Bitcoin Forum

I have been active in this forum for about 2 years (turkish local board). I did a trade with vispilio a year ago (2019-08-12) and found that he was a trusted person. A transaction that took place under his control was achieved with 100 percent confidence and success. so I wrote a message to his subject because I thought he would be an honest bounty manager.

While watching a match in the hall of my house, I can sometimes sing for Barcelona. From turkey, barcelona can support. because Barcelona plays nice and high quality football. however, my support for barcelona does not mean that i am an authorized person in the barcelona organization. I would only support one case. If Barcelona gets involved in a bad job, I'm not guilty. I'll just be the one to support beautiful football. If I get a penalty in such a situation, those who manage the legal process will misuse their duty.

yes, fortunately barcelona is a clean club, and there are no bad legal managers who can punish me! yes, such that vispillo is also a reliable member and a good bounty manager, and did not cause any material or moral damage to anyone. For this reason, punishment cannot be imposed on someone who has traded with him before, who knows him in the forum and wants to support him.

Besides, have you ever seen a cheating football club amidst the full tribunes? do you think the barcelona club cheats in the middle of full tribunes? I think it doesn't, because that would be stupid. it would be foolish to think like that.

I posted a message of support where everyone can see it. It's not stupid to post messages in a place that everyone can see. It may be stupid to think that such a thing is cheating.


I did not deserve this negative feedback. JollyGood, please remove it!


note: My English is not very good. I get help from other people to send messages globally. I opened this topic with my bad English. I may not have been able to express myself well.

Great job @trendcoin, and it's really too generous to make a polite and well thought-out thread about vacant NPC's like ~jollygood.

Criminals like ~lauda and ~jollygood will continue to be presented as "trusted" members of this community, while in reality even the puppet masters that employ them as useful thralls know that they belong in either a jail or mental institution.

That's precisely what makes them such useful pawns, the organization that runs this forum behind closed doors employs a few select ninja trolls almost 24 / 7 for pennies (sometimes even for free  ;D). The greater crypto community has mostly abandoned this forum a while ago, so there is really no public conscience left to kick them to the curb either; thus they continue serving nepotist agendas against all sense and reason...

I see this bad practice from users tagging or leaving feedback just because they told something good about user x who they do not like or do not trust somehow.

The reason is very poor from Jolly.

Reasons:
group of trolls
spreading propaganda
a merit abuse (Not sure if we tag for that)
fake trust circle (do we tag or distrust if we really feel there is a trust circle)

And finally this: promote low-life users such as Vispilio

Tagging a user because he left or promote someone who you do not like or trust? That is not why the trust system is here in the first place. To me this is an invalid tag if I am not missing anything massive of course.

---

Not the place to talk about the following but this is what happen to me too:

From user allahabadi.

Seriously bud! Just because you do not like Lauda, you got the right to leave things on others page (although it's a neutral) because they had a good experience with them? What I wrote about Lauda is what I felt when we worked together. The only thing about Lauda that I do not like is she leaves feedback very quickly like Jolly did in this particular case.

This is a very strong word buddy. I hope you really did not mean the word.

What does this have to do with Barcelona and all that other shit?

The OP doesn't deserve red trust. Ignore - fine. Excluding from trust lists - probably advisable. Red trust due to posting in Vispilio's thread? No. That looks like red trust for an opinion.

It serves to explain the high judgments of dt1 members of the global forum with analogy. I don't like football, but most of the world likes football. a nice way to light a bulb in everyone's head.

Red trust is not deserved in my opinion, I don't see a reason why I shouldn't trust OP based on this feedback. In addition "he seems to promote" is a very weak reason for a negative trust feedback, if "promoting" users is a reason for red trust at all.

He tagged two more users for the same reason (@muslol67 , @BitcoinTurk) with same reference. @theymos There should be a method to neutralize this type of wrong negative feedbacks (opinion based feedbacks). May be a system like flag system, there should be opposite/support options for DT1 users. Merit or smerit rewards can motivate DT1 members for voting, it is just an idea.

I think he was trying to give an example thou his English was not straight forward, where if Barcelona was involved in something shady, then he as a fan of Barcelona should not be punished for cheering their Football.

A method to neutralize wrong feedback already exists: "~". There is no need to invent anything new. There is definitely no need to motivate DT1 members with merit.

LoyceV suggested this already and I was positive about it, too: Trust Feature idea: give DT1 the ability to remove specific feedbacks from DT (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213717.0)

Not only for cases like OP but also when respected DT members are getting incative:

Anyone can not have right decisions always. If someone has more than 100 right desicions and he has 3 wrong desicions, "~" will not solve the problem (I'm not writing about jollygood). When we add someone to distrust list this is not effect only wrong decisions, it effects all feedbacks created by him. Now the system is person based, it should be case based. May be you are right about rewards, i wasnt sure about it.

thank you @1miau

I am now 99.9% sure, JollyGood is an mental retard.

I am not agree with this feedback, reference is too weak comparing what wrote on the comment. Sometimes personally we don't like someone for some reason but it doesn't mean we have to leave negative feedback for that. Or supporting a person to whom I don't like shouldn't get red tag. Better solution is ignore and exclude IMO.

I am assuming @JollyGood left red tag by mistake instead of leave neutral feedback (I might be wrong as well).

Then there will be war like gang war. Exclusion is the solution or there is counter feedback.

I do not think this is a good use of the feedback system. May be a neutral would be perfect from JollyGood, negative is too harsh here. He should remove the tag. Did you PM him to respond here?

I think it is not that as easy as you said. I have Lauda in my trust list while Lauda gave me a wrong feedback. Due to Lauda's feedback sending history which is good for everyone and for me too while trading, I did not remove Lauda from my trust list.

yes, i said in the note part that i have a bad english. If suchmoon managed to read to the end, he would see it. I created such an analogy. because I am not looking for any intentions about the person who gives negative feedback for such a reason. I wanted to explain the situation with a simple example to say that the person giving negative feedback may be someone who confuses simple things. I encountered language problems while aiming to appeal to all levels. Thank you for your help.

Since JollyGood trusts my judgement (https://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/459836.html), I'll respond here:
I don't think this is correct use of the Trust system (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0), and I don't think this deserves a negative tag. If you don't like trendcoin's opinion that's fine, just ignore him. If you want to leave a comment as feedback, I think it should be neutral.
https://loyce.club/other/trendcoin.gif

---

---

@trendcoin:
You can't seriously think wolwoo (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1003533;dt) is one of the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust), right? The guy leaves fake negative feedback to anyone he disagrees with. He's totally free to call anyone he wants a racist, but doing it in the form of negative feedback is Trust abuse. That's why he lost his DT1-status. By including him, you show bad judgement of your own.

---

---

I love how 75% of his own post is off-topic already O0

@LoyceV

wolwoo is a very different subject. wolwoo is someone who gives a lot of emotional reactions and that's why he makes many mistakes. I have said this to him many times. I warned him for acting wrong.


I have discussed with vispilio many times in the turkish local forum. all turkish local forum witness this. There are also justifiable reasons for vispilio to escape on some issues :)

but this does not change the fact that he is a good and reliable person. Since I cannot find a common ground for vispilio "about x", I do not see it as an enemy. something like that would make me a fixed mind.


I trust my observations for 2 years. I can trade with vispilio and wolwoo. they are absolutely reliable people. maybe they are more reliable than me. :) (joke)

wolwoo has already left the forum. I think he couldn't express himself well because of his language problem. and made many mistakes in succession. he made a mistake and the tension went up, then things got out of control.


I am also not even aware of the global wars. everyone is in the same category for me, including you. but I also have a world in the forum and I get along well with some people in this world and I trust them. I get along well with some people and keep the barcelona football club, it's exactly the same thing :) I am not interested in cheating in football and with the war in the forum ...


If I were interested in the war in the forum, I would try to keep my dt list on the border with 10 people. i don't care about these. I only answer a funny claim made about me. Is this claim funny or a little unwise, I could not distinguish it either. :)


Thank you to everyone who responded to the subject. I also thank JollyGood, who I opened the subject. I guess he did not come to the subject, now I realized. :(

dear supreme justice protector, our chief hero supreme jollygood where are you

I think we can agree on this :) But someone with "emotional reactions" doesn't sound like someone to include in your Trust list.

That's great! But not a reason to add them to your Trust list. It's confusing how theymos calls everything "trust", while your Trust list is something different than (Trust) feedback. If you think someone is reliable, you should leave positive feedback. But if you think someone acts emotional, you should probably not trust his feedback on others (so don't add him to your Trust list).

Vispilio translated my topic on using the Trust system correctly: ⚡ Yeni Başlayanlar İçin ⚡ Trust Sistemi Kullanım Kılavuzu (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192175.0).

If you cut what I'm saying in half, we can also create misunderstandings. :) I want my words to be understood in unity. I also trust the opinions of wolwoo and vispilio. I believe they can fix some existing errors over time. People can make mistakes.

some local users are active only in their language departments. you can think of it as a dialectic due to some kind of logical imperative. Just because we come together with a number of causations doesn't mean we cheat. :) so i know wolwoo and vispilio and i believe i know it right. I acknowledge that there may be some mistakes and I believe that they can improve over time. Thank you for your advice, Master, I will consider it.

It's not supposed to be easy. If it was easy then perhaps theymos could replace DT1 with 100 lines of PHP code and be done with it.

It's not just about questionable feedback but also how users handle questions and disputes. Everyone (except LoyceV) makes mistakes and I don't see anything wrong with admitting and correcting an occasional mistake.

@Trendcoin certainly does not deserve such a negative feedback. Actually it is ridiculous in the negative post. Other negative feedback written by @Jolly is also unfair. (@BitcoinTurk, @muslol67, @DragonDance etc.) Also He previously wrote unfairly negative to @Gospodin. @marlboroza objected to this situation. And the negative has been deleted.

If his was a normal user, we would just ignore it. But he has DT1 power. I condemn anyone who has a weak judiciary, an injustice, and supports a cruel member. I call out to the members who added it to the list.

https://i.ibb.co/XtghqXJ/Screenshot-9.jpg (https://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/1016855.html)

JollyGood's judgement is Trusted by:
1. Vod (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30747) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=30747)  +29 / =2 / -3) (DT1! (21) 1583 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/30747.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/30747.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Vod))
2. DiamondCardz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55122) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=55122)  +9 / =0 / -0) (91 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/55122.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/55122.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=DiamondCardz))
3. peloso (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=81995) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=81995)  +2 / =3 / -4) (DT1 (-15) 171 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/81995.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/81995.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=peloso))
4. Coinfan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=82709) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=82709)  +1 / =0 / -0) (46 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/82709.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/82709.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Coinfan))
5. Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872)  +34 / =4 / -1) (1640 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/101872.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/101872.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Lauda))
6. digit (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=123417) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=123417) neutral) (8 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/123417.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/123417.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=digit))
7. allyouracid (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=138833) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=138833)  +1 / =0 / -0) (171 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/138833.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/138833.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=allyouracid))
8. stompix (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=164749) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=164749)  +1 / =0 / -0) (1119 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/164749.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/164749.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=stompix))
9. Avirunes (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=175302) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=175302)  +11 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (12) 357 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/175302.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/175302.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Avirunes))
10. mindrust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=176777) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=176777) neutral) (DT1 (-3) 1030 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/176777.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/176777.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=mindrust))
11. dopey (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=193769) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=193769)  +2 / =0 / -0) (6 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/193769.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/193769.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=dopey))
12. SiNeReiNZzz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=251328) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=251328) neutral) (28 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/251328.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/251328.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=SiNeReiNZzz))
13. DaveF (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=300014) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=300014)  +22 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (9) 844 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/300014.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/300014.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=DaveF))
14. owlcatz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=313016) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=313016)  +45 / =0 / -1) (DT1! (21) 350 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/313016.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/313016.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=owlcatz))
15. examplens (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=314792) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=314792)  +2 / =3 / -0) (DT1! (7) 220 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/314792.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/314792.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=examplens))
16. nutildah (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=317618) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=317618)  +7 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (16) 2381 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/317618.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/317618.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=nutildah))
17. LFC_Bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379487) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=379487)  +16 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (13) 2399 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/379487.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/379487.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=LFC_Bitcoin))
18. psycodad (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=430390) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=430390)  +1 / =0 / -0) (212 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/430390.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/430390.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=psycodad))
19. TwitchySeal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=538922) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=538922)  +6 / =1 / -0) (641 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/538922.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/538922.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=TwitchySeal))
20. vlom (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=550439) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=550439)  +1 / =0 / -0) (113 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/550439.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/550439.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=vlom))
21. JaredKaragen (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=553724) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=553724) neutral) (158 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/553724.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/553724.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=JaredKaragen))
22. eddie13 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=580327) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=580327)  +1 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (9) 988 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/580327.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/580327.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=eddie13))
23. Slow death (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=783422) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=783422)  +3 / =1 / -0) (322 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/783422.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/783422.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Slow death))
24. IconFirm (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=841288) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=841288)  +1 / =2 / -0) (63 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/841288.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/841288.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=IconFirm))
25. johnsmithx (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=880756) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=880756)  +0 / =2 / -1) (7 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/880756.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/880756.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=johnsmithx))
26. blurryeyed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=885996) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=885996)  +1 / =5 / -1) (18 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/885996.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/885996.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=blurryeyed))
27. CryptopreneurBrainboss (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1052091) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1052091)  +2 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (12) 1341 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1052091.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/1052091.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=CryptopreneurBrainboss))
28. mosprognoz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1094569) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1094569)  +6 / =2 / -0) (175 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1094569.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/1094569.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=mosprognoz))
29. KTChampions (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1097370) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1097370)  +6 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (4) 905 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1097370.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/1097370.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=KTChampions))
30. invincible49 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1215448) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1215448) neutral) (91 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1215448.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/1215448.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=invincible49))
31. logfiles (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1247226) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1247226)  +4 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (7) 661 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1247226.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/1247226.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=logfiles))
32. tvplus006 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1311641) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1311641)  +14 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (16) 1239 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1311641.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/1311641.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=tvplus006))
33. witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1433865)  +15 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (22) 1440 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1433865.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/1433865.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=witcher_sense))
34. darcon_pr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1760753) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1760753) neutral) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/1760753.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=darcon_pr))
35. Coolcryptovator (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1980983) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1980983)  +16 / =1 / -0) (1283 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1980983.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/1980983.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Coolcryptovator))
36. lovesmayfamilis (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1982152) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1982152)  +17 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (14) 1208 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1982152.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/1982152.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=lovesmayfamilis))
37. cryptobenn (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1991100) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1991100)  +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1991100.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/1991100.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=cryptobenn))
38. TalkStar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2136362) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2136362)  +8 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (9) 578 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2136362.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/2136362.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=TalkStar))
39. Little Mouse (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2344286) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2344286)  +0 / =0 / -1) (289 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2344286.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/2344286.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Little Mouse))
40. zasad@ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2654005) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2654005)  +1 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (11) 1123 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2654005.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/2654005.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=zasad@))
41. NotATether (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2739424) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2739424) neutral) (256 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2739424.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/2739424.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=NotATether))
42. villain_Mr.Burns (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2752168) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2752168)  +0 / =1 / -2) (1 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2752168.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-07-04_Sat_05.03h/2752168.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=villain_Mr.Burns))


Do not trust this user (@JollyGood) who abuses the system and sabotages him with anger.

If you don't trust a user or their judgment, add it to your disttrust list. If a user is a scammer, give him a negative. Don't forget to add the evidence. Members who do not follow these simple rules should not have DT power.

Yes Loyce, you are well aware I respect and trust you and a couple of users in the forum. One of them sent me a PM asking me to reconsider the original feedback which I said I would.

The original feedback has been revised to neutral though it can be revised back to red if any circumstances arise.

Thank you all for your concern and participating in this thread  ;)


https://i.postimg.cc/nrtKXJqH/trendcoin-scammer-1-Copy.png

Glad to see some level-headed decision-making.

There may be hope yet for the forum.

Those are a lot of buzzwords you're tossing around. As an aside, I think it's important for all users to leave accurate feedback because conditioning users to adopt the DefaultTrust network as a centralized trust list is the opposite of what we should do. ALL users should be leaving neutral and negative feedback accordingly, and though the impact of individual feedback has been lessened due to the trust changes over the years, I would still advocate for seldom use of the positive feedback feature.

I don't like to use ad-hominem attacks either, but is there any specific reason you're seeking out this apparent vendetta? Apart from getting a negative for the whole "sending merit to yourself" thing.

Other negative feedbacks which has same reference link are still active. All feedbacks was same but you only neutralized one of them, really ?   (@BitcoinTurk, @muslol67)

Your reference links:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200529232531/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225711.msg53851746#msg53851746
https://web.archive.org/web/20200706153350/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225711.msg53865312


https://telegra.ph/file/cdd70eb7c4dff19a8b87a.png

Thank you to everyone who contributed to the issue and solved the simple mistake.

thank you JollyGood. I can accept everyone in my world as they are. I accept you as someone who cannot distinguish between black and white. Dear members of the forum said the mistake. you finally distinguished black and white, you did the right thing. Well done. I hope you can make the right decisions alone, and you can distinguish between black and white alone. I hope you can achieve this.

I also thank the barcelona club and thank you to the big boss @theymos who turned the forum into a circus.


this is my truth-based neutral feedback.

Great!

Also great!

This is what I consider correct use of feedback. To quote myself:

Yeah why not, Trust system has given you the power to apply and change it whenever its necessary. Specially if you think you need to change this for community users safety in the future then i don't see nothing wrong there.

By the way, thanks for the reconsideration. 

"OP" You can lock this topic now.

Agreed.  I'm not saying JollyGood is wrong in what he's saying (I actually don't know the facts so I don't have an opinion) but ignoring and/or excluding seem like better options for him to take.

Also, I don't think this issue reflects on DT as a whole.  You don't see a lot of negs being left for differing opinions these days, and you're seeing DT members disagree with another DT member for doing that right here. 

Looks like this has been resolved, which is surprising to me but refreshing.

Thank you for your comments TalkStar. I revised the feedback simply because LoyceV posted here and because a highly respected member sent a PM asking me to reconsider, I could not say "no" either of them as I have a very high regard and respect for them.

For what it is worth the red trust for the OP was actually valid in my opinion because to me (maybe not to others) it seemed like he was shilling more (and promoting less) Vispilio and his so-called campaign management service knowing full and well the highly volatile, highly aggressive, highly divisive and highly profanity-laden posts Vispilio has made in the past. Vispilio is the complete antithesis of what a competent regular average user of this forum should be like and anybody promoting his 'services' should not be trusted especially when glancing at the manner in which maybe some merits have been given.

In my opinion it is clear that anybody with even an iota of grey matter in their head would never be able to recommend Vispilio to anybody except to a doctor specialising in psychiatric issues - but to save this drama from getting more attention then it deserved I decided to simply nip it in the bud. The OP is still added to IGNORE list as he deserves nothing else in my view.


Thank you for your feedback The Pharmacist. Yes this situation has been resolved.

I am a very approachable person, if someone wants to send a PM and ask me to reconsider or would like me explain various things to me in order to change feedback to include/exclude on my Trust list I am very happy to engage with users. The OP should have sent me a PM but as a first step of resolution but decided to attention-seek but it was a pointless exercise because after two highly respected DT1 members asked me to revising my feedback I was going to do it.

yes, mr.jolygood has finally come to answer the issue. after a full day. he thought for a day and realized that there were some differences between black and white. I don't want to deal with psychiatric experiences and thoughts that are based on strange inferences about people. After a full day, I thank him for coming and answering. we have resolved a simple and unnecessary issue that is time consuming, with your permission I lock the issue. I wish you all a good day.

I am not blocking anyone, there is room for everyone in my free world understanding. Have a nice day again.

edit: I was advised to lock the subject before. I locked the subject because I thought it was a requirement. Now I learned that there is no such obligation. There is a "false claim" that we are a group. I remove the lock so that everyone can express themselves and serve to correct this mistake.

Unfortunately, I have the same problem as well, although I did not deserve the mentioned person applied me a red trust feedback. As the aforementioned person claims, I am not part of a trolled community, I have never done merit begging or trading, and I have never done anything that would shake the "Trust" system.

Last night, I sent a private message to the member @JollyGood about this incident and asked him to remove this negative feedback he had applied to me. He said that he would definitely not step back and remove this feedback he had sent unfairly. He also said that when I create a topic about this situation, other DT members will also send a red trust statement to me. I want to ask him one more time from here.

Could you please remove this red trust?

I am waiting for the support of all other DT members if there is a negative answer. I am someone who has done a lot of work in our local forum and has helped many people by producing their own content. I think I do not deserve this negative notification sent for such manipulative and invalid reasons.

https://i.imgur.com/Ou32rgx.png
It's the same feedback I see that was left for the OP.
I will say this is another invalid feedback and Jolly needs to change it. It's not good to hear about the same case again and again against a user.

Only just noticed this topic being unlocked, I referenced this issue in the other topic:


I'm really hoping we don't need 6 topics for this  :-\

There were 3 negative feedbacks with same reference and same reason (trendcoin, bitcointurk, muslol67). One of them deleted and others are still negative. This should be a big joke.

I wrote 2 times with proofs. dragonvslinux wrote it too. Bitcointurk and muslol67 sent you messages and anything didnt change. I'm not a "highly respected DT1 member" but your negative feedbacks are wrong jollygood (they are same with trendcoins negative feedback).

Your decisions are like a paradox. If being " highly respected DT1 member" is a rule for communicate with you. @Loycev and @The Pharmacist please do it again for justice.

I haven't followed this too closely, but I doubt Jolly would say that.  Why would consider trust he left as unfair?

I have JollyGood on my trust list for reasons not like that.
And this here would be no reason for me to delete him.

I don't care of someone is accused from others for things that can be easily clarified with each other, as long as no one is cheated out of their money or otherwise sustains damage.
May sound selfish, but I would not do anything else all day long but read soap operas here

My Trust List is updated more frequently, in most cases there must have been a post or an action that knocked me out so much that he came on my trust list.

I orientate myself here by emotions in connection with the value of the contribution here in the forum!
But since I can't and don't want to be informed about everything, every once in a while, I put someone on my list, that other people don't like...

On the other hand it can also happen that I have deleted people who were on my list before, because I couldn't further support new contributions from them...

after Lauda was pushed aside, it seems the next target is @JollyGood. it all seems to me like an already seen witch-hunting scenario.

No this sentence is not true. Jollygood and Lauda are not my enemies and i'm not an enemy for jollygood and Lauda. So this is not a war or not a rally against anyone (Not a witch-hunting too). Making too much true feedback and being a good scam warrior is usefull for community. But this good works doesnt give anyone right to tag another user without real proofs.

I'm not defending muslol67 or bitcointurk or not attacking to jollygood, i'm only defending justice. Yes, jollygood is a good warrior against scam projects but this is not means he can do what he wants for other users (without a real proof). If we let someone for tagging without proofs this will hurts all of us at the future.

Witch hunt or not - red trust for trolling, propaganda, etc doesn't seem reasonable. Ironically those kinds of accusations are thrown around by Vispilio et al against users they dislike so it's a bit of a pot-kettle situation going on here.

Some of the red-trusted users have been shown to exchange trust and merits between sockpuppets so that's fair game but it would make more sense to have properly worded ratings for those cases instead of copy pasta that makes it look like all of them are the same.

This clearly show's your biased judgement over various other situations in the past and even your trust list. There are people shouting abuse, financially and emotionally suffering from it and trying to prove it, at the same time you crawl with it being an witch hunt. Looks like a cancer overall.

Also while the topic is hot, I have to point out here that ~jollygood ninja also left me the granddaddy of all ridiculous feedbacks around the beginning of this year (depicted below from his trust page)...

his childish reasoning to the tune of "Vispilio carried a Yobit banner and yet has admitted that Yobit also lists a shitcoin of its own" is so unbearably stupid that I'll go douse my fingers in alcohol after having to type its pettiness...

Everyone who has made the horrendous mistake of including jollygood in their trust list should reconsider their decisions, the ninja has a batting average of about 10% in getting these feedbacks right, and it's an insult to both the Bitcointalk community and Trust System to have the likes of him represented as DT1.

Keeping a trigger happy troll on any layer of DT is a sure way to turn the already shunned forum into an even more desolate ghost town, beware:


https://i.imgyukle.com/2020/07/08/SouapA.png

That rating is factual and supported by the reference so there is nothing particularly wrong with it. If you don't like it that doesn't make it invalid. On the other hand your retaliatory rating about "deficient morals" doesn't make much sense.

you are clearly incapable of an iota of rationality suchmoon, and frankly far more harmful than jolly ninja to this forum.

I'm the only one who currently has red trust out of maybe hundreds of members who promoted Yobit,

where is the red trust of all the other participants including the campaign manager (who did an excellent job by the way), doesn't the stench of #doublestandards and #hypocrisy disgust everyone here ?..

It's all so petty and corrupt, I don't even give a fuck actually, you should know that you and a few of your corrupt cultist friends are an embarrassment to the legacy of Bitcoin with your insane nepotism and total lack of morals... Get well.

I warned in January that Jollygood's methodology of tagging people for guilt via association over Yobit was not only an unfair standard, but going to lead to even more abuse as this justification of mass tagging people is further widened. Yet, here we are 7 months later, and Jollygood is ranked higher within the trust system as his shotgun style abusive ratings continue to expand. This is yet another case of a forum cop building his reputation by stomping all over other users with minimal pretext to give themselves the reputation of being a "scambuster" for personal gain. Because none of you take any action against this kind of behavior with exclusions, of course it only continues and grows to become more common. This is yet another example of why the trust system here will remain to be a joke.

Besides being a useless fallacy (all or nothing is not a prerequisite for trust ratings), it's also a lie. wolwoo got one too as did some other Yobit scam deniers.

for your personal education it IS a prerequisite for all universal laws of morality and ethics, only a bloodsucking cultist would be more interested

in keeping her corrupt DT game intact to the exclusion of all rational discourse...  ::)

Nonsense. Most kids beyond age 10 typically have already figured out that "but Jimmy did it too" doesn't let them off the hook.

I'm guessing that ponzi schemes are allowed under your "universal laws of morality and ethics".

Do you want to work with me in helping liberate a few thousand bitcoins?  We could certainly spread that around to the suffering people who have contributed to bitcoin.  :)

Very kind of you SiNeReiNZzz, thank you for your comments. The soap opera daily serial between a few members of the local language board is not showing any signs of slowing down and has actually picked up in recent days. They are a bunch of attention-seeking wannabes that have posted in global boards while claiming to be representatives of their local language board when that could not be further from the truth.


They have me on their radar but I will not be buckling under their persistent attacks. I am surprised a few more threads were not created to attack me by those out to attention-seek


Thank you for the comments, you are right. I think when it comes down to leaving any comments related to any group associated with these attention-seeking members I will not be leaving generic feedback in future. I will be far more specific.


Vispilio is a compulsive liar and a fantasist who dreams of being a bit crypto trader yet was slandering the CM campaign after his long campaign to be selected for it was rebuffed. The list of his conduct within the forum goes on and be easily verified and engaging with him is more or less a time wasting exercise.

Ah, veiled threats of negative ratings for anyone who dares criticize you. Another great example of why you belong nowhere near the DT.

Another case that shows that @JollyGood is unreliable. His acts just like Lauda.
He gives unfair negative. He approaches Turks with disgust. Threats with private message.

I am calling out to fair members who are truly conscientious. He is constantly doing injustice. I suggest you delete his from your Trust list.

Also: ~JollyGood

And to think I actually removed you from my IGNORE list to give you a chance of engaging with you. You are added to my IGNORE list again alongside your local language board buddies  ::)

Beyond that, I cannot waste any time posting to an ignorant attention-seeker such as you.

This thread has all the proof one needs to demonstrate to the admin that they need to interfere and revamp the whole DT system if they want to save the greatly damaged Bitcointalk.

A cursory glance at the writings of most of these "deeply entrenched" DT1 cultists should be enough to convince any unbiased observer that their discourse and reasoning skills are worse than your average high school debates club,

and the vast majority of Bitcointalk community seems incapable of voting qualified people into positions of authority; they only know how to elect their nepotist friends with politically correct and familiar voices...

Thank you for your feedback. In a nutshell, there is far more going on here for those who manage to read between the lines. Several users from the Turkish language board along with several buddies going all-out to attack me just like they attacked other users with protagonists such as scammer Vispilio playing key roles.

Should DT and Merit Source Members Be Promoting A Known Scam?: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219538.0

He's not removed my negative feedback yet, i need a help from another DT members. It's invalid and he said that he will not remove this feedback. The person uses his trust in the trust system for bad purposes and displays racist behavior.


I claim that the feedback that the person has created is unfair because he sent me this feedback even though I was not guilty. I also ask him to prove all the situation he mentioned in the feedback.


Thank you very much for your support message, unfortunately I did not get the support I expected from other DT members, and the person did not change or delete the feedback they sent. I hope he finds his way to justice and withdraws his unfair feedback that he has sent me. Such racist behavior is not true at all.

Another attention-seeker from a local language board that claims racism in the same way that Vispilio and several others have claimed. All of these users should be ashamed of themselves for playing the race card as and when it suits their agenda.

So JollyGood did not say he sent the feedback unfairly.  That was misleading, and a tactic used by scammers.  Thank you for clarifying. :)

Oh no! Don't ignore me! That truly is the greatest punishment of all! To give you a chance of engaging with you? What? You have as much of a chance of having a legitimate debate as a lamp post. You are only here to serve yourself and to wash the balls of your overlords.



I see this claim of racism over and over again. I know the Turks are a very nationalistic people, but the accusations of racism are not true. These people treat everyone who does not think and act like them as the outsider, so it is easily confused for racism. I highly suggest that if the Turkish community wishes to make progress and inroads into the trust system, they make it known among their members that these claims of racism are not only untrue, but counterproductive to exposing their legitimate grievances. These claims of racism not only appear frivolous as it makes it very easy to use this to dismiss claims of abuse. As most of the current DT users are in the US and Europe, and right now claims of racism are being abused constantly to acheive political goals, it makes such claims appear as a joke. You should make it known among your community that these claims of racism only serve to get your grievances ignored and laughed at.

They are part and parcel from the same group of compulsive liars that have their own agenda. I would advise all to beware of them and to not take their claims seriously.

I agree, Vod is part of a group of compulsive liars that have their own agenda and they shouldn't be taken seriously.

I have Jolly as distrust in my trust list from long ago.
Sadly this topic now moving to anther direction where I see Jolly, Vod and Techshare are busy teasing each others.

On a side note, it seems Jolly only listen to some specific users who he respects and if they PM or suggest him to remove or add then only he will react. :-D

But again tagging someone for___
1. connected a group of trolls
2. merit abuse and fake trust circle
3.  promote low-life users
___ seems not a proper use of trust rating.

I disagree with the feedback from Lauda too. I think somewhere theymos mentioned that there are no need of tagging for merit about or something.

A red tag is always valid for a proven scam but not for speculation. If was for speculation then we all would tag the questionable account that seems to be handled by game-protect recently.

With the same explanation, negative feedback was given to me by @JollyGood. I PM him and I am waiting for his reply because he says he will make a comeback.

And my defense ;

1. never had a connection between groups, person or trust in this forum. I don't even know anyone here personally! I am discussing people in Turkish and I have trust some of them.
2. I never involved any merit abuse or trust circle. No one can judge my trust list because I am talking with these people in my native. And I understand better than anyone who don't know Turkish. Some of these people had bad communication in global boards. But it is not my problem. If someone has a bad relation with each other, please solve these problems with true person!
JollyGood sent me negative feedback, because I supported @Vispilio in his bounty management thread. Yes I did! Because I know he is capable! He can manage. If JollyGood or any other person believes he couldn't, thread in Services board go and write your opinion. Why are you judging me? I don't know JollyGood, if I knew him and trust him I could support him also. For example, I have really trust with @Hhampuz a lot. And I think he is capable and has justice sense. Don't know him well but I have some ideas about him. So what is the point? Someone may not like with Hhampuz also. Should I send him a negative feedback (which I don't have any DT power)

I will wait for @JollyGood's answer first. He answered my first PM very kind. And I think he is reasonable person. I believe that we can solve this issue easily.

Hi muslol67, glad to see you found this thread that concerns you. I also agree with your assessment of the situation, being tagged simply for endorsing someone's services. I referenced this on Page 2, 6 days ago, but unfortunately JollyGood has chosen to ignore this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5261962.msg54791602#msg54791602), instead focusing his attention on gumusi it seems.


Ironically, the reference used against you is to gumusi's post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225711.msg53865312#msg53865312) (the save page link, not the archive), not your post, so not even correctly referenced either x2 (copy&paste error, 502 error)  ::)


Either way, that post doesn't look tag-worthy to me either, even if the reference was corrected to point to your post.
Best of luck waiting for a response and resolution, but I wouldn't hold your breath. The more I look into these tags, the worse it gets!

will this nonsense continue forever? Are we going to deal with people's childish whims and meaningless attitudes. damn it.

today mr. holyshit thinks me negative or neutral I wonder bla bla... because he can change his mind without stopping. maybe hourly, maybe minute, maybe instant... The momentary changing decisions of a person who cannot distinguish between black and white ... sounds good.

I worked on the Turkish local forum, carried information, shared information. I've been a part of this forum for more than 2 years. This imbalanced person, he shouldn't judge me for nonsense reasons.

@suchmoon @loycev @theymos and other dt1 members whose name I don't know, please say "stop" to this ridiculous situation!

You judge him, he judges you - it's normal to compare other people's beliefs to your own. 

What is the non nonsense reason you call him imbalanced? 

read the whole paragraph please! We are talking about someone who changes their decisions day by day and who knows the truth with the help of others.

Do you think someone like that could make sense?

Come on, say "yes" ... so we have a good reason to unplug the world.

---

---

please do not throw messages that deviate from the subject!

So if there is a valid reason you call him unbalanced, he might have a valid reason to not trust you as well.

Not everything is trust abuse. 

Thank you Vod, you are right - not everything is trust abuse. Just look at the actual feedback I left, it is very much valid and there are reference links as well. I definitely do not trust him and would never recommend others to trust him too.

jolygood's attorney, you are diverting the subject. I am aware. please do not divert this matter. go here and divert other issues. I don't want you to distort this issue any more. jollygood can defend himself. I don't think he needs a bad lawyer like you.




jollygood, you are starting a "witch hunt" on a topic you have given up before. it's not fair what you're doing. if I am to be judged solely for my opinions, so judge me!Take another proof for you...

---

I am (currently) not a DT1-member, so I literally have no say in this. But I already shared my opinion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5260202.msg54741101#msg54741101), which was considered, and I won't exclude JollyGood over this.
DefaultTrust is decentralized, and I don't think there are users who's feedback I agree with 100%. So I'll have to settle for less than that. If I disagree too much, I'll adjust my Trust list, but the reality is that some disagreements will slip through. It sucks for you, but we'll never have a Trust system in which everyone agrees with everyone else.

The main difference is trendcoin left neutral trust (not malicious), JollyGood appears to have retaliated with negative trust (utilizing that deep-found DT power of his).


Sounds like a case of "boo fucking hoo", trendcoin clearly left neutral feedback to JollyGood that he didn't like and got tagged for it, again.

I guess the only honesty here is that JollyGood had already (indirectly) threatened to return the amended neutral feedback, and has now followed through with this threat:


Sounds like: If you don't drop this discussion criticizing my actions, I'll neg you. Then he negged him. The only circumstances that changed was trendcoin leaving neutral trust, and continuing to argue his point (that he is entitled to, as it's only an opinion). The reference provided for the negative feedback is the the same as before (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5260202.0). There is no new information that has come to light regarding trendcoin and his trust-based actions, only his opinions.

This type of behavior reminds me of mosprognoz: great scam buster, but inconsistent with feedback and incapable of not abusing DT power.

--------------------

@trendcoin

So what exactly in your opinion is the problem with the feedback I left for you?

not being able to find god's profile link.

jolygood I told you before. welcome and read here. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5260202.msg54738961#msg54738961

the same answers apply. however, you continue to make unfounded accusations against your abuse of power every time. please stop somewhere.

I traded with vispilio long before these events. I exchanged money. so I believe he will be a reliable organizer. "If we had experienced the same things as you, I would have thought the same things for you."

Look, there may be some misunderstandings. there may be false accusations. there may be false claims. there may be false feedbacks. review your decision. You are not my friend or enemy.

Think a little to review your decision. like 1 day. It's a good time to think 24 hours. then let's discuss this issue again. think again. Evaluate whether the claims you have are weak or strong

I haven't done anything bad...

---

EDİT:
I will not add a new message to prevent the subject from deviating.

vod, I didn't mean to hurt you. Since I have a bad English, I may have misrepresented myself and my words. Due to the misunderstanding between us, my rightfulness in this matter should not fall below 100%. the world is big enough for us all. thanks.

trendcoin, you are unfair.

I haven't done anything wrong, yet you posted feedback I was an incompetent lawyer.  I want to be remembered for taking down the biggest scammer in bitcointalk history, not for being poor at legal council  :/

I won't post anymore, but obviously you are not 100% innocent in this.

How is that any different than the scam promotions of parodium even to this day, i'll keep bringing this back up till I see a logical answer, stop hidding like bitches behind few death threats.

---

---

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/09/10/m4a7o.jpeg


 ???

It is clear trendcoin is attention-seeking on par with gumusi and some others that have been mentioned before.

Me too, I will probably not be posting here further as there is no need to engage with certain individuals and have decided to simply keep them and those that are equally duplicitous users on my IGNORE and distrust list.

that's all the claim! thinking of things like that(!)

I'm tired of writing the same things. everyone who came here gave a common opinion on the subject. (injustice of negative feedback)

you have always taken the discussion off topic. you did not provide any valid justification. You talked amongst yourself with nonsense claims. You have damaged my reputation with an unfair negative feedback. there is a 2nd class puppet show collaboration for an unfair court and an unfair result.

@theymos thank you.

Vod is not my advocate or attorney


I am sorry you feel I am being unfair, I believe I am being very fair.

I feel sorry any and all victims of all scams so when you promote the services a forum member that himself has stated he knowingly wanted to promote a project he knew was a scam via a signature campaign and that any victims of that scam were to blame for being stupid enough to get scammed - then it means you cannot be trusted and deserve negative trust just as the scammer (Vispilio) deserved.

Suppose he scams innocent people by claiming to offer them a campaign or management service, would you say that he would be guilty of scamming them or would you say victims are to blame for being stupid enough to have believed him and losing their crypto?

I am out of this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5260202.msg54799807#msg54799807

Only thing i ever saw negative about vispillio is that he IN PAST promoted yobit, and so did hundreds of other users and no one said anything.

Obviously changing my trust rating things as everyone does is harming jolly and his group, from my perspective not one of them has a negative missing for whichever reason.

He and they probably desperated by now, just stay strong :)

I hate scammers and it's how i got my negative rating.

A year ago I was told i should make a new account, I knew i shouldn't. I had declared my alt account as alt and it was banned, could of keept it a secret, krogoth can have two accounts and no one says anything, other known members have two accounts, one for PC and other for phone.

Fairness is just a word for these scumbags.

You aren't any good jolly, neither is your lil group, I genuinely believe you create scams to unveil them and be the good guy.
And destroy reputation of whatever knows too much or you feel as threat.

It worked for enough years its time you go fuck yourself, bitcoin is all about globalization not stupid natzi groups or whatever. Can't wait to have more adoption and your stupid system to go down because the power is in the numbers. Perhaps then a clear and strong position will be taken against scammers by the staff, not having staff members like hilariousandco supporting scammers, even if just with a rating, then having cuntlauda come and tell him all will be fine, just people losing hundreds of bitcoins.
Even to this day, years after parodium is still promoting shady coins.

Yes i called you natzi I can call people fake things too.

Isn't it funny how lauda isn't as active, tman disappeared yet new accounts popping with new scams and plenty of time to do more.

Second time you out of this thread, and second time I read Vispillio scammed with his campaings, I see nothing in his ratings. Even BAC supporting you, all he could bring up was that he once promoted yobit, BAC isn't as stupid as you all to make false claims. And yeah I hate yobit myself enough.

Just in case everyone forgot.
https://i.imgur.com/mn4SYjl.png
All coins have two sides.

You should be banned too then. Ban evading is against the forum rules.

A quick check of the feedback on that account (andulolika) shows threats and ban evasion, that user should not be trusted in any circumstance.

You the personal asslicker of whore lauda, keep using same pukable words. lol you just repeating same stupid words. Feels fine to have a mod on your back right? Just let the forum grow you'll see how it is to be outnumbered.
I was banned already, you another of the circlejerk cuntgroup.


Isn't it obvious how you keep merits and positive ratings between yourselves? same words? same style? pukable.

"check the feedback of my group"

"a quick check on the feedback" Don't trust me trust all my friends look how we circlejerk trust and merits, you can join us too and even scam people with alts and do it for years with same account. We all have to learn a lesson here, it might take a bit longer for some.

JollyGood is a JollyGood poster, cut the shit. Only who has a problem with him is probably a scammer.

Leaving invalid feedback has nothing to do with how good of a poster you are. Having an issue with someone's feedback doesn't make you a scammer either  ::)
Regardless, welcome to the BitcoinTalk Forum! Always nice to see "nice faces" appearing.

JollyGood is idiot and i newer trust his feedback

Well, I once appreciated betking because they were refunding users their money and Jolly also painted me red. So Jolly is a little too harsh because when we appreciate someone, we don't know if the person has any back records. I tried to explain many times but he doesn't care as much.

Problem is now as I do any business on forum I would never be trusted by anyone. DT members should have some level of regards towards lower ranked members.

Hello everyone, I would like to bring up the topic that I opened before. I had previously sent a message that only supports vispilio's campaign management. I received negative trust for sending a message in support of campaign management. For personal reasons, as of today, I do not support him as a campaign manager. I ask all dt members and jollygood to reconsider the situation. I wish everyone a good day and a good year.



dooglus
gmaxwell
OgNasty
SebastianJu
yxt
A-Bolt
fronti
mprep
Dabs
Foxpup
peloso
Welsh
Mitchell
vizique
Ticked
jeremypwr
dbshck
greenplastic
hilariousandco
Avirunes
mindrust
buckrogers
Lesbian Cow
willi9974
JayJuanGee
Rmcdermott927
DaveF
examplens
nutildah
minerjones
tmfp
yahoo62278
Royse777
zazarb
LFC_Bitcoin
o_solo_miner
ezeminer
sandy-is-fine
SyGambler
klarki
LoyceV
actmyname
The Pharmacist
LeGaulois
DarkStar_
TwitchySeal
phishead
TryNinja
bob123
eddie13
johhnyUA
Jet Cash
condoras
Coin_trader
polymerbit
Yatsan
finaleshot2016
crwth
Ale88
duesoldi
imhoneer
JollyGood
xenon131
roycilik
CryptopreneurBrainboss
El duderino_
KTChampions
bavicrypto
Veleor
o_e_l_e_o
3meek
Maus0728
TheBeardedBaby
tvplus006
dkbit98
mole0815
witcher_sense
MoparMiningLLC
asche
cabalism13
anonymousminer
morvillz7z
fillippone
taikuri13
abhiseshakana
madnessteat
lovesmayfamilis
DireWolfM14
Corrosive
TalkStar
efialtis
Ratimov
geophphreigh
zasad@
Rikafip

IMO, tagging us here is a bad idea. In my 2nd Opinion, this has nothing to do with us.
Lastly, you already know what to do as it is already from 5months ago...
Good Luck.

I don't even know if I'm on DT1 anymore, but personally there's nothing for me to reconsider since I'm not directly involved in this drama. 

The feedback left by JollyGood was inappropriate IMO, but I'm not going to leave a counter-positive for OP because of that.  For one thing, I am not a fan of counter-positives and second I leave positive trust only very rarely.  What would happen, for instance, if I left a positive for OP and JollyGood removed his negative, and I wasn't aware of it (or became incapacitated or something like that)?  OP would have a net green trust for no good reason, and that's not kosher in my eyes.

This is a problem between OP and JollyGood, and it's not a new one at that.  I'm curious as to why it's now becoming an issue again with OP.

Tagging you can be a bad idea. I do not know exactly what to do in such cases. I just called dt members to the topic and asked them to comment. I did not want to disturb you. I really don't know what to do. I want the situation to be reviewed again. thank you.


As I do not deserve negative feedback, I want to get rid of this problem somehow; now or tomorrow, somehow. After a while, it might be a good idea to re-establish the court so that the defendants can be heard again. I will request a retrial until justice is restored. I don't think I can do any better. I can't play the game in god mode like dt members. Even if I want, I can't do anything else. I am in restricted mode. :) therefore, my request is clear: I want to be judged again and I want to know what I have to do to correct the negative reporting. we are all ripe people of age. :) If there is a problem, we should be able to deal with it by talking well. thank you.

In this "new" flag/trust system I think counter-positives should only be posted if you genuinely believe that the person is unlikely to scam. Counter just to oppose a negative is no longer functioning the way it used to in the "old" system because there is no convoluted trust score formula (which accounted for those counters) anymore.


It was always an issue but we just swept it under the rug and moved on. I don't think it's appropriate to post negative trust for supporting someone you don't like, or as a diary entry saying "I put this person on ignore", which is something JollyGood tends to do.

As I said, I don't think that's right either.  Where is JollyGood, anyway?  He should probably be PM'ed by OP if that hasn't happened already.  And frankly, this isn't the first time I've disagreed with some of his feedbacks either.  I don't know if I have him excluded from my trust list or not, but I'm going to check.

OK, I get it.  I'd probably feel the same way if I were in your shoes, with this bright red mark on your profile that shouldn't have been left for you.  I'm not accusing you of doing anything suspicious.

You sent 2 PMs today. I replied to your second one, my apologies for not responding to the first one you sent. Please check your PM (I hope I wrote the Selam greeting correct):

Hello trendcoin,

Selam Aleyküm and Happy New Year,

Please forgive me for not getting back to you earlier, I should have replied to your first PM but was very busy. Thank you for writing to me.

I will remove that negative trust because I read the campaign manager for 777 will remove users with negative DT trust. I know that is why you want the trust removed. It would be a sad situation if you are deprived of your campaign signature fee because of the negative trust.

Wishing you and your loved ones a happy 2021. Keep safe.

Kind Regards



trendcoin will be removed from the 777 signature campaign if the negative trust is not removed by 3rd January 2021 therefore there is an urgency on his part to try to have the negative trust removed.


Yes you added me to your distrust list some months ago because of the feedbacks I left in the past but I stopped tagging users with dubious backgrounds a long time before you excluded me.

In the next few days I will probably start going through most of the negative trust I left and will either remove them or revise them to neutral in order to try keeping it limited to how the feedback system should be correctly applied (as per this excellent guide by LoyceV: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0)

Fair enough, and I'll re-evaluate my exclusion when you're through.  I have no hard feelings toward you, and I think you're trying to do the right thing but have left too many bad feedbacks. 

And hey, I've had to revise tons of feedback myself--especially right after the merit system was implemented.  I was intentionally misusing the trust system in order to fight shitposters because there was no better method to do so at the time.  I never felt good about it, but the spam situation in 2018 was out of control.  I deleted probably a few hundred feedbacks I'd left.

Thank you jollygood for your kind feedback.

I swear to you that this situation has nothing to do with the signature campaign. to prove this, I can gladly expect you to lift negative trust on January 4th or January 5th.


Under this topic, I gave up some of my thoughts that I carried in the past. For a number of reasons I don't have my old ideas. I also deleted my support messages that I had created in good faith that caused me to receive negative trust.


I have not defrauded anyone in my life. I did not cheat on anyone. I did not usurp anyone's labor. I lived an honorable and honest life. My profile on this forum is not a bad user either. an honest profile just like in real life.

Thank you for re-evaluating your opinion. I can wait for you until January 5th or until January 6th, that's no problem.


Thank you to everyone who participated and supported the subject. I apologize to anyone I disturbed you by labeling the subject. I wish everyone a good year.

Thank you for the comment, I also have no hard feelings towards you  ;)

Hopefully I will not have to go to the point of deleting hundreds of tags but I understand why you wrote you used the trust system in a particular way back in the day. At the time I left negative trust it did seem easier to simply fight back against users with highly questionable and dubious backgrounds but it was an incorrect use of the feedback system.

Maybe a neutral tag at most would have sufficed in many cases to keep within the rules and I will probably start focusing on that.

A neutral one would definitely be more appropriate, especially if you're tagging members for your own future reference and if a negative trust would be too extreme.  That's pretty much what neutrals are meant for, even though you'll still get some members complaining to you if you leave a negative comment as a neutral. 

The bottom line, as I'm sure you're aware, is that you have to be very conservative when leaving DT positives and use good judgement when leaving negatives.  The negative trust you leave should reflect the fact that the tagged member might not be trustworthy, not that they're a spammer or a nuisance or something like that.