It is trust rating, not message. It doesn't mean feedback is spam just because comment was copy/pasted. For example:
It might look like a spam but there is really nothing more or less to write in each profile. 50 users advertising ponzi scheme - all 50 get the same feedback, writing each one for each user and changing word or two is very time consuming and actually makes no difference. If I, for example, have sent all these ratings without proper reference link to random accounts, in that case this could maybe be considered as spam, but very likely as trust abuse. Seeing "account sellers are not to be trusted" my logic tells me that user has tried to sell bitcointalk account, the same as "account buyers..." for forum account buyers. Of course, there should be reference link - without it feedback is pretty much pointless.. Anyway, account trades have already been discussed several times so I won't start another discussion about it. Take a note that many forum accounts have been sold and used to scam(and spam), many forum accounts have also been stolen/hacked from owners and sold.
To me this list of yours is completely different, as you left
feedback directly to the user:
"Advertising ponzi scheme in signature". This makes it clear that the user you left feedback to was advertising a ponzi scheme in signature, while I'd assume the reference is the evidence (although I don't need to check for this example). This is different to leaving an opinion or ideology "Account buyers/sellers are not to be trusted". This isn't feedback, it's opinionated spam, and should be instead commented in the thread in question (by whoever wants to be repeatedly spamming this ideology). My point is that feedback should be feedback directed at the user, for example: "User queried buying an account. Account buyers are not to be trusted". The difference here is that there is feedback directed at the user, followed by the opinion of the user who left the feedback.
I really don't understand what's so difficult to comprehend here without pulling up definitions of
feedback and
opinions.
There's obviously nothing wrong with opinionated feedback, as long as there's actually feedback to the user in the first place. I do understand however that people struggle with languages, so it's probably worth referencing the concept of a Point, Evidence, Explanation (PEE) sentence structure, in order to avoid users leaving "feedback" with no evidence or explanation.
I know we all make mistakes as we are not robots but that should really be updated with correct reference links @TP.
I agree everyone makes mistakes, no-one is perfect, myself included. It's just a shame when these mistakes are systematic as opposed to occasional human error.
