In the mean time he replied my PM

I used to be a software engineer. Freelanced for many years in the long past so I know how it goes. I do not have any doubt that JollyGood started demanding additional works but denied to pay and kept asking for more works. Sometimes an employer thinks that they bought the freelancer and use them as their own property. I suspect that exactly what happened and resulting he even asked to refund for the first job which was finished successfully before starting the 2nd job. And finally it finished with the negative feedback he has to hostage him.

But I can not just take one side in considering so I PMed JollyGood and asked if we can have a one to one conversation. But even after 6 days he ignored and did not think to reply. Then I created this topic. But still there are no input. At this point what should I take as guaranteed? He does not have any explanation at all. If he does not then his feedback to starmyc was inappropriate and it will be safe to say that he scammed the labor of starmyc and did not pay him for the work. I will believe starmyc over him because starmyc gave me more explanation after his last PM response.

It seems, starmyc really is established person in his life right now, happy with the job now, he does not care at all. But he expressed his regret

This is one starmyc, how many more starmyc have the same feeling and JollyGood destroyed their forum life? He did not pay for the work but he did not stop there. He decided to leave a negative feedback and stopped starmyc.

I suggested starmyc to create a flag if he thinks that there should be no more starmyc if he does then I will have no problem to support it.

I think there should be a dedicated BitcoinGirl.Club vs JollyGood thread. Now it's spread out too much and harder to find the details.

First, let me remind you that my guide to correct use of the Trust system exists.
I'll start with BitcoinGirl.Club's tag on JollyGood:

And that's the next point I want to address:
JollyGood's tag on BitcoinGirl.Club:
I'm confused: who left the first negative tag? I thought BitcoinGirl.Club was the first. Then why does JollyGood call that a revenge tag?
JollyGood's tag looks like revenge to me: there's no Reference link, just an opinion that "BitcoinGirl.Club cannot be trusted". The Royse777/Bitlucy part seems completely irrelevant to me: you can't tag someone for not tagging someone else!

What happened to Be the bigger man? Receiving a negative tag does not mean trading with the person who left it is high-risk, so it doesn't justify tagging them too!