Topic: To crypto|george and saifulbdit91 re: feedback removal (Read 522 times)

bro i remove negative feedback from your profile and i know my feedback is nothing for you whatever its neg or positive..also really i don't know the rules of this forum well ..personally i did not do any scam with anyone i know it if you think or found any mistake of mine please inform me also kindly can you remove my feedback kindly...really i never scam with people..

To me this list of yours is completely different, as you left feedback directly to the user: "Advertising ponzi scheme in signature". This makes it clear that the user you left feedback to was advertising a ponzi scheme in signature, while I'd assume the reference is the evidence (although I don't need to check for this example). This is different to leaving an opinion or ideology "Account buyers/sellers are not to be trusted". This isn't feedback, it's opinionated spam, and should be instead commented in the thread in question (by whoever wants to be repeatedly spamming this ideology). My point is that feedback should be feedback directed at the user, for example: "User queried buying an account. Account buyers are not to be trusted". The difference here is that there is feedback directed at the user, followed by the opinion of the user who left the feedback.

I really don't understand what's so difficult to comprehend here without pulling up definitions of feedback and opinions. There's obviously nothing wrong with opinionated feedback, as long as there's actually feedback to the user in the first place. I do understand however that people struggle with languages, so it's probably worth referencing the concept of a Point, Evidence, Explanation (PEE) sentence structure, in order to avoid users leaving "feedback" with no evidence or explanation.


I agree everyone makes mistakes, no-one is perfect, myself included. It's just a shame when these mistakes are systematic as opposed to occasional human error.

IMO, absolutely justified as pointed out here.

To be honest, I did. Here's a proof that my client verified that I bought the account for them. I really had no idea before then as I was a beginner. I've learned my errors and know how it works. I occasionally use this account for other projects who has no means to get an account and acquire a copper member. I really want the feedback to disappear so I could focus on growing my own account. I am still working here at the forum but using my client's accounts for now.

He didn't knew anything, like most newbies here who got banned from plagiarism, ask loans without collateral, and even attempt to buy another account they don't exactly know the rules as they don't even read it. Let's go back to my first point that we don't actually know if he had bought the account we just know he attempted to buy one so the way I see it he ain't actually guilty of buying an account.

It is trust rating, not message. It doesn't mean feedback is spam just because comment was copy/pasted. For example:

It might look like a spam but there is really nothing more or less to write in each profile. 50 users advertising ponzi scheme - all 50 get the same feedback, writing each one for each user and changing word or two is very time consuming and actually makes no difference. If I, for example, have sent all these ratings without proper reference link to random accounts, in that case this could maybe be considered as spam, but very likely as trust abuse. Seeing "account sellers are not to be trusted" my logic tells me that user has tried to sell bitcointalk account, the same as "account buyers..." for forum account buyers. Of course, there should be reference link - without it feedback is pretty much pointless.. Anyway, account trades have already been discussed several times so I won't start another discussion about it. Take a note that many forum accounts have been sold and used to scam(and spam), many forum accounts have also been stolen/hacked from owners and sold.

I know we all make mistakes as we are not robots but that should really be updated with correct reference links @TP.

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=spam



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=487418



Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487418;page=sent;offset=50



Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487418;page=sent;offset=50

Notice 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=487418

Looks 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.

I am sure it was accurate feedback and reference before thread was deleted. You will sometimes see these kind of things, they are not spam it is just something was removed and wasn't archived.
That is correct.
Elaborate this.

I don't believe it's about restoring the thread, it's about leaving accurate feedback with a working reference. This is 101 of neg feedback surely?

"[3] Do not leave a negative feedback without reference (evidence) this will be seen as an accusation" - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/guide-how-not-to-use-the-negative-feedback-aka-red-tag-5099561

We're supposed to make our own assessments based on evidence and feedback of other users, not based on someone else's accusations. 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. It's really not that hard. Anyway, no need to teach grandparents to suck eggs right.

I didn't leave the negs because of their language barriers and I'm not even calling them outright scammers.  It's the account dealing that hurts the forum and which suspects that they're probably up to shady things.  What exactly that is I have no clue--but people who buy accounts tend to misuse them.  Sounds like a scene out of Minority Report, but that's just the way it is.

Nah, I'm not going to retaliate for a retaliatory feedback, though the feedback is mildly annoying.  I've gotten very used to that sort of thing over the years.  It's an emotional response and a way of getting back at what they perceive as a wrong being done to them.  But if they'd just learned about how things work around here before jumping into account buying, they wouldn't be in this position.

I'm shocked.  Shocked, I tell you.

No worries. It works on users who have been tagged in old system and have more negative than positive ratings.
Unfortunately cache is not available 
Yep, threads/posts should be archived. Anyway, I don't think this is spam feedback, thread was removed, that's all. Admin could restore it but I am sure he has better things to do.

Fair enough, I don't see this warning so wasn't aware of it. I take it back; it clearly does affect their work, and therefore a flag would seem more appropriate to me.


Thanks for sharing. Now there just needs to be a post with the image and reference link in order to amend the feedback.
It looks like a valuable lesson in archiving references too, in order to avoid spam feedback in the future.

This is contradiction. I don't see any valid reason why would anyone buy verified neteller account and as for second account, they said their client wanted to buy ranked "trusted" account so I don't think you should remove -ve.

It doesn't look like it does not affect their work:


Google showed this:

I'm not convinced it's as simple as this. Someone might not support your action of negative feedback and at the same time not support the users for their actions either.

For example, crypto|george appears to be missing 1 merit to continue their "work", as opposed to neutral trust. A flag seems more appropriate now instead of negative feedback, if you (and other members) believe that all users who have queried accounts to buy aren't to be trusted that is. Either way, your feedback doesn't affect their "work".

After all, if you are looking for feedback on the matter a flag should provide that for you, as opposed to people that probably can't be bothered to argue otherwise. Negative feedback for a transaction that never happened doesn't sound like feedback to me, but I also understand that this has been the case since long time now. I also don't feel it's for me to judge if this generic statement that account buyers aren't to be trusted is true or not, as I genuinely don't know - and it's not relevant to my point either - so not going to argue about it.

With saifulbdit91, the reference link intrigues me, as it's missing or off-limits. It just seems like you were promoting your 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. The irony is they have positive feedback from a handful of marketplace sales, so unlike crypto|george could actually do with the neutral trust it seems.

Again, if all potential account buyers aren't to be trusted, then there should be a flag rather than feedback in my opinion, it's more accurate. If the lack of trust is based on a theoretical transaction that is inherently risky that is. So in summary: no I don't have anything to say to support these users.

Theres no such thing as second chance with these abusers,he knew that multi accounts are allowed until you are proven using those to bounties.

Saw the thread created in the meta section first by one of the members who got painted red by you so I'm just putting my own opinion here. I'm sure you already know the rule that I quoted above but I'm just putting it for others to have a reference. Although I'll say right away to crypto|george that it wasn't ThePharmacist's fault that you aren't reading rules the red tag he received for was not directly a rule violation as stated above. Like what the rule have said it's just discouraged and even though he showed interest in buying an account there's really no proof that he have bought the account more so now that he is wanting to remove his Newbie ranking account shows that he is still using this account. Why not give him a chance for this one time to really see if he is worthy to have an untainted account?

Your negative trust feedbacks are useless unless they have flags on their profiles.Dont try to turn the table because people knows what you are abusing from the past years,it doesnt change anything that you are part of lauda's mafia.

From the thread Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ point no:18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged. As it is given with an indication, can be done and the same isn't encouraged seems the red tag right when we think of the opposite effects and wrong  in the other way. I suggest giving a warning, or a neutral trust. Further if it is repeated red tag seems to be right.

With Saifu - I would say you have not labeled them a scammer. With the new system they do not carry any warnings about trading or caution. Just appropriate feedback imo for someone who was trying to buy an account. Now I can't see their reference link so I'm not sure what the situation was.

With George - It's the same thing, they did clearly try to engage in an account purchase. They may not have known the opinions people have for that situation but it still shows they wanted to buy an account rank they hadn't earned to pass themselves off that way, or sell it again. Either way the feedback seems fine to me, it doesn't actually inhibit them in any way. That includes taking into account signature campaigns, because they haven't done anything to rank up in all this time.

Honestly, they should just consider creating a new account and suing that like a do-over. Hopefully they have read the rules and understand the acceptable practices for the forum.


I disagree, a neutral about retaliatory feedback would be more appropriate if someone felt the need to respond to that sort of thing.

Add another negative rating as "Trying to defame a reputed member by false retaliatory feedback without any references". I wouldn't even care what the case was but these newbie scums leaving retaliatory negative feedback is very annoying.

For the other member, you should check if they're not lying and are really interested in positive contribution towards the forum. If everything is positive, you can give them a chance.