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.
I didn't know changing old staked wallet address was a red tag offence, didn't read it anywhere.
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.
You're on DT, and you think like this? If you think my posts aren't good enough, report them to a moderator, and if I'm found guilty of spamming and shitposting, I get a temp or parmban according to the rules; it's not a red tag violation. It DT abuse.
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.
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.
I didn't know changing old staked wallet address was a red tag offence, didn't read it anywhere.
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.
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.M first ever staked wallet address
Code:
1jJLycZNJZc6eE79c8qpo3dmwaPH6DJd1
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.
The only thing I've been wondering about is 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 or did he manually go through his posts (I would feel tired going through all that and i'm sure many people would too) to find his point of inactivity and see that he updated his address.
You are a f@#$ing piece of s@#$. DO YOU EXPECT ME TO BE F@#$ING NICE WITH YOU WHEN YOU ARE OVER HERE CALLING CIRCCASH A S@#$COIN? NO. I WILL NOT BE NICE TO YOU YOU FOOL!
LOLOLOLOL, go read shitcoiin means
https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/glossary/shitcoin
What Is a Shitcoin?
A shitcoin is a cryptocurrency with zero or close to zero value and no utility. The term shitcoin is used in a pejorative way to refer to altcoins that try to gain benefit from the success of other cryptocurrencies without offering value on their own.
No honey, he won't try to improve himself, the only way to get rid of him is to get rid of the people paying him to shitpost around here. 😉
Has JollyGood reacted to this thread? I'll send him a PM with a link. He should understand what is going on here. He has in the past revised some of his feedback, and this could be another.
No. He hasn't reacted in this thread. But I have a feeling that he has seen this thread and monitoring it closely because he is pretty much active on this board. I have noting against him but he seems like dancing around and spreading negative feedback left and right. LOL. I am wondering where I have seen these words and didn't even realize that I started to use it. I had disagreement with BitcoinGirl.Club because of JollyGood. 70% of his feedbacks are correct and it helps the forum. But the rest 30% is like it's his personal note book and best usage of incorrect feedback. I hope he will try to improve himself.
Has JollyGood reacted to this thread? I'll send him a PM with a link. He should understand what is going on here. He has in the past revised some of his feedback, and this could be another.
Bad posting is a process and not an habit <...>
Well, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. You've been pumping out posts like crazy since signing up for that money-making campaign. You started off with a modest 30+ posts a week, but before long you raced up to 100+ a week - all to get the biggest payout possible. Its not a hobby now; it's a deliberate effort, a desperate try to make max money from your account.
Bad posting is a process and not an habit <...>
Well, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. You've been pumping out posts like crazy since signing up for that money-making campaign. You started off with a modest 30+ posts a week, but before long you raced up to 100+ a week - all to get the biggest payout possible. Its not a hobby now; it's a deliberate effort, a desperate try to make max money from your account.
source: https://ninjastic.space/user/borovichok
And I'm sorry to say, I scrolled through a couple of pages of your recent posts, and they're all nothing but low-quality drivel. It's not about bad English or grammar - it is the lack of substance, the generic rambling that doesn't contribute anything.
But when it comes to this jvanname guy and all that "trading-related matters", I do think he's too risky to deal with. His behavior within the community has been consistently antagonistic and disrespectful, and I believe that it justifies a negative trust rating. Would you personally engage in a trade with him, knowing his history of hostile interactions with other forum members?
Probably I wouldn't deal with that stupid troll. I guess nobody would do any deal with this guy if they saw his post history. But this guy did not offer any service which could be the reason for that tag. I agree with what you have said except the guy deserves the negative feedback. If he had offered any service and behave like this, I would say ignore that troll and go on.
That troll is the owner (or developer) of a crypto project - Circcash. He actively promotes his services to the community, and any stakeholder of that shitcoin, whether an investor or miner, is indirectly in a financial relationship with him. Moreover, he has made direct requests for financial contributions for his services in multiple posts:
I am not going to do anything for you until you pay me because you are stupid. And this is not a scam because you have requested my services before I told you that my services are not free. Pay me at https://github.com/sponsors/jvanname because I am not going to do anything for you otherwise.
The shit-posting crossed so much that Switzerland got angry LOL.
I didn't get angry, I got even 
To answer your question: I wouldn't leave negative for shitposting or buying an account.
The result for this specific user is shit-posting. Let's see what you and other think about the following posts.
Example response to topic: My 10 Year ( and some days) Bitcointalk Anniversary
Signing your posts with Ph.DD is simply pure gold and clearly rattled the OP
Well, now that his so-called superior intellect has been challenged by your Ph.DD I guess he literally does not know what to do or where to turn when confronted with your own DD intellect.
On a serious note, it is very sad to see the way he has been pretending to be a member of a university staff with the sole intention of misusing his name (probably out of spite/revenge).
Response number 81 to VodWell, now that his so-called superior intellect has been challenged by your Ph.DD I guess he literally does not know what to do or where to turn when confronted with your own DD intellect.
On a serious note, it is very sad to see the way he has been pretending to be a member of a university staff with the sole intention of misusing his name (probably out of spite/revenge).
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63468017
Example response to topic: Should Ratimov aka Symmetrick be in DT1?
BEWARE: "JollyGood" cannot be trusted. There are serious accusations of this account using AI to post and constantly shit-posting, backscratching. I will remove the feedback if further information is presented.
But when it comes to this jvanname guy and all that "trading-related matters", I do think he's too risky to deal with. His behavior within the community has been consistently antagonistic and disrespectful, and I believe that it justifies a negative trust rating. Would you personally engage in a trade with him, knowing his history of hostile interactions with other forum members?
Probably I wouldn't deal with that stupid troll. I guess nobody would do any deal with this guy if they saw his post history. But this guy did not offer any service which could be the reason for that tag. I agree with what you have said except the guy deserves the negative feedback. If he had offered any service and behave like this, I would say ignore that troll and go on.
Bad posting is a process and not an habit but it's good to know that I'm wearing an inappropriate tag and the person who left it hasn't said anything yet in his defense. (Left him multiple messages)
When I came back to the forum the first security step I took was signing a message from my 2017 oldstaked BTC address ( compromised )to a new one , I still have my original email, haven't changed it yet.
Ps: I've left Stake so LoyceV doesn't see my posts to something else.
You are supposed to create a thread in the reputation board and ask other DT members to justify the tag he left. Either he should backup his feedback with a proper evidence, or he should remove the feedback. If he do not respond, people should start excluding him. When I came back to the forum the first security step I took was signing a message from my 2017 oldstaked BTC address ( compromised )to a new one , I still have my original email, haven't changed it yet.
Ps: I've left Stake so LoyceV doesn't see my posts to something else.
The shit-posting crossed so much that Switzerland got angry LOL.
I didn't get angry, I got even To answer your question: I wouldn't leave negative for shitposting or buying an account.
When I came back to the forum the first security step I took was signing a message from my 2017 oldstaked BTC address ( compromised )to a new one , I still have my original email, haven't changed it yet.
Ps: I've left Stake so LoyceV doesn't see my posts to something else.
The shit-posting crossed so much that Switzerland got angry LOL.
I didn't get angry, I got even To answer your question: I wouldn't leave negative for shitposting or buying an account.
So as not to clutter Loyce's thread, I'm transferring the conversation here:
I disagree... Your posts are pretty bad. For example, I just flipped to a random page of your posts and found this one:
Like... what??
A neutral tag is warranted. However, a red tag is not. It is true that moderation issues shouldn't result in red tags, generally speaking. I would sooner just put people whose posts I don't want to read on ignore. As a result of this practice, my ignore list is so large it won't open for my profile.
I will consider changing it from "Looks to me like this account is using AI to write posts " to "This account posts are of low quality", how does that sound?
English might be poor but the posts ain't - I don't deserve any of the tag. You can put me on your watchlist and see how things turns out henceforth. The forum is currently offering a second chance, I believe everyone deserves it. I disagree... Your posts are pretty bad. For example, I just flipped to a random page of your posts and found this one:
Opportunities are open daily in the market, it's our main objective to strive harder and earn quite significant profits and also sets our good strategies in trading to keep portraying news and ourselves in earning quite significant trophies and points in the market. We have intentions of raising our feets above our shoulders in the market, it's never an easy job to be on triggering trades. Fraudsters will not back down, they have this winning mentality of steady persuasion of their clients who happens to be the real trader's and investors.
Like... what??
I don't deserve any of the tag.
A neutral tag is warranted. However, a red tag is not. It is true that moderation issues shouldn't result in red tags, generally speaking. I would sooner just put people whose posts I don't want to read on ignore. As a result of this practice, my ignore list is so large it won't open for my profile.
So Johnny bad boy is now leaving negative trust with no evidence and for moderation related stuff? Meaning he is now taking the matters in his own hands by ignoring moderator's decision and trying to act like one, imposing his made up rule. In other words, JG thinks if a member is not dealt with by mods, he should deal with them and make them leave the forum since he thinks tagging everyone is equal for them to leave.
That scammer is beyond saving now.
Not sure if he has ever changed his feedbacks in the past as I've not been on reputation more often but I hope he does it because it doesn't speak good for both of us. I'm not a trade risk person and I haven't done anything illegal here. That scammer is beyond saving now.
So Johnny bad boy is now leaving negative trust with no evidence and for moderation related stuff? Meaning he is now taking the matters in his own hands by ignoring moderator's decision and trying to act like one, imposing his made up rule. In other words, JG thinks if a member is not dealt with by mods, he should deal with them and make them leave the forum since he thinks tagging everyone is equal for them to leave.
That scammer is beyond saving now.
Not sure if he has ever changed his feedbacks in the past as I've not been on reputation more often but I hope he does it because it doesn't speak good for both of us. I'm not a trade risk person and I haven't done anything illegal here. That scammer is beyond saving now.
So Johnny bad boy is now leaving negative trust with no evidence and for moderation related stuff? Meaning he is now taking the matters in his own hands by ignoring moderator's decision and trying to act like one, imposing his made up rule. In other words, JG thinks if a member is not dealt with by mods, he should deal with them and make them leave the forum since he thinks tagging everyone is equal for them to leave.
That scammer is beyond saving now.
Not sure if he has ever changed his feedbacks in the past as I've not been on reputation more often but I hope he does it because it doesn't speak good for both of us. I'm not a trade risk person and I haven't done anything illegal here. I left him a couple of messages so I assumed he's sleeping or busy at work at the moment. That scammer is beyond saving now.
So Johnny bad boy is now leaving negative trust with no evidence and for moderation related stuff? Meaning he is now taking the matters in his own hands by ignoring moderator's decision and trying to act like one, imposing his made up rule. In other words, JG thinks if a member is not dealt with by mods, he should deal with them and make them leave the forum since he thinks tagging everyone is equal for them to leave.
That scammer is beyond saving now.
That scammer is beyond saving now.
It's been more than 12hrs and JollyGood is yet to show 1 evidence of AI generated content in my post history and why he left me an inappropriate negative tag.
The last time I contacted JollyGood about the inappropriate neutral he left me for posting on his gambling thread, he asked me to give him 12 months (1 year) to find enough evidence to back up his feedback.
That his neutral tag is not affecting my signature participation that I shouldn't bother him about it. Now you left me a red based on someone's feelings. ( what someone suggested) I left the post up there for anyone to scan.
The last time I contacted JollyGood about the inappropriate neutral he left me for posting on his gambling thread, he asked me to give him 12 months (1 year) to find enough evidence to back up his feedback.
That his neutral tag is not affecting my signature participation that I shouldn't bother him about it. Now you left me a red based on someone's feelings. ( what someone suggested) I left the post up there for anyone to scan.
Personally, I think he deserves much more than just a negative tag, but unfortunately the forum mods still tolerate it.
You are a veteran member of this forum. Trolling is not allowed according to the forum rules and you know this. So, if moderators give him a pass, why do you bother? It's clearly mentioned that negative feedback should be for trading-related matters. We know that you guys use it for other purposes as well. But, seeing negative feedback for every other reason making it worth less. It seems like everyone deserves negative feedback these days. DT members leaving negative feedback left and right, everywhere. It seems it's nothing. I get what you're saying, but I gotta disagree. The way I see it, theymos set up reputation system outside of forum moderation constraints, so things could be as democratic as possible. Like in a regular democracy where anyone can vote, you know? So if you disagree with someone's feedback, you can simply exclude them from your trust list. And that's it.
But when it comes to this jvanname guy and all that "trading-related matters", I do think he's too risky to deal with. His behavior within the community has been consistently antagonistic and disrespectful, and I believe that it justifies a negative trust rating. Would you personally engage in a trade with him, knowing his history of hostile interactions with other forum members?
If you see some DTs leave unreasonable red tags left and right is because they are a bunch of insecure pussies, that DT status is their only leverage over anyone in life. Imagine someone who can't score the ugliest chick, would try to compensate the failure by bullying people on the internet. Lol
But my question is, have all of them been presented with information to defend themselves?
If you are not sure and had to ask this question, then how did you say this? If someone gives negative feedback to others, shouldn't they do their investigation?
Personally, I think he deserves much more than just a negative tag, but unfortunately the forum mods still tolerate it.
You are a veteran member of this forum. Trolling is not allowed according to the forum rules and you know this. So, if moderators give him a pass, why do you bother? It's clearly mentioned that negative feedback should be for trading-related matters. We know that you guys use it for other purposes as well. But, seeing negative feedback for every other reason making it worth less. It seems like everyone deserves negative feedback these days. DT members leaving negative feedback left and right, everywhere. It seems it's nothing.
This is unedited post. Anyone can check it out, it's 100% human text. Just my grammarly keyboard failing a simple grammar class.
Quote
Stick to a player that's outstanding and confident in scoring points. Every team do triggered winning and losing, we have potentials of winning, if they do not have this hope, they wouldn't have compete or contend for any solidable points in the league. Thrilling victory is achievable and everyone has the right to be able to place wager on games. We all have choices to make and our favorites in the game. @morvillz making an exception of choosing Wilson or Flacco over Brownings bases on the tactical date examined, but the same underrated Brownings is the favorite of most viewers in the system.
For tjtonmoy, at first i'd say that a year ago is a little far due to the time, I would only use it as part of the tag reason if he continues nefarious activities and use it as one of the reasons within the comment box. Maybe a neutral tag as a notice to others would fit better, simply because it has been a while and people can change.
In this case, since he has been exposed for cheating in the pumpkin contest which proves that he is continuing breaking forum rules I would say it's fair to provide both reasons to tag, which is what JollyGood has already done.
In this case, since he has been exposed for cheating in the pumpkin contest which proves that he is continuing breaking forum rules I would say it's fair to provide both reasons to tag, which is what JollyGood has already done.
I believe the new tag is probably fueled by his recent controversies (first a non-collateral loan request, then begging for donations and lying about a hacked account).
Jvanname, well it's just needless to say he does deserve the tag. Personally I wouldn't though unless he was attacking me consistently.
Jvanname is a troll toxic to the entire community, a mental case that calls out that we should all suffer and die a horrible death. Here's a quote: https://ninjastic.space/post/62933000
Personally, I think he deserves much more than just a negative tag, but unfortunately the forum mods still tolerate it.
For tjtonmoy, at first i'd say that a year ago is a little far due to the time, I would only use it as part of the tag reason if he continues nefarious activities and use it as one of the reasons within the comment box. Maybe a neutral tag as a notice to others would fit better, simply because it has been a while and people can change.
In this case, since he has been exposed for cheating in the pumpkin contest which proves that he is continuing breaking forum rules I would say it's fair to provide both reasons to tag, which is what JollyGood has already done.
Jvanname, well it's just needless to say he does deserve the tag. Personally I wouldn't though unless he was attacking me consistently.
In this case, since he has been exposed for cheating in the pumpkin contest which proves that he is continuing breaking forum rules I would say it's fair to provide both reasons to tag, which is what JollyGood has already done.
Jvanname, well it's just needless to say he does deserve the tag. Personally I wouldn't though unless he was attacking me consistently.
Using AI shouldn't necessarily get the red tag in my view - maybe a neutral one just to give heads up is better. But I am not closely familiar with Borovichok's case, so I don't know if there is something more to it that warrants the negative.
As for the other three, I think the negative tags are deserved. All three are obvious trade risks at the moment. Although in the case of Symmetrick it doesn't matter anymore. I left him positive because he helped me recover my money from the scam mixer, and I don't want to remove the tag now since that fact remains true. However, I wouldn't trust him again due to the suspicion that the account has changed hands.
As for the other three, I think the negative tags are deserved. All three are obvious trade risks at the moment. Although in the case of Symmetrick it doesn't matter anymore. I left him positive because he helped me recover my money from the scam mixer, and I don't want to remove the tag now since that fact remains true. However, I wouldn't trust him again due to the suspicion that the account has changed hands.
If my memory is working properly then I read someone [a JollyGood fan] was writing or JollyGood himself was saying that JollyGood was revising left feedbacks and updating the inappropriate negative feedbacks in to neutral but it seems he has not changed at all.
I don't know if you are talking about me or not. I guess I have never stated something like this. But, I was triggered because yesterday I made a post on the same thread you mentioned. I guess I had a disagreement with you where you were saying he was trying to make friends with me. I don't want to bring these things again, but thanks for the topic. I do not have enough merits, unfortunately.
If I talk about the tags you mentioned, I will go with TSC. Symmetrick tag maybe appropriate if we consider that account changes deserve negative feedback. The rest accounts do not deserve negative feedback. I have posted about tjtonmoy's case and I have shared my opinion there.
I wouldn't have tagged any of those members except perhaps for Symmetrick.
I see many neutral on his feedback page. Not a fan of Symmetrick that does not mean when I get a chance, I will give him a negative feedback where the accusations were one sided. Obviously everything about Symmetrick ended up controversial and perhaps true but without concrete evidences of scamming or confirming by the victim a red tag is very inappropriate. I see Poker Player had the same judgement of leaving a negative feedback. They come with words like, "likely..." but then you see the feedback is red.I always said the DT system become too easy to gain and for some members it became a passion to leave feedback to others page so that they can gain some attention and be included by others.
In any case, haven't we covered this ground extensively, thoroughly, and to the point where we don't need another thread about it?
I don't remember but you have to consider my age too. After a certain age, a man starts to old. On the other hand, if we extensively covered the ground then we were supposed to see some improvement but there are no improvement at all. JollyGood still is in DT and still is leaving inappropriate feedback to members pages and demotivating the members to continue their time on the forum. It always happen when someone disagree with his opinion and tries to overrule his words.But my question is, have all of them been presented with information to defend themselves? It seems there's a chance that it will turn to neutral as the feedback says.
It sounds like if anyone wants to demand something from me then they will leave a negative feedback with an speculation then it's my job to invest my time and present unnecessary links, quotes to get the red feedback removed with a neutral feedback? In other words, you hostage me with a negative feedback to demand your needs. 
IMO, only borovichok was inappropriate and the rest was accurate.
I don't see using AI posting should be on the red tag, it might be good if it is a neutral one for only awareness from others, as long as it wasn't copy-pasting from other websites. Reporting to the mods is the right thing.
tjtonmoy - cheating bounties (it's of forum rules)
jvanname - trolling (it's on forum rules)
Symmetrick - changed password, suspected change hand.
But my question is, have all of them been presented with information to defend themselves? It seems there's a chance that it will turn to neutral as the feedback says.
I don't see using AI posting should be on the red tag, it might be good if it is a neutral one for only awareness from others, as long as it wasn't copy-pasting from other websites. Reporting to the mods is the right thing.
tjtonmoy - cheating bounties (it's of forum rules)
jvanname - trolling (it's on forum rules)
Symmetrick - changed password, suspected change hand.
But my question is, have all of them been presented with information to defend themselves? It seems there's a chance that it will turn to neutral as the feedback says.
Just be patient, his time will hopefully come, but there won't be any second chances for him, he had many of them but didn't use them wisely.
Karma works like this: if you use someone's past against them, get ready for your past to haunt you.
Karma works like this: if you use someone's past against them, get ready for your past to haunt you.
I wouldn't have tagged any of those members except perhaps for Symmetrick. If an account is suspected strongly enough of being sold/hacked/whatever, I'd tag it in a heartbeat. But leaving a negative for merit abuse or even using AI to generate posts is questionable at best. For the latter case, that's a matter for the mods and posts like that should be reported. Tagging merit abusers has always been controversial but not strictly forbidden.
In any case, haven't we covered this ground extensively, thoroughly, and to the point where we don't need another thread about it?
In any case, haven't we covered this ground extensively, thoroughly, and to the point where we don't need another thread about it?
I was reading the topic What is going on???, and was about to reply a user. While I was reading, I noticed the discussion about another inappropriate feedback and it's left by none other but JollyGood.
If my memory is working properly then I read someone [a JollyGood fan] was writing or JollyGood himself was saying that JollyGood was revising left feedbacks and updating the inappropriate negative feedbacks in to neutral but it seems he has not changed at all. Check the recent feedbacks he lefts for others [;dt added].
borovichok: Received tag for AI posting and Changed hand.
tjtonmoy: Merit abuse a year ago
jvanname: Attention seeking and trolling.
Symmetrick: Changed hand, we know the rest anyway.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1016855;dt
These are from last December and 8 days from January 2024.
How many of you really think you were going to tag these guys for the same reason?
Will you also address these feedback as inappropriate?
Edited to add urls of profile trust pages
If my memory is working properly then I read someone [a JollyGood fan] was writing or JollyGood himself was saying that JollyGood was revising left feedbacks and updating the inappropriate negative feedbacks in to neutral but it seems he has not changed at all. Check the recent feedbacks he lefts for others [;dt added].
borovichok: Received tag for AI posting and Changed hand.
tjtonmoy: Merit abuse a year ago
jvanname: Attention seeking and trolling.
Symmetrick: Changed hand, we know the rest anyway.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1016855;dt
These are from last December and 8 days from January 2024.
How many of you really think you were going to tag these guys for the same reason?
Will you also address these feedback as inappropriate?
Edited to add urls of profile trust pages
Jump to: