tbearhere community reaction

[tbearhere]

@yahoo62278
Need I get an international lawyer ? To solve this false accusations?

Looks like it. I took the no trust off...He will be contacting you.

Why are you talking to yourself?

5) result is: you are a newbie here and have zer information about bitcointalk forum.

6) Moral: Surf the forum properly first. Before joining any campaign (actually before buying account)

It doesn't surprise me quite frankly. It is probably just one of the reasons for which account sales should be banned and tagged on sight. Newbies need to work their way up, just like any reasonable user did (as one acquires certain knowledge along the way).
Posting those private messages, or that list of trust ratings (?) from somewhere was pointless.

I double quoted myself for a reason. Sorry. And I'm not a newbie. Thank you.

[tbearhere]

Just ignore him/her. It's just another random spammer that is unable to read, understand and follow the campaign rules.

Back when I used to manage campaigns, there were a lot of users that lacked a single posts to receive payments for those periods but even though I felt sorry for them, I had no choice to deny them and what you've done in this case is completely correct and based on the campaign rules itself.

That's the only correct way handle something like that. Rules are rules, and should be bent by no one and for no one.

Not sure why a lot of "Legendary" members don't follow, read and understand rules and it's very annoying (given that they've been here the longest).

This is why an activity based system is misleading and wrong. People should either only selectively get 'promoted' to such a rank or selectively get demoted based on their actions/knowledge.

And a bought/sold high ranked account should suddenly turn into newbie. Because it actually become newbie. I'm pretty much sure that is a bought account.

Nope been here for 3 yrs. Here is my thread.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1553513.0
And I usually talk here. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=826901.new#new
On the sp ccminer link I contribute alot to sp for his builds. They nick named me the double poster sometimes because I quote myself because people sometimes don't read back in the thread.

[darklus123]

This is really the main reason why i also do wanted to end the trust system. According to lauda admins should only select who ever gets promoted i would have to disagree with that one instead i would like that DT should be moderated(my idea is that there should be a moderator that will testify about tagging a certain user)

[Lauda]

I double quoted myself for a reason. Sorry. And I'm not a newbie. Thank you.

Then I do not understand why you are constantly breaking the rules with consecutive posts, if you're not a newbie.

This is really the main reason why i also do wanted to end the trust system.

Until you are able to propose a better system, it will and should stay.

According to lauda admins should only select who ever gets promoted i would have to disagree with that one instead i would like that DT should be moderated(my idea is that there should be a moderator that will testify about tagging a certain user)

My suggestion has nothing to do with DT. It's about user ranks.

[darklus123]

Until you are able to propose a better system, it will and should stay.

As i have stated above i want it to be moderated like during the tagging there should be a moderator who hereby witnessed. That does sound better IMO tho.

My suggestion has nothing to do with DT. It's about user ranks.

Yup,  that is why i said that i would disagree with you on that terms.

[Lauda]

As i have stated above i want it to be moderated like during the tagging there should be a moderator who hereby witnessed. That does sound better IMO tho.

Some flaws:
1) Unfeasible without another whole group of staff members (problems on it's own: Who to pick? How to finance them? et al.).
2) Prone to corruption.
3) Prone to abuse.

2-3 is what the current group is susceptible to (however, with rating negation, exclusions and simple removals it is less so). A moderator 'witnessing' a trust rating makes said trust rating no more valid, then DT1/DT2 members witnessing it. It's actually better to have a plethora of people be able to review and act upon it.

Yup,  that is why i said that i would disagree with you on that terms.

This actually indirectly supports account sales, farming and all kinds of other nonsense. However, we should not be discussing this separately within this thread as we would move away from the topic. Do you not agree on this negative rating to the user in question or?

[darklus123]

Some flaws:
1) Unfeasible without another whole group of staff members (problems on it's own: Who to pick? How to finance them? et al.).
2) Prone to corruption.
3) Prone to abuse.

2-3 is what the current group is susceptible to (however, with rating negation, exclusions and simple removals it is less so). A moderator 'witnessing' a trust rating makes said trust rating no more valid, then DT1/DT2 members witnessing it. It's actually better to have a plethora of people be able to review and act upon it.

Abuse already is happening anyways, this may also lead to corruption but for me this is not about how are we going to eliminate corruption yet to lessen those,

It's actually better to have a plethora of people be able to review and act upon it.

then that may sound much better

~snip
 Do you not agree on this negative rating to the user in question or?

Yup, I definitely disagree that OP is given a  negative trust when doing its job (that's sounds not fair  IMO)

[tbearhere]

I double quoted myself for a reason. Sorry. And I'm not a newbie. Thank you.

Then I do not understand why you are constantly breaking the rules with consecutive posts, if you're not a newbie.

This is really the main reason why i also do wanted to end the trust system.

Until you are able to propose a better system, it will and should stay.

According to lauda admins should only select who ever gets promoted i would have to disagree with that one instead i would like that DT should be moderated(my idea is that there should be a moderator that will testify about tagging a certain user)

My suggestion has nothing to do with DT. It's about user ranks.

Sorry Lauda. I'm not constantly breaking the rules. That only happened a couple of times in 3 years.  And I'm not a newbie. Thank You.

[royalfestus]

I am the least ranked to make any comment on this thread but I like to say I am part of the byteball campaign and was also not paid last week, and I dont deserve to be paid. I struggled to make enough posts because achow gave me some advice when I seek him, to make better post so as to improve.Then I was making more post but need to improve, my post wasnt this whack either. Gave me advice on the choice of thread to post, sensible ones and not long commented threads.Avoid wordy statements that can look spammy. I should make more posts also bitcoin discussion threads.Sincerely yahoo62278 is not that insensitive as people say, Just abiding by the rules. This week I got my pay without excuses/complain. Rank does not qualify one to break the rule.

[tbearhere]

Not that i need to justify my trust to this user but i do want to prove a point or 2 with this thread. User tbearhere was in the byteball campaign for a few weeks. He failed to qualify for any of the weeks of participation in this campaign. That wouldve been around 12/13 when i did the post counts. 5 days later this guy decides to give me a little color in my profile.(im ok with it and im not posting this to cry)



Now, i know trust isnt moderated and im not asking anyone to remove this. I just want to show this user and you the community hes a vindictive piece of work and you should avoid him if trading or adding him to a sig campaign.

Upon seeing this feedback i went back over the spreadsheet to see what notes i had on the guy and find the reason he may have tagged me. Mistakes happen im human, so i decided to have a look. Heres the notes i had for him.



Now, the rules for that campaign state a user needs 30 qualifying posts in the week to qualify for payment. Obv he had 26 posts falling short of the goal. If you take a look at the quality that week(dec 6th-12th) youll see









I could go on but you get the point. This is another 5-6 posts of his 26 he would not have gotten credit for. Also if youll notice most if not all of these comments were in the same damn thread. This is the same for the previous weeks he was in campaign as well.

Apparently he feels like he is owed pay for that week i guess. All im saying is this is not constructive posting and this will not get you paid. If you dont do as this guy wants he obv gets all righteous and tags ya so id steer clear of the guy if you have any sense. (by steer clear i dont mean be afraid. just dont do business with him or have him in your campaigns)

It's funny that you look so hard for some shorter posts and not my higher quality posts.
And again that 0 is something you left alone, it's not a meter so you could put anything you want.

[tbearhere]

I am the least ranked to make any comment on this thread but I like to say I am part of the byteball campaign and was also not paid last week, and I dont deserve to be paid. I struggled to make enough posts because achow gave me some advice when I seek him, to make better post so as to improve.Then I was making more post but need to improve, my post wasnt this whack either. Gave me advice on the choice of thread to post, sensible ones and not long commented threads.Avoid wordy statements that can look spammy. I should make more posts also bitcoin discussion threads.Sincerely yahoo62278 is not that insensitive as people say, Just abiding by the rules. This week I got my pay without excuses/complain. Rank does not qualify one to break the rule.

Now see that's a good quality post. It's not about rank or breaking the rules on my part. It's about him not paying me for 2 of 3 weeks. It about him breaking the rules of not paying me. Just look at his trust ratings by clicking on the trust under his name. You will see so many people got scammed by him. Thank You. 
As far as I'm concerned, I'll take that negative trust rating off as soon as he takes it off me.
I really don't care that much about a negative trust on me because everyone on the threads I'm on knows me and I make donations and do so little trading. Thank You. 

[Lauda]

Now see that's a good quality post. It's not about rank or breaking the rules on my part.

You didn't meet the minimum required number of qualifying posts.

It's about him not paying me for 2 of 3 weeks. It about him breaking the rules of not paying me.

That is not a rule of any kind, and he does not have to pay you if you weren't doing your "job" properly.

Just look at his trust ratings by clicking on the trust under his name. You will see so many people got scammed by him. Thank You.  

Wrong. I do not see a single valid negative rating from anyone who doesn't have at least 1 negative rating themselves. All I see is just a bunch of whining users.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll take that negative trust rating off as soon as he takes it off me.

Extortion?

[tbearhere]

Now see that's a good quality post. It's not about rank or breaking the rules on my part.

You didn't meet the minimum required number of qualifying posts.

It's about him not paying me for 2 of 3 weeks. It about him breaking the rules of not paying me.

That is not a rule of any kind, and he does not have to pay you if you weren't doing your "job" properly.

Just look at his trust ratings by clicking on the trust under his name. You will see so many people got scammed by him. Thank You.  

Wrong. I do not see a single valid negative rating from anyone who doesn't have at least 1 negative rating themselves. All I see is just a bunch of whining users.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll take that negative trust rating off as soon as he takes it off me.

Extortion?

Nope thief on his part yahoo.
And why are you defending him so much and not me. Look at his background.

[SFR10]

Just look at his trust ratings by clicking on the trust under his name. You will see so many people got scammed by him. Thank You.  

Clearly your mixing his "Sent feedback" with his "received feedback" since you copy pasted his sent feedback (as if those feedback's are for his account): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1722426.msg17251550#msg17251550 and http://archive.is/aJoZQ (#16)

Here's a simple tutorial:

As far as I'm concerned, I'll take that negative trust rating off as soon as he takes it off me.

You're the one who left the negative rating first, so have the decency to delete it first. The more time you waste for getting into yahoo62278's head, the lesser chance you get for getting the negative rating down.

Nope thief on his part yahoo.

Nope, it's you failing to read the campaign rules and obeying them.

And why are you defending him so much and not me. Look at his background.

His (were) defending him since his correct and you're wrong. Again please read the above screenshot I made so you could actually know about his background.

[freebutcaged]

Are DT members leaving feed back comments only on members they have traded with and dealt with or if someone asks them to be a judge in a situation they give negative trust if the case is legit? since only DT feed back comments shows whether red or be it green.

[Lauda]

Are DT members leaving feed back comments only on members they have traded with and dealt with or if someone asks them to be a judge in a situation they give negative trust if the case is legit?

You don't have to have a single trade with anyone to leave them a rating. The system is a web of trust, not a web of trades.