An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)

[suchmoon]

Of course, it is not appropriate and I have admitted it many times. The system has been shown to work on my example, but why doesn't it work on the example of many other DT members who leave similar negative feedbacks and have no problems because of it? As in real life, rules exist but are applied differently to different people.

That still doesn't make it right. If some users are doing questionable things here it doesn't mean you should to. Besides there are many examples of DT members and other users removing or revising inappropriate feedback, not to mention vast majority of them not using red trust against spammers to begin with. That would be the example to follow if you must.

[1714498351]

1714498351

[Lucius]

a challenge for you to check all DT1/2 members and their inappropriate feedbacks, due to which only a few were publicly named, but without any consequences.

There's a lot of those, partially because theymos changed the feedback descriptions when Flags were introduced and older feedback doesn't always fit the current description. And partially because many people leave feedback I don't agree with. I can't automate this, and I don't want to manually check tens of thousands of feedbacks. But if one pops up (like in your case), I share my opinion. Sometimes people change their mind, sometimes they don't.
Note that I haven't excluded (or included) you over this. I don't agree with all feedbacks for most people, so my Trust list is only based on the majority of their feedback.

There is a first time for everything, so some things are a challenge for you too - but maybe you better not open that pandora box because you could find very awkward things about how some DT1/2 members use their feedbacks. The rules exist, but they don’t apply to everyone - if I can’t be a DT member because of my feedback, how is it possible that dozens of others don’t have any problems because of it? The answer is simple, I am not a member of any gang

[marlboroza]

The answer is simple, I am not a member of any gang

The gang card! But the answer is much simpler than that, forum members don't trust your judgement.
You have 8 pages of people telling you that this is wrong use of trust system. If I were you, I would start reading this topic again

[Lucius]

The answer is simple, I am not a member of any gang

The gang card! But the answer is much simpler than that, forum members don't trust your judgement.
You have 8 pages of people telling you that this is wrong use of trust system. If I were you, I would start reading this topic again

I was wondering when you will appear and spill some of your wisdom - and for you as well as for others who enforce the laws of the forum by choosing to whom you will apply them or not I say once again to review at least all DT1 members and their negative feedbacks. At least you met your daily quota and got merit, two flies with one blow

[marlboroza]

I was wondering when you will appear and spill some of your wisdom - and for you as well as for others who enforce the laws of the forum by choosing to whom you will apply them or not I say once again to review at least all DT1 members and their negative feedbacks. At least you met your daily quota and got merit, two flies with one blow

Quoted for reference.

[HCP]

At least you met your daily quota and got merit, two flies with one blow

First you play the "gang card", then you go for "sig spam"... while wearing a sig... well played!

At the end of the day, how you want to use the trust ratings is up to you, just don't expect others to agree with you... and judging by the replies in this thread, it would appear that you are in the minority thinking that "spammers" deserve red trust.

To clarify my thoughts on this, red trust was designed as a trading/financial risk indicator... for spammers, the best tool is "report to moderator" on offending posts.

[deisik]

At least you met your daily quota and got merit, two flies with one blow

First you play the "gang card", then you go for "sig spam"... while wearing a sig... well played!

I would prequel this with "how low did this forum go" and then throw to the mix "it is not appropriate and I have admitted it many times". Feels a little schizophrenic if you ask me, but adds some spice

At the end of the day, how you want to use the trust ratings is up to you, just don't expect others to agree with you... and judging by the replies in this thread, it would appear that you are in the minority thinking that "spammers" deserve red trust

The irony is that the red trust has nothing to do with the so-called "spamming" or me "increasing post number by replying individually to each post" (which was also shown to be mostly incorrect anyway). For the time being, the inquiring minds could search around my posts about the date the red trust in question had been added (it's all there)

And I will post a link later

[Lucius]

marlboroza, are you happy now? You finally got a reason to leave me feedback, I know I wish you had a reason it could have been negative, but I hope this neutral brightened your day too

First you play the "gang card", then you go for "sig spam"... while wearing a sig... well played!

I was actually referring to belonging to one of these gangs -> Gangs of BitcoinTalk It was supposed to be a sarcastic post, like the one he post before - but if someone is looking for a reason to see negativity in something, they will always find a way to do it.

[hacker1001101001]

marlboroza, are you happy now? You finally got a reason to leave me feedback, I know I wish you had a reason it could have been negative, but I hope this neutral brightened your day too

Bullshit by marlboroza and a nice show of how a gang works.

marlboroza   2020-11-04   Reference   In mostly off topic reply, user accused me that I post to "met my daily quota", which is one big lie.

This world is full of ego !

( Note : I don't agree with the negative feedback on the OP )

[marlboroza]

marlboroza, are you happy now? You finally got a reason to leave me feedback, I know I wish you had a reason it could have been negative, but I hope this neutral brightened your day too

It is nice to see that my neutral feedback opened your eyes and you just agreed that negative is unjustified and neutral is appropriate use of trust system    

Now do the right thing and change that negative feedback to neutral.

I don't agree with the negative feedback on the OP

Look, not even fraudulent ICO bumping shitposting account agrees with you.

[dkbit98]

...

Should we expect one more topic called 'MMM is a signature spammer by LLL', or that right is only reserved for individuals with special needs?

Maybe theymos should add special DTL members, trusted by everyone even after everyone is telling them they are using trust system in a wrong way.
DTL member never change a feedback.
DTL member is always right.
DTL above everyone.

DTL
DT1
DT2
DT3

[Lucius]

It is nice to see that my neutral feedback opened your eyes and you just agreed that negative is unjustified and neutral is appropriate use of trust system    
Now do the right thing and change that negative feedback to neutral.

I have never claimed that the way I used feedback is correct, and I have repeatedly admitted that I am fully aware that that feedback should have been neutral. If deisik had responded appropriately and sent me only one PM I would have surely changed it - but he was just asking DT members to react and leave negative feedback to me. I still don’t think it’s normal for someone to make 200 posts a week and reach that number in a way that responds to each post individually instead of using the multi-quote option.

Since it's been a long time and I don't want any more discussion on this topic, I will not change the feedback from negative to neutral, but I will delete it completely - and I will just say that I completely agree with what DarkStar_ wrote as his feedback.

However, I believe that all people make mistakes sometimes, and that deisik can change and become a valuable member of the forum if he wants to.

Should we expect one more topic called 'MMM is a signature spammer by LLL', or that right is only reserved for individuals with special needs?

You shouldn’t expect any new thread that someone is a signature spammer, I didn’t even leave feedback to marlboroza, and he is removed his feedback so all is resolved.  On the other hand, you did not show the slightest desire to resolve our dispute, but in a very ugly way you only decided to make the situation worse. I have been staying away from you ever since, but I see that you still have a need to attack me for some reason. For your information, I have known marlboroza since he was a Newbie on this forum, and despite the fact that we may not think the same in every situation, I respect him like all other forum members who have earned that respect over time.

[dkbit98]

You shouldn’t expect any new thread that someone is a signature spammer, I didn’t even leave feedback to marlboroza, and he is removed his feedback so all is resolved.  On the other hand, you did not show the slightest desire to resolve our dispute, but in a very ugly way you only decided to make the situation worse. I have been staying away from you ever since, but I see that you still have a need to attack me for some reason. For your information, I have known marlboroza since he was a Newbie on this forum, and despite the fact that we may not think the same in every situation, I respect him like all other forum members who have earned that respect over time.

Nobody ever attacked you and it was not me who started creating bogus fake lying & crying topics, and calling other people jealous and envious.

You clearly have some issues, and you want other members to respect you and beg you for something (including deisik that still have negative feedback and all croatian community) but you will not get that from me.

I also didn't ask you for reply, but I replied to Marlboroza post and asked him the question, not you

Anyway, peace, I don't want to fight with anyone here.

[marlboroza]

Should we expect one more topic called 'MMM is a signature spammer by LLL', or that right is only reserved for individuals with special needs?

Nah, after the "gang" card and the "signature spam" card, Lucius pulled out "it was sarcasm" card so it is OK then. Besides, I need to call him "sig spammer", then he will create topic about me, it doesn't work the other way 
@deisik, as this is resolved, can you please lock topic? And, it wouldn't be so bad thing to remove that retaliatory feedback which you placed on Lucius's trust page.

[Lucius]

You clearly have some issues, and you want other members to respect you and beg you for something (including deisik that still have negative feedback and all croatian community) but you will not get that from me.

More than 5 years on this forum and only issue I have is with deisik and you, so if that's a problem then I don't know what you would think of some other cases. I did not ask anyone for anything, nor do I ask for any special status on the forum, and I admit that I was wrong to react to your and another member's statement that my posts are just filling the quota of posts for the signature campaign. But on the other hand, it’s not nice at all to imply someone to write their posts just to meet a daily or weekly quota.

As for the Croatian community, only two members have a problem with me - the others are completely correct and I am not in any conflict with them.

[deisik]

I have never claimed that the way I used feedback is correct, and I have repeatedly admitted that I am fully aware that that feedback should have been neutral. If deisik had responded appropriately and sent me only one PM I would have surely changed it - but he was just asking DT members to react and leave negative feedback to me

Stop playing victim here

You broke the rules, admitted it, and still assume I should be contacting you? You certainly lack something in your understanding about life

@deisik, as this is resolved, can you please lock topic? And, it wouldn't be so bad thing to remove that retaliatory feedback which you placed on Lucius's trust page

Removed, locked