Topic: Thread locked I owe it to aew. JollyGood and his Feedback (Read 1345 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?

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!

Be careful who you are talking against. I will not surprise to see you received one just because you expressed your opinion in the bold form I marked.

PM sent, public topic created but instead of explanation he now thinks sending a red tag on my trust page was appropriate. He did not use any of the chances that he was given. Right now his response does not carry any value. I will rather ask others mainly everyone including who have him in their trust list.

Can you even contact him in private, or he totally blocked you as well?
We could really benefit from less drama in this forum, but all I see is that he refused to explain anything about this case and just gave one more negative feedback.
Maybe negative feedback was a bit premature from both sides, but one he gave is 100% retaliatory.

Other DT members should seriously reconsider if this Candyman should still be a part of DT members, and doing nothing is only going to encourage him to continue doing the same thing.
He is again mentioning Royse in his feedback to member BitcoinGirl.Club, just proves that is seriously obsessed with this member.
I am calling other experienced members to examine this case.

Well I think you got your response in the form of a retaliatory red tag which is disappointing though not unsurprising. I guess it further proves your point about his abuse of the trust system though.




Fair enough when you put it like that, I still think it would of been worth reaching out to others, as now this isn't just about starmyc and nemgun, but your own red tag as well.

This is not a case for me that I became a victim of something. Now I desperately need to reach out to other members to request support to get the tag removed, on the other hand with the long years in the forum I don't think anyone will feel comfortable too if I PM requesting to make a connection with JG. It sounds funny and dramatic. By the way it was a sarcasm (the gig thing) on the other post but thank you for the list.

I wanted to have a one to one discussion which was said in the PM I sent to JollyGood on the last 20th July. I was expecting his response. I waited 6 days until I created this topic on 27th. I still waited and until now there are no explanation from JollyGood of why he left these unfair red tags to user starmyc and nemgun? He failed to support his cause.

Starmyc has business in the forum, a Software Engineer. Since the red tag left by JollyGood, starmyc did not get any order (it seems JG revenged tag worked), he became inactive although he sent me PM on July 17th saying, JollyGood took the work and asked him to refund for the previous work (how unfair and sounds pathetic). Nemgun obviously was a victim of the CEO just like Royse777 was a victim of his CEO. You don't jail the shareholders because the main head runaway with the money.

I wanted to ask jollyGood in private without making it public that he should resolve the problem with starmyc or give me a reasonable story and reconsider their tags. The tag on Starmyc can be even looked at as JollyGood was using it to silent him. Look at all others feedback on starmyc, how it went wrong only with JollyGood?

Well you have your reasons, I can't argue with that. I did PM you that list of users that JG would likely listen to for a reason, re: others he respects, but I get the impression you didn't bother reaching out to anyone  

There's one user in particular that you trust the judgement of, and who JG trusts and trust is reciprocated. Maybe worth reaching out to them to get a response don't you think?

While I'm not here to argue with why you gave him negative feedback, it would have been a good idea to try and a find a mediator of sorts prior to the feedback...

---

This isn't true or accurate, think I'm currently proof of that right now 

I have also been part of Hhampuz's signature campaign before, because as stated, it's for legitimate feedback only. icopress otherwise doesn't kick you out for negative DT feedback, as stated.

I have my reasons explained in the reference. In short
1. He did not pay starmyc for his work even asked for refund for the first job. Left red tag as hostage.
2. His arguments are inappropriate and his use of red tags based on the inappropriate arguments. He did it twice (from the limited investigation I conducted myself) once for nemgun and recently for Royse777

An example of his inappropriate argument and how he suggest others to step in to his arguments

Bump.

Lol, I've realized, BitcoinGirl.Club, that you have left JollyGood negative feedback.

Even if you are on his ignore list I think we are going to have drama.

Well in this case JollyGood may publish a list of users who he trust for discussion, so we can see LoyceV and whoever else are in it. It will save our time and we will know who to request to get answers from JollyGood. Don't tell me these are the users who he had in his distrust list.

Have a service, "I will get your answer from JollyGood for $5" (like they do on fiverr LOL). Whenever any of us will need the service, we will order the gig. They will be users like me or the people who received negative feedback but when they wanted to contact JG in PM or wanted to address him in reputation thread, he decided not to respond their valid reasons. Sounds like a joke. but look a the number of feedback he left. The service will really make them rich.

He obviously feels that he is above explanation of what he do now. If a user has such mindset then its risky to give them responsibility. DT is a huge responsibility. A DT member should come forward to clear his doings when its in question by anyone. Accepting or denying the explanation is something else but this anyone even could be the real scammer who received the feedback for a proven scam.

No obviously not. It's disappointing that JollyGood hasn't responded to this thread, but also hardly surprising. Unfortunately, it usually takes the persuasion from others that he trusts in order to engage with constructive criticism (hint hint). This isn't even intended as further criticism, but more a statement of facts, as acknowledged by JG himself. In summary, he's unlikely to respond to you directly, only to others he respects, even if it'd be the mature thing to do, given that you appear to be a respected member here, rather than a troll or a scammer etc. Everyone would be open to constructive criticism, but sadly this is not the case...

I doubt very much that there are serious consequences of leaving negative feedback for a few days while things are being clarified to prevent scams.

Nowadays even to participate in signature campaigns, you are not automatically kicked out because you are given a negative feedback from a DT. For example:

I am in his ignore list, this is the reason I am guessing so far. It's more of ego than giving a good reason. If this is the reason then it's obviously a childish which questions his mental stability. If someone is too childish to accept constructive criticism then how would you trust his feedback left from left to right, everywhere. Feedback system is not for children. It's for adults.

Ignoring PM, ignoring public calls question his self-confidence.

As long as you are right it prevents but if you are wrong then you are accountable for the damage you made to the account.

Yes, you are right. After I wrote that I kept thinking.

It is not useless because it prevents others from falling into the same trap, but as it works what happens is that if you wait for someone to scam to tag him, what usually happens is that after being tagged he disappears from the forum.

But I will rephrase that by saying that it would be more useful if it served to prevent the initial scam.

Btw, why JollyGood has not defended himself in this thread?

It not useless. The tag then save others not to fall in the same trap. Loan default accusations are the best example.

Two user is question in the topic. starmyc and nemgun.

I quote from starmyc
There were two jobs. The first one was paid and supplied. He must be talking about the 2nd one. JollyGood took the 2nd work but since he was not happy, he even asked for refund for the first work. starmyc obviously is conducting a business in the forum (from the stuffs in his signature). You and me know JollyGood leaves feedback for no serious reasons but it is not necessary for his potential clients to know who is what in the forum. They will see the feedback from JollyGood, starmyc lose his potential clients.

Read (including the quoted message of JollyGood) where I am coming from for nemgun: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52985918
I don't think it's justified to keep him tagged. JollyGood even decided to block his PM LOL

This point has given me food for thought recently and I think it is the subject of a thread on its own.

I agree with Stalker22, I prefer to red tag someone when I have clear suspicions even if I don't have hard evidence rather than wait for the scam to happen and red tag then.

I did so in two recent cases: Royse777 and Shaker_finance.

In the case of Royse777 I red tagged her and supported the flag when many people didn't want to due to previous reputation. I was seeing that Bitlucy could be a clear exit scam and she was involved. Something had to be done to try to put pressure on her to fix the problem. When the scam had already happened, it was when many in DT supported the flag and red tag her.

The red tag should be used if you think that trading with that person is high risk, and here there is a component of subjectivity, which should be minimal.

In any case, if I'm wrong, I can change the red tag and nowadays it doesn't hurt anyone to have a red tag for two or three days until things become clearer.

If negative feedback is only used to tag someone when they have already scammed, then it is useless.

You personal judgment (when wrong) should not damage others reputation.
How would you assure I will not scam at some time? It's not good either to stay suspicious always.
Where is the obvious red flag for starmyc and the same red flag for nemgun?
Why would I suspect starmyc and not suspect JollyGood?
If nemgun were to tag then all ICO that failed should be tagged too. Scam and fail has too different meanings. Scam is when you take from others in bad faith, a fraud.

I think it largely depends on the situation and personal judgment. It is not a good idea to always wait until a scam happens to warn the community. If there are obvious red flags and valid reasons, I think it is okay for DT members to put a red tag on the account as a warning. Every single tag can be easily removed or changed to neutral. I have followed many cases in which JollyGood was involved and I mostly agree with his/her decision, but of course, everyone should make their own conclusion based on the available evidence and not blindly trust the opinion of other members.

If there's one thing I've learned over the time I've been involved in the crypto, it's that you can never be too careful or to do too much due diligence.

When scam is proven, act there a no problem. Everyone of us act to a proven scam. If anyone speaks in favor of proven scam there is problem but you should not leave red tag for something that has not happened yet. Your tag damage the business. A red tag sent wrongly damage the motivation of a member who wanted to have a pleasant journey in the community.
Honesty is something I only know. I can well use the honesty as a way for me to make a place for me.
We don't know the real motive but a person who are always too harsh to leave red tag and too suspicious in everything, how do they took it as guaranteed for a casino they are promoting was clear until it was proven. My problem is there. If OP of that accusation was not admitting the exploit than the case still would continue and JolllyGood may still continue defending (from the history of his involvement). Clearly the weekly payment took a part in the changed behavior. So honesty, possibly something you are seeing that he wants you to see.

It was concerning but they are lucky that the accuser lost his patience.

When someone is asking you something then you respond in a good manner, when someone is asking explanation then you explain. That's how we practice in gentlemen world. Do you think we have several months for him to wait?

Of course JollyGood, as far as I've seen, acted honest, and showed some disgust and intolerance for scammers, which most normal human beings should have been raised so. It's definitely a bit eccentric and out of line in this forum, but stop complaining, you know, some people are honest and don't like promoting scams.

Try to offer him $80 or $100 and see if he will start to dance with your music.. oh right you can't do that because he ignores you
I don't have anything against him but he does take things very personally, and he can't accept well criticism coming from other people.
For example I criticized his behavior of giving negative feedback very easy to everyone, and his response was to ignore me and accuse me for creating drama.
If you look at JollyBad post history you will understand what I am talking about, but I still hopes he will change his ways.
I made mistakes in past, but I was willing to change and admit when I was wrong.

This is unacceptable waiting period for any gambling website.
I don't know if you noticed last case that happened with SandBoxCasino (aka Owl.games), but it's serious and you should check it out in Scam Accusations.

A lot of those users appear to be those who he doesn't trust or like the opinion of. To be fair though, he's more than welcome to distrust users he doesn't like the opinion of, even if not always logical imo.


Good scam buster for sure (hence DT1). But it wouldn't be the first time he gave red trust inaccurately which took several months to be resolved after finally acknowledging incorrect use of the trust system.

The upside is JollyGood is able to acknowledge incorrect use of trust system (great), the downside is it may take several months to do so (unfortunate).

If he's adding users to his distrust list rather than giving them negative feedback without good cause, then I'd welcome the change.

I think JollyGood has done a good job on 1xBit, but one thing that struck me about him is that he has 2452 members excluded from his trust list.

I looked at his trust list because some people say that he gives negative feedback too easily, although it seems that overall he has done a positive job and is a good scam buster.

In the end I decided to stay neutral, neither add him to my trust list nor exclude him.

Has anyone noticed I had a spelling mistake for the topic title 🤣?
Nothing to surprise. He thinks he earned a name to ignore PM from other members who have valid questions to ask and even a thread created for them to clarify what they are doing. He is absolutely fine to harass others though.

If wearing a signature paying $70 a week can change their behavior then it's completely wrong. This could only mean that the user can not do right thing. They will do everything not in good intention but to pocket revenue.

Leaving a red feedback to starmyc could be a well attempt to justify not to pay him for the work, leaving unnecessary positive feedback to others also indicates that making a good reputation is the intention.

I realize now that JollyGood wears the signature of Duelbits and that you defend that in this case he has a behavior opposite to the usual, with respect to the company that pays him.

I guess JollyGood will come to the thread to defend himself, I'm surprised he hasn't come already.


Things like this are what I was referring to earlier:

I do agree too. Terms are like we reserve the right to confiscate any winning, we reserve the right to cancel any bet and many more one sided terms are to protect their business. I am not sure legally a company really can say it. But we all understand, casino makes money out of the loss from their clients. They are happy when customers lose money and worried when they win. They ensure everything is in right place to make as much as they can.

I liked one explanation from one of the casino who advertise on the forum and I understand it. They usually can not check every customer one by one because it's almost impossible to continue with the volume of clients. They set some flags especially when a client request a withdrawal. The algorithm of the flag alerts them when something is not right. That's when they act.

My best guess was they were not finding any fault from the user. They are lucky that the user lost his patience and admitted he used bug on their site.

I do not agree with some terms casinos have. I feel like some things are a blanket term that gives a casino outs to take a large win away from a player.

Multiple accounts is bullshit. If someone has created multiple accounts cheating a bonus or promotion, then ban said user and their alts. Don't allow a user to keep depositing or something like that, then they get a win and get fucked out of it. If they have multi accounts and you allowed them to deposit, then on that deposit they won without cheating, pay that man his money period.

When sites are getting their games from a 3rd party like the slots on most casinos, sites have to wait for a response from the provider if there is an issue. 3 weeks plus seems a bit nutty to me. I feel like the 2 parties should be able to get on a video chat and solve a problem in a much faster time frame(like a couple fucking days) vs emailing back and forth and someone answering whenever they please.

Casinos are always protected by their terms and conditions. It's a problem for a casino which hasn't made it's name yet but when a casino earn a reputation we respect their decision because of their long term loyalty to their clients. From that perspective I have no problem with the decision Duelbits made (In fact they didn't close the case, JollyGood closed it on behalf of them).
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5405780

But in a scam accusation against any service or person without knowing both side of the story I can not advocate for a side. On the thread until the OP admitted the bug it was impossible to know OPs accusations were wrong. Even Duelbits were not sure otherwise it would not take them a month to investigate. But we saw JollyGood was always advocating for Duelbits as he was protecting them. Judging from his nature it was a completely different behavior by him. If this was against any other casino then he would harass the casino.

Hhampuz seemed pissed because they were taking unnecessary time
It worried yahoo62278
examplens was worried too

Then we hear a response from Duelbits. Case in ongoing investigation and it was the only response from them. But as you will see our friend JollyGood was always trying to calm the OP as if he knew nothing could go wrong with Duelbits.

All it for $70 a week? It seems JollyGood will advocate for anyone if they pay which is obviously very dangerous (in the past, I was in a signature campaign. I used to get request from campaign manager and other participants to advocate for them. I could not do it a single time in the specified threads and eventually I was removed form it. By the way, I am not regretting for it but using an example).

The completely different approaching from JollyGood  leads me to suspect his motive of scam busting all these days. Although now a days he lures from 1xbit. All are aware, they are scam so there are no additional work is necessary to hammer them all the time. Could we consider JollyGoods intention is to make a good name, earn trust and then finally dump a huge scam? We have many examples including Master-P. It always make me worry when I see a user is too focused to make a name. Have people checked the positive feedback sent by JollyGood to the users who already have their names established? I am not saying the feedback are wrong but these were not necessary too. The only possible outcome is to receive a positive back.

I am still waiting to know about the feedback he left for starmyc and nemgun. starmyc received another feedback from AdolfinWolf which clears that starmvc possibly is not that JollyGood explained.

AdolfinWolf

2018-03-30

Reference

This user has set up a script for me. Very polite and extremely professional. Went out of his bounds to explain to me what he did, and always responded extremely quickly in clear terms and good english. (Something that can be hard to find these days.). User really knows what he is talking about. Can highly recommend dealing with him.. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/bff13fb4819fbd5e4ce04642e0db1aec12f1d8c31b4659f341c2ce7cb3637132

That's what I thought. They can put in their TOS that if you find a bug they can take away a kidney of yours if they want, another thing is if it is legal.

We can think about whether we consider it more ethical for someone who finds the bug to tell the casino instead of taking advantage of the bug, but if we start listing morally questionable actions by casinos both traditionally and nowadays we would make a long list.

Oh I’m sure the casino has something in their TOS that says they can take all his money whenever they want..

Lol. Another drama on the reputation section.

I quite like this section but sometimes it seems the gossip section.

For the time being, I am going to remain neutral with respect to Jollygood.

As for the Duelbits case, I comment here what I think, since the thread is locked. If a casino has a bug, it's the casino's fault, and if someone discovers it and makes money from the bug, he has every right to do so. In a lawsuit the casino would have everything to lose, and so it happened with some poker players, mathematicians by profession, who found imperfections in the roulette wheels of physical casinos around the world and took advantage of it.

First