Bitcoin Forum

Recently there have been a number of PMs I have received asking for neutral trust I had left for them months earlier, to be removed. The timing of this has coincided with a particular signature campaign being managed by a particular campaign manager who was vouching for a neutral trust to be removed from a participant but I will not claim that is the only reason I am receiving PMs, I think the timing is suspect that is all. It also has coincided with me removing or revisiting other neutral trust recently.

I have no issues at all in reviewing and/or modifying any trust I have left in the past but the sort of members with dubious conduct sending PMs asking for a neutral trust to be removed is surprising. Their reasons for asking to have the neutral trust to be removed are also hard to believe. One has even stated he stopped posting after I left neutral feedback and wants to join a signature campaign and will only start using the account after/if the neutral feedback has been removed.

In my time here in the forum I have never experienced such a movement by some members with dubious posting history with suspected farm accounts (or alt-accounts) asking for a neutral feedback to be removed and I find it somewhat strange this is happening. It is just a neutral feedback not a negative one yet therefore watching this new trend makes me want to ask if others are receiving PMs too.

In my case I have recently received PMs regarding neutral feedbacks only but have any of you recently received similar PMs asking for either negative or neutral trust to be removed by those that you left them for?

It is likely that your neutral tag will somehow affect the managers who are considering the account for acceptance into their company signature, and this is something that accounts with a neutral tag are afraid of. Although everyone assumes that managers always recruit by checking their posting history. You have created a lot of noise and fear for people wearing your neutral tags, and I think this is such a wave of disagreement. Of course, I would not react in any way to ultimatum statements not to participate in subscription companies until the tag is removed if the person really deserved such a review. As they say, do what you want. The question is whether everyone deserves this tag.

They only write to me asking me to remove negative tags, and that is extremely rare. Usually, people understand that they themselves are to blame.

Probably you, JollyGood, should start complaining to the moderators if a person is spamming, and let them decide and delete posts, or maybe ban them for a while.

The word "spammer" is rather vague; upon careful consideration of the posts, half the forum can bear this name.

Nope. It must have been years when I was last asked to reconsider negative feedback. My response was: open a topic in Reputation, and see what the community thinks. The user didn't do that.
I think it also helps I don't easily leave negative feedback, and when I do, it's obvious it won't be removed.

For neutral feedback, I don't remember any removal request. It helps most of it is written in a neutral sense: "xx support member", "confirmed owner of xx", and in some cases: "Warning: xx".

Back to you: I appreciate that you're starting to use more neutral instead of negative. That helps against "inflation" of the value of a negative, and it's less drastic. The only neutrals in your list that I think may be inappropriate are the ones saying "Note to self". There's a userscript for that. If it was intended for public viewing, you didn't have to add the "Note to self".
Additionally, since the Reference links lead to a a deleted post in your own self-moderated topic, I think deleting the post would have been enough.

I haven't received a single PM request for feedback deletion for a long time, negative or even neutral. honestly, I am pleased to change if there is a change and my rating is not suitable.
I don't think this is some kind of conspiracy or organized action against you. Rather I would say that this is your isolated case because you left any feedback. many have a negative connotation, although you set them as neutral. as a DT member, you somehow have an obligation to look at all requests to withdraw your feedback, so a large number of requests is just the result of many of your ratings. of course, it's up to you if it's not an unnecessary waste of your time.


this is absolutely true. Without reference, your accusations are only in the domain of your speculation and assumption. cannot be considered completely relevant.
in the end, the self-moderated thread is for that purpose, to delete unnecessary spam. I believe that this is a sufficient "punishment" for signature quota hunters.

This is expected from an idiot who does not know how to use report to moderator feature.

Definition of dead topic:
The topic left by the community for many months, weeks or even days with no response. The topic also lost in few pages of recent topics also can be considered as dead topics. In simple words, a topic that is not longer needed and nothing left to discuss is a dead topic.

Example one: Bumped after 9 months, even there is a topic already exists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5288319.msg61449995#msg61449995) with recent activities: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5361336.msg61489222#msg61489222
Example two: Bumped after 15 days when the topic has nothing to add: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5424892.msg61454581#msg61454581

Talked about it before:
@JollyGood my diaper baby, there are many examples I can bring where you bumped dead discussions with low quality unnecessary few lines of words either to fill up your signature requirement, or to devalue the people you don't like.

Stop being a hypocrite. How would you feel if I leave a feedback like:

BitcoinGirl.Club (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662330)

xxxx-xx-xx

No reference

Self note: Signature campaign spammer. (This user is bumping old discussions with nonsense few lines of words and seems to be posting for the sake of fulfilling signature campaign weekly requirement via post count and promote his signature. Also, I would not be surprised if the user intentionally building up his reputation in DT network with his fake scam busting and cashing out from 1xxxxshit bad reputation so that he gain trust and some day when he will have an opportunity he will scam a large business deal. Not to mention, he is a sadist.)

Learn to respect forum members.  If you don't have money to buy a dairy to take personal notes, ask daddy, I will buy one for you.

I have never received a PM request for my opinion on a neutral feedback, and as for the negative, I agree with what LoyceV said. It is better to discuss such things publicly, so I always refer to a relevant topic where the defendant can complain if he wants to. I have received PMs from some people asking for my opinion on neutral feedback posts, and I always respond with my thoughts. I do not mind public discussion, but in some cases it is better to avoid any potential conflict by PMing each other directly.

JollyGood, I noticed that you mentioned a particular signature campaign. Could you share publicly which campaign it is about and which members specifically contacted you? It is possible that the signature campaign manager made this a requirement, though I have never seen such requirements before.

Last appeal I received was from LTC casino back in October.... Probably because of this neutral feedback I left them


And most of what they even claimed was false

Are you a dt gang member? If yes then that's normal, I don't know why people worry about neutral feed back, it actually look cool to have the middle digit going up instead of just being a boring zero. If the feed back doesn't serve any purpose then there is no need for it to exist, forgive and move on, someday someone will do the same for you.

I have left quite a few neutral trusts for shitposting, excessive trolling and other abuses as well but I didn't receive any PMs recently to remove that neutral trust. Maybe it's just because I've explained each neutral feedback in detail or the members are well aware that if they continue their abuse (also via "unsolicited PMs"), it won't get better. If some members are admitting their mistakes, I'm always open to remove a neutral trust but I like to keep it public, for public record. The best feedbacks are, where everyone can review the evidence via reference link.


Best approach for negative Trust in my opinion as well.
If there's any legitimacy for removing a particular negative trust, it's required that the community needs to come out in strong support of removing it.
If the community doesn't come out in strong support of removing it, there's just no legitimacy in removing that particular negative trust.

---

@OP
Regarding your PMs: I would review a particular neutral trust if the request via PM is really honest, constructive and the member is willing to admit his mistake. But that's also including that the abuse which has led to that trust, is lenient enough to be removed from the account's trust page.
If the PM is not constructive at all or the abuse has been simply too harsh, I would keep the neutral trust even longer.
Probably, if someone is sending you repeatedly PMs requesting to remove a neutral trust, it could be considered as "unsolicited PM spam" and could be reported.

And for your particular case, it really looks like that these people only care to get rid of your neutral trust due to paid signature campaigns.
So, your neutral trust is most likely very accurate to "warn" campaign managers about signature spammers.  :D

If you are already reviewing other trust feedbacks you've left, then there's nothing to draw up about the timing of the request. It likely has nothing to do with what whatever campaign manager vouched for, nor does it really matter.

---

If you left a 'negative' neutral feedback, then it's not surprise the said accounts are acting dubiously as you said, that could be one of the reasons they got the feedbacks in the first place. A neutral feedback does not limit one from much on the forum, so they would not be losing out at all, and maybe they don't know how the forum worse really.

I leave a couple of feedbacks, few and far between, but have only been contacted to remove a negative feedback I left. A request which I declined by the way. It's best to give feedbacks within the limit you can manage and review periodically.

I agree it's a definite improvement, but it's perplexing why people would be asking JG to remove neutrals (I haven't finished reading this thread, but I get the sense that it somehow matters to one or more bounty managers). 

JollyGood, I damn well know you aren't asking for advice as to what to do, but I'm just going to say that any PM I got like that would be deleted in seconds with no reply, and I'd also add the member to my PM ignore list (a massive, massive compilation of morons at this point).  I get the impression bounty managers barely give a shit if their participants have genuine negative trust much less a neutral for any reason.

Let 'em eat shit for the holidays.

I forgot about that one, when I said I haven't received requests in years. I may have forgotten more of them, it's not important enough to remember.

My response was short:
Even this was beyond his comprehension.

OP already hit a hard limit (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5419954.msg61397650#msg61397650) doing this.

What can I say? According to the genius of JollyJonnyBeGood I am alt of someone who is owner of one the biggest exchanges in Italy! Thank you JollyJonnyBeGood for your immense power of judgement!

It is not right for a campaign manager to solicit on behalf of a user who was left a neutral tag. I think neutral tag doesn't prevent anyone from joining a campaign, rather it will help the hiring manager to make the right selection of users to be accepted.
The emphasis should be if the neutral tag is correct or not. Whether it is worth it or not and not to delete it.
A neutral tag is neutral and should be treated as such.

I might look like a pessimistic person, but in most cases, they're just trying to cover their tracks ^{[especially if their so-called campaign manager is somewhat new]} and with regard to your question, I haven't received such PMs in recent months ^{[usually, they either stop using their accounts (e.g. rinse and repeat) or leave retaliatory feedback, but there are also a few that continue their operations as if nothing happened]}.

This is the part that I find utterly confusing. I have always known campaign managers taking on participants based on their posting rather than just feedback. Even negative trusts are reviewed and if deemed unfair or unwarranted would probably be dismissed by competent campaign managers. For the first time I have known, a campaign manager recently took on participants without issues with their neutral tags and then after employing them asked the participants to see if they can get the neutral tags removed.

I know not all tags should remain permanently, they can be revised and it depends on the situation but even when they know they are the ones to blame they seem to find the courage to ask for tags to be removed especially when trolls and attention-seekers with ulterior motives and vendettas jump on the bandwagon and use every opportunity to start attacks in the hope they can encourage members from distrusting me.

Seeing this type of low-level barrel scraping desperation vendetta by a couple of trolls and attention-seekers has probably helped encourage some to try to ask for tags to be removed.

I will definitely start doing that too, thank you for the suggestion  ;)

Yes that is something I thought about later, the references have been deleted in several cases and that was because the post was deleted. I hope I will have a workaround for that in future if I give tags.

I am happy to review any feedback if a request is made, I have no problem at all with that. I also believe there is no conspiracy as such but the timing is suspect.

In a post yahoo62278 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5428335.msg61442267#msg61442267) suggested I should be flexible on the reviewing between 8-12 months after a request has been made, which means after an initial request has been made and if I reject it I should review it earlier depending on the recent quality of their posts. I am happy to take that advice and did do recently and remove a neutral because the member has contributed positively in global and local boards.

Absolutely correct. The references should be there but the posts were deleted, it would have been better to keep the reference points but the thread also needed cleaning. Having said that the deleted posts should be available for viewing if they were scraped.

Royse777 is managing the sinbad.io campaign. Though something went wrong with the post which received the neutral tag for the OP in the other thread (the neutral tag deservedly has been removed), the second signature campaign applicant also was allowed on to the signature campaign with the neutral tag and it became a problem later. If it was a requirement from the campaign manager it should have not have been an issue after applicants were selected for campaigns. I also have never seen such a requirement before.

In the case of the casino, it seems they sent the same PM request to all those that tagged their account including yourself. It could be a case of them wanting their name clear of accusations for the sake a business whereas some members want their name clear for the sake of joining or applying to join signature campaigns.

I (alongside other members) do rotate in and out of DT1. I also do not know why some members worry about neutral tags. In the recent case, I was happy to remove the neutral tag after reviewing the posting history because the member is definitely contributing positively but others seem to have taken that as a sign to try to make their own attempt.

Like you I am open to removing/reviewing neutral (and negative) trust and without a doubt the biggest error was to remove the reference. Hopefully I will not be repeating that mistake because others should be able to view and/or scrutinise then comment if valid need arises.

Thank you for the advice. I have over the years received both sincere and highly deceptive PMs asking for trust to be removed. I try to be courteous when engaging with members to understand their views but usually their sincerity can be picked up after a couple of sentences.

You are right, nearly all the requests from years ago to those being made today are related to signature campaigns but I have to be honest and add that I am only but human and am therefore more than capable of making errors. I have acknowledged several over the years but I do not understand the desperation of some members to have their feedback removed when it is just a neutral tag. Previous PM requests have even been from members with multiple tags and they were probably trying to have them all removed or just mine for reasons unknown.


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


Thank you to all. As my reply has got long I will reply to the remaining members in another post.

Yes, well, a manager who himself has 6 neutral tags changed from negative and who seems to care so much about neutral tags that he disregards them when accepting people into his campaign (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5428335.msg61439292#msg61439292):


For me it is more a question of ego, of someone who is overflowing with ego and runs $100 a week signature campaigns now, so his ego is even more boosted. I'm curious to see if he wins the antihero award, as you have to think that people who get paid from his campaigns or think they might do so in the future are unlikely to nominate him for that "award".

At the moment he has quite a few votes.

I'm guessing it's related to the conditions to be accepted in the signature campaign that is handled by @Royse777, he decided not to continue work with members who received neutral feedback especially if the neutral feedback was related to shitposting.

I know I've read on Service sub-board where a manager was asking selected members to get their neutral tag issues resolved or get removed from a campaign they already were on. I don't know why a manager would do that or consider a neutral tag to be anything sinister because that's not the way the community saw it a few years ago. I don't know if things have changed now. Besides, I know of a member who runs loan services here and uses neutral tags for those he lends money to and not as something bad. So, would such a campaign manager then base their conclusion on all neutral tags being for a wrongdoing? But of course, no. Screening hunters out based on neutral tag is a wrong call.

If the same neutral tag says that the user makes a low-quality post just to meet objectives, it can influence the campaign managers' choices.

Now the campaign manager must evaluate this in advance.
As well as the user will be able to question this tag in a sincere and honest way.

I think we can all make snap judgments, and things should be handled openly and logically.
And I think that despite this moment, of greater requests, JollyGood is able to manage and evaluate who should or should not get a response.

In general, I just think that each of us should avoid involving others in their disagreements among other users. This is an open forum, with thousands of people from different cultures, interests and backgrounds, who are entitled to different opinions.

Fine and good.

However, what beggars explanation is why would a campaign manager accept a user who already had a neutral tag into their campaign but thereafter ask the user to find a way to get it removed? Why not reject the user in the first place? That's the supposed case with OP or that which I alluded to. If from the outset a user is rejected based on a tag, I don't think it will be much of an issue like what is being discussed now.

That has to be a campaign manager to answer.
I don't even want to be here to individualize the situation, because even the OP didn't do that.

What I just meant is that a neutral tag, even if it's neutral, can contain information that compromises a user. Then comes the question of whether or not this comment is fair, but that is already another question, which was not even called into question here.

It's easy: either archive the posts yourself before deleting them (use archive.org, archive.is or any of the alternatives), or use ninjastic.space (https://ninjastic.space/post/61501792) or loyce.club (https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6150/61501792.html) as reference if the unedited version suffices.

It's a case of I made a mistake it should have been this rule and the participant is the victim here, the managers should just let the campaign finish, and implement it on the manager's next campaign unless the campaign will last for years like the campaigns Hhampuz is managing but is it on the campaign rules that those with tagged need not apply because they will not get accepted in the campaign.
There are campaigns that specify that there should be this number of merits before you apply, some still apply and leave at the discretion of the manager because they believe they are qualified on the other requirements and let the manager decide if they are qualified or not, and most of the time they get accepted.

I understand members being contacted about asking to have negative feedback removed but being driven to such a state that they are having issues dealing with a neutral tag, that is highly unusual.

Not necessarily because I would counter that point of view with another view that is when an appropriate feedback is left, the giver does not have any obligation to periodically review them. It might be considered good practice if the one leaving feedback reviewed them periodically without compulsion but they could prefer to not and there is nothing wrong with it.

Perplexing is the apt word. Royse777 employed campaign participants knowing they had neutral feedback then encouraged them to try to have them removed.

Though I understand your angle on this type of situation, I think it would be inappropriate to dismiss a PM entirely because unless the request is reviewed it would be impossible to know whether it should be revised or removed. For example, if a PM was received asking for neutral/negative trust to be removed but the member had multiple tags (and/or a dubious history) I would probably follow your advice by adding to my PM ignore list otherwise there is a chance the feedback should be revised after reviewing.

Maybe there is a distinction made by managers between bounties and campaigns. I have known campaign managers to ignore negative and neutral tags and take on participants based on their posting or even other reasons. I hardly ever frequent bounty threads but from what I recall they were full of newbies (probably with many alt-accounts) trying to maximise anything they could earn.

This is true, I think unless there are exceptional circumstances even the member that received the feedback should not be asking for the feedback to be revised. In this case, the campaign manager (Royse777) did not approach me directly but rather asked the members to do so instead.

That is part of what campaign managers do when assessing which members to hire and which to reject.

I do not see pessimism in your post. You are definitely not a pessimistic person, all you did was to simply stated the obvious but you are probably right because in most (not all) cases covering tracks is what their motives are about.

The problem with accounts is that they take time to build up in order to be able to receive a $60+ weekly income via signature campaigns therefore there is a desire to try to get any sort of criticism (either neutral or negative) removed. If they cannot do that then sure they will probably go down the retaliatory route by giving revenge feedback and troll around for a while before getting bored and concentrating no their other farmed accounts.

------

I wanted to reply to the remaining members in this post but the comments have been very constructive and I appreciate them, therefore I will reply further in the next post.

You are not my boss to report you the process of my work.

To all who are thinking this new implementation is targeting a particular user then you are wrong, I am managing few campaigns right now, do your own research instead of just dropping few lines in any thread. Your response will be better constructive. My concern is the content of the feedback not who left it.

For conspiracy theorist on the forum, your freedom of speech is your right. But the truth is, either you are giving too much importance to that particular user or maybe even worse he is trying to use you all to get more attention. It seems he hadn't have enough yet.

@JollyGood, stop typing my name. Consider it a very polite request to you in public.

There are some excellent posts made here which deserve a reply, unfortunately when I found an utterly pointless post from Royse777 asking I do not type her name therefore had to address that inconvenience first. I will reply to the excellent posts in the next reply.



Royse777 is managing the sinbad.io campaign. Though something went wrong with the post which received the neutral tag for the OP in the other thread (the neutral tag deservedly has been removed), the second signature campaign applicant also was allowed on to the signature campaign with the neutral tag and it became a problem later. If it was a requirement from the campaign manager it should have not have been an issue after applicants were selected for campaigns. I also have never seen such a requirement before.

Perplexing is the apt word. Royse777 employed campaign participants knowing they had neutral feedback then encouraged them to try to have them removed.

What a pointless comment from you. Your name will be mentioned when asked by other to name or if needed in context. Just because yahoo62278 asked for his name to stop being used when you threw tantrums in the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam threads and mostly his request was adhere to, it does not mean you can simply ask members to stop typing your name.

In the OP and beyond I clearly avoided using your name but at some point members wanted to know which campaign manager would employ members with neutral feedback then encourage to try to have them removed on the basis it was affecting their chances of staying on the campaign. Poker Player seems to have summed up part of the issue with you and I am adding you back to my ignore list:

Go fuck and use your ignore button.

I don't think it's worth getting into personal wars. It's totally unnecessary.

I think we should all act with common sense, even when things don't go the way we'd like.

Even when you think a user hasn't been fair to us. I believe the best way to overcome this is to deal with it and try to work things out as best we can. If there is openness to dialogue, sincerity, honesty, things can be clarified.

These kind of personal wars are not good for the community. And it may affect third parties who have done nothing for this type of situation.

We don't have to like everyone or agree with everyone. But this forum grows based on the differences and freedoms of each one of us. And so, if it continues like this, Bitcointalk will continue to thrive.

So guys, exchange ideas and opinions, but never take these things personally and into a sawn-off war.


Remember there is one point we all have in common: Bitcoin!
If we do not agree on other points, remember that we agree on this one.  ;)

Ego has always been one of her weaknesses as well as anger management issues but I think there are some underhanded tactics going on when she is asking members to send PMs to try to have neutral tags removed, I think it is very strange to employ members first then ask them to try to have feedback removed later.

Those neutral tags you referred to that she received that were revised from red (because of the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam) should never have been changed in my opinion but each to their own, we are all entitled to our views.

Surely in that case a campaign manager would only take on a campaign participant if they met the desired criteria beforehand rather than employ them and then ask them to contact the ones that left neutral or negative tags.

Nothing has changed. At this moment, neutral tags are seen as they were years ago and can be left for a whole variety of reasons.

You are right on multiple fronts. We are all from differing backgrounds and have different takes on matters within the forum. About your neutral tag it was rightfully removed after reviewing but campaign managers taking on participants first and then asking participants to try to have their feedback removed/revised as a condition of staying within the campaign is (to my knowledge) unheard of.

Thank you. The point you made sums up the basis of the thread. It does beggar belief that a situation like this could arise and the one causing the commotion is a campaign manager who has already taken on participants based on what their feedback states yet afterwards has issue.

Without a doubt you are right. Any feedback that is left regardless of it being positive, neutral or negative should be detailed as well as have a reference link.

This makes complete sense if applied by campaign managers during the campaign itself but if members already have neutral or negative feedback before they have been selected to join then campaign managers should not be telling participants they can be removed from the campaign unless they try to have the feedback removed.

What a brilliant post to end the thread with, thank you for such an enlightening positive post.

I will lock this thread now and will probably only unlock it if a particular situation arises. Thank you to all that post their views.