This is still spam feedback to everyone apart from those who read this thread [those who are "in the know" as to why the feedback was left in the first place].
Elaborate this.
Already did, made it very clear why I believe it was spammy feedback in the first place, and now is just spam.
Source:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Dictionary#dobs=spamIt just seems like you [they] were promoting your [their] ideology and clicked on the negative button in error while leaving feedback, so should be corrected at minimum. From reading the OP I'll assume they also queried about buying an account, but otherwise I would just consider it spam feedback (no substance) or no evidence feedback.
This is still spam feedback to everyone apart from those who read this thread. It'd categorize it as "irrelevant" spam, with the intent to spread a certain ideology, but otherwise as a waste of time to read aka spam. Maybe it's also about making a grain of effort in leaving feedback than copy-past-feedback styles that naturally come across as very spammy, such as quoting the user's words in order to retain proof of accusation.
After a brief investigation I realize this is a standard procedure for the OP, possibly even more members (?), who have a history of spammy feedback:
Source:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487418Source:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487418;page=sent;offset=50Source:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487418;page=sent;offset=50Notice a pattern here at all? I haven't the time to check all the references, but I doubt they all work. I also only checked a couple of pages, so who knows what else this user has been spamming over the past X amount of years. What's more concerning I found is the following however:
Source:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487418Looks OK doesn't it? Until you realise the reference are all:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm This to me reads as: "Trust me, they PM'd me, or PM me about it
, I know this is true". If this isn't a blatant abuse of the feedback system, then I don't know what is. Without evidence there is no accountability, it's simple really. The feedback system isn't about trusting certain users, but trusting their feedback and opinions because they are accountable and verifiable.
Call me a moron, but I don't believe we should fight scams and spam with spammy actions. Each to their own though, of course, clearly. I'm happy to accept that I have a lower tolerence of spam than others, and if this is standard procedure for trust feedback, then so be it. Maybe it's me that's in the wrong (place) rather than the OP. To be clear this isn't an attack on the OP, but a criticism of the OP's methods used, as well as anyone else that follows the same procedure.
Mod PS - Feel free to split my posts to a new topic, as this is somewhat off-topic in relation to the users in question, this instead concerns the OP.