Sorry if I am late here, but really, most of those offences are not worth the tagging and I have noticed lots more and mostly be in shock as to whether they are worth the tagging. But all the same, it is still Bitcointalk where many are doing as they like because they have gained some kind of prominence on the forum. That is what we get if we give the rod to those who were just presumed to be worth it and do not have some deep understanding of them and their nature.
Some are too quick to make a conclusion, maybe they want to prove that they are working, I don't know. Even for the sake of sanity and human feelings at times, you don't just be too hasty to be judgemental. I hope something could be done to change the narrative. The DT of a thing could be better reviewed stricter and the power of those who are felt to have abused it could be withddrawn. They could also be warned so that they are reminded that it is not for playing.
Topic: Would you tag these users? (Read 912 times)
If borovichok really lent his account to someone to shitpost, a negative trust is completely valid. Accounts changing hands and getting a tag is where DT has shown to be reliable to shut down any potential abuse. At least OP has now 3 neutral trusts and sig managers will be more careful to hire borovichok.
Ratimov has never abused the system in the way that JollyGood has.
Who said that? Ratimov has a bad habit. If someone spoke against him or criticized him for his past mistakes, he started to attack them. He started digging if they had something bad and tagged them if possible. If he were unable to find any taggable offense, then he would exclude then and leave neutral feedback. Quote
There are hundreds of threads here and there against JollyGood, and his judgement is awful, yet he keeps accumulating votes and growing stronger. If we're being honest, JollyGood isn't fit to be on the system. I'm glad my most recent instance provided him - 3 Votes.
The problem is, that he still has some good feedback which is the reason people included him. If someone has more accurate feedback than inaccurate, people add them. I agree that if someone doubt about their own feedback, they don't deserve to be in DT network. But, I don't know where did you find that your case provided him three negative votes. 
Where do you check a live stats on DT whatnot related things? I'd love to get to know his peers.
I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for, but all DT1 changes appear here https://bpip.org/TrustLog
Or if you are a visual type, this will be more interesting for you, only that a fresher update is needed. Maybe we should push the bitmover to renew the chart
https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/5420994/
or thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5320916.20
Why bother voting when the system is already compromised? The powerful continue to become stronger, while the weak continue to weaken.
That's not true. Both Timelord2067 and Ratimov were (brutally) removed from DT lately. All you need is convincing evidence, and it helps if the victim isn't a shitposting spammer.If we're being honest, the only reason you're complaining about JollyGood's judgment is because it hit you personally. And you're not exactly in a position to play the victim card here.
I'm glad my most recent instance provided him - 3 Votes.
I'm glad your "recent instance" put an end to your shitposting. So it appears that DT has prevailed once more. And I'm sure you'll be more careful who you hire to write your posts in the future.
Where do you check a live stats on DT whatnot related things? I'd love to get to know his peers.
You can send them a love letters here . http://loyce.club/trust/2024-01-13_Sat_05.07h/1016855.html
Why bother voting when the system is already compromised? The powerful continue to become stronger, while the weak continue to weaken.
That's not true. Both Timelord2067 and Ratimov were (brutally) removed from DT lately. All you need is convincing evidence, and it helps if the victim isn't a shitposting spammer.
Why bother voting when the system is already compromised? The powerful continue to become stronger, while the weak continue to weaken.
That's not true. Both Timelord2067 and Ratimov were (brutally) removed from DT lately. All you need is convincing evidence, and it helps if the victim isn't a shitposting spammer. If you agree that someone should be negatively tagged for AI posting or spamming, you don't deserve to be in the DT network.
What's the point of complaining instead of voting? See how the Trust system works, and create your own Trust list.It's not accidental: if Shishir99 would have had a custom Trust list, the link would have worked.
I see, my bad. All these sites are pretty good I just haven't used them long enough to know everything basic.
I think you may have accidentally posted an invalid link :p
It's not accidental: if Shishir99 would have had a custom Trust list, the link would have worked. If you agree that someone should be negatively tagged for AI posting or spamming, you don't deserve to be in the DT network.
What's the point of complaining instead of voting? See how the Trust system works, and create your own Trust list.I clicked on the first link and it said
"404 Not Found The page you're looking for doesn't exist." I think you may have accidentally posted an invalid link :p
If you agree that someone should be negatively tagged for AI posting or spamming, you don't deserve to be in the DT network.
What's the point of complaining instead of voting? See how the Trust system works, and create your own Trust list. We talked before about those AI detecting tools and how unreliable they can be sometimes. They can flag human-generated content as AI-generated. Or the other way around too.
That's why a thread like this exists; AI Spam Report Reference Thread.
If you tag someone for AI posting, you have to prove it and put it as a reference. It's not someone else job to find it for you. I know that you are not the tagger. But you have also accused the guy of AI posting by agreeing with JollyGood. You just answered him that he was tagged for AI posting and shitposting without checking if he really AI or not.
Quote
It's plain as day that the user in question is a shameless shitposter. I think we can all agree on that. Does he deserve a negative tag for all the excessive shitposting? I suppose that's up to each person to decide for themselves and, personally, I might start a reputation thread first to see what others make of it before going the negative tag route. But the fact is, he's already received a few neutral warnings, but those obviously didn't work. The negative did. So there's that.
May I ask why do you have to create a reputation thread? If you are not sure about a tag that whether it's appropriate or not and you had to ask the community, you are not supposed to be a DT member. Leaving negative feedback for AI content and Shit posting is ABUSE of DT power. There are forum rules for it. Just go ahead and report their posts to a moderator. If you agree that someone should be negatively tagged for AI posting or spamming, you don't deserve to be in the DT network.
Edit: If you think you are right, go ahead and tag all the Stake campaign Participants. All of them are just pure shit posters.
Where is the AI-generated content? It's been days and no one has come out yet, and the mentioned post JollyGood tagged me for is 100% human, so I think that's why he hasn't come out yet.
Can we interpret this as an admission that sometimes you still use AI to write posts, but the one JollyGood accuses you of was 100% written by a human?
Quote
I went through a little history of your posts, and I have to agree with most of the previous comments directed at you. What you have written so far is pure spam and shitposting. I wouldn't be surprised if someone found AI-generated posts in your history.
What is interesting to me is that reading what you write in this thread and the one in Meta that you opened about the same thing, you seem to know how to write meaningful posts. So I ask the question, why did you spam so wildly with meaningless posts (ok, I know the signature rewards) and why you didn't write in your ownwords opinion on the topic even then?
When you're surrounded by spammers, your posts will also sound like spam, even if they contain a particle of substance. My gambling Posts are always banter; I post as if I'm having a real-life arguments with my offline peers. (I swore not to do that again). My English may be shaky at times, but I'm not an idiot. What is interesting to me is that reading what you write in this thread and the one in Meta that you opened about the same thing, you seem to know how to write meaningful posts. So I ask the question, why did you spam so wildly with meaningless posts (ok, I know the signature rewards) and why you didn't write in your own
Quote
Maybe we should ask him to give you his forum account password, so you can change his feedback yourself, the way you think is appropriate.
LOL 
you're merely padding your post count for signature reward.
Hey, I've seen this one before:@borovichok: you're a spammer, and you're paid by the worst Bitcoin-paying spam campaign on Bitcointalk (Stake). You spam 121 posts per week, and nobody cares about them. Your negative feedback may not be correct use of the Trust system, but if it stops Stake from paying you for your posts, it may stop you from spamming shitposts.
And that is exactly what happened. It's less than 3 days since you removed your signature, and your weekly post count is already down from 121 to 79. Where is the AI-generated content? It's been days and no one has come out yet, and the mentioned post JollyGood tagged me for is 100% human, so I think that's why he hasn't come out yet.
Can we interpret this as an admission that sometimes you still use AI to write posts, but the one JollyGood accuses you of was 100% written by a human?
I went through a little history of your posts, and I have to agree with most of the previous comments directed at you. What you have written so far is pure spam and shitposting. I wouldn't be surprised if someone found AI-generated posts in your history.
What is interesting to me is that reading what you write in this thread and the one in Meta that you opened about the same thing, you seem to know how to write meaningful posts. So I ask the question, why did you spam so wildly with meaningless posts (ok, I know the signature rewards) and why you didn't write in your own
It's been days now and he hasn't come out clean. I don't need his apology I just want him to remove those notes and put my account on ignore for the sake of his sanity.
Maybe we should ask him to give you his forum account password, so you can change his feedback yourself, the way you think is appropriate.
Regarding Jollygood's feedback on @borovichok, if there is not enough evidence, then there should not be a negative tag.
Also, to return to the main of this thread, it seems that negative feedback on all four cases is excessive. It's just my opinion.
It's plain as day that the user in question is a shameless shitposter. I think we can all agree on that. Does he deserve a negative tag for all the excessive shitposting? I suppose that's up to each person to decide for themselves and, personally, I might start a reputation thread first to see what others make of it before going the negative tag route. But the fact is, he's already received a few neutral warnings, but those obviously didn't work. The negative did. So there's that.
Your takes are quite poor for someone on DT. It's evident that you have no idea how the DT works, and you're only there cause you're forum cop. You've made roughly 3 posts in this thread and haven't expressed any opinion of your own; you're merely padding your post count for signature reward. I made it here without a signature, and I'm sure I'll make it without one in the future. If my post does not interest you, please ignore my profile. You have him on your Trust list, so I'm not shocked you don't have anything to say about him. It's been days now and he hasn't come out clean. I don't need his apology I just want him to remove those notes and put my account on ignore for the sake of his sanity.
You weren't tagged for changing your staked wallet address. You were tagged for excessive shitposting and spamming the forum with low-quality, AI-generated content.
I guess you have missed what this user offered. He said that his posts are not AI-generated. JollyGood didn't gather any evidence before he tagged that user. We have seen many false positive reports when we check AI content. Everyone should have their investigation before they conclude. The user refuses the allegation. Now, if you have evidence of AI posting, show them. I have checked the post-JollyGood used as a reference and it's a human text.
First things first, I didn't actually tag anyone here. I was just trying to clear up where the confusion came from. I agree, it's real important that we don't go accusing people without proof. And we should definitely look more into things before pointing fingers. If someone gets wrongly accused, they can always speak up to defend themselves. At the end of the day, its up to all of us to decide whether or not we trust what someone says.
We talked before about those AI detecting tools and how unreliable they can be sometimes. They can flag human-generated content as AI-generated. Or the other way around too. But just cause someone figured out how to trick the system doesn't prove they aren't using AI or some other techniques to pump out content fast.
The main argument is, can you leave negative feedback for shitposting or AI-generated content? You shouldn't do it. If you see a shitpost, report it to the moderator and they will handle it. Leaving negative for shitposting or AI content isn't the proper use of the feedback system.
Now I could see JollyGood's typical behavior. If he has nothing in his defense, he silently watches the discussion. Seems like he doesn't give it a fuck. It's like, I did what I did. If you can do something, go on. I wasn't expecting that from you, my friend.
Now I could see JollyGood's typical behavior. If he has nothing in his defense, he silently watches the discussion. Seems like he doesn't give it a fuck. It's like, I did what I did. If you can do something, go on. I wasn't expecting that from you, my friend.
It's plain as day that the user in question is a shameless shitposter. I think we can all agree on that. Does he deserve a negative tag for all the excessive shitposting? I suppose that's up to each person to decide for themselves and, personally, I might start a reputation thread first to see what others make of it before going the negative tag route. But the fact is, he's already received a few neutral warnings, but those obviously didn't work. The negative did. So there's that.
why in the world did he go through years of borovichok's posts to see that the account potentially switched hands from that stake your address thread. Is there some sort of simpler tool designed for this
You're looking for ninjastic.space/addresses?author=borovichok.Thanks! I've used the site before but was unaware that existed.
Jump to: