Wrong decision?

[marlboroza]

I tagged account cryptohunter with comment, if I recall, "Annoying troll. This user has mental issues. Avoid.." but feedback was countered and other users, whose opinions I always like to hear, directly and/or indirectly didn't agree with it and I finally change it to neutral:

I will change it to neutral when i am home. I wont change my opinion of you being nothing but anoying troll who is making baseless assumptions and lying that people are stalking you and other things you mentioned during your last few weeks in meta and reputation which i see as trolling. [...]

Please vote, this bugs me for some time.

[suchmoon]

FWIW I think you did the right thing revising that feedback to neutral in that context.

However seeing the annoying troll hasn't learned even a bit from that experience and is continuing the lies and bullshit I'm not going to waste my time petitioning TMAN and Lauda to do the same. And if you want to re-post your neg with a revised reference and comment that's fine too. The only reason I opposed your rating back then was that it seemed to originate from a misunderstanding even though the troll never really admitted it.

Not sure how to vote now LOL

[The Sceptical Chymist]

More negative trust to him just gives him more fuel for his fire--trolling is what the ignore button is for.  Everyone still keeps feeding him, which is why he's still posting like a madman.  A lot of the attacks are personal, but I'd probably go with the ignore button and thick-skin approach, especially if you're on DT.  I think pretty much everyone realizes what he's writing is lunatic fringe stuff, so I wouldn't bother with the red trust.  Neutral is more appropriate if anything needs to be said on his trust wall, IMO.

[Timelord2067]

I wouldn't worry about it - if my suspicions were a little more concrete, I probably would have given negative trust as opposed to neutral.

You're showing as at the moment while I'm showing and

[MadZ]

Being a moron doesn't necessarily make someone a scammer. I think a neutral, at most, is a appropriate, if only to protect your own sanity from the endless vitriol you'd have to endure should you go further.

[S_Therapist]

I too think that you shouldn't give him negative feedback. Simply you can hit the report button if it seems trolling to you since forum doesn't feed troll.

3. No trolling

A lot of the attacks are personal, but I'd probably go with the ignore button and thick-skin approach, especially if you're on DT.

Agreed. I had also a same kinda issue with cryptohunter. After that I never replied to his thread or replies, as far as I remember. It's better to keep quite than arguing which will never give an output. By the way, I didn't put him on my ignore list though. Most of the times, I just skip his post.

[Lauda]

Being a moron doesn't necessarily make someone a scammer.

We don't hand out negative ratings only to confirmed scammers now, do we? If OP does end up changing it to negative, at least some of the fiery walls of text will be directed away from me.

[LoyceV]

I don't tag users for (extreme) trolling or for being very annoying, but I also don't mind if others do it.
I have him on ignore, so I don't see the same BS wall of text over and over again, and I've excluded him in my trust list. His current red trust acts as a warning to others that it's a waste of time interacting with him.