To all DT1 members | Interesting negative feedback from JollyGood!

[Kalemder]

@Trendcoin certainly does not deserve such a negative feedback. Actually it is ridiculous in the negative post. Other negative feedback written by @Jolly is also unfair. (@BitcoinTurk, @muslol67, @DragonDance etc.) Also He previously wrote unfairly negative to @Gospodin. @marlboroza objected to this situation. And the negative has been deleted.

If his was a normal user, we would just ignore it. But he has DT1 power. I condemn anyone who has a weak judiciary, an injustice, and supports a cruel member. I call out to the members who added it to the list.



JollyGood's judgement is Trusted by:
1. Vod (Trust: +29 / =2 / -3) (DT1! (21) 1583 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. DiamondCardz (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) (91 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. peloso (Trust: +2 / =3 / -4) (DT1 (-15) 171 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. Coinfan (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (46 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. Lauda (Trust: +34 / =4 / -1) (1640 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
6. digit (Trust: neutral) (8 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
7. allyouracid (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (171 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
8. stompix (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (1119 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
9. Avirunes (Trust: +11 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (12) 357 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
10. mindrust (Trust: neutral) (DT1 (-3) 1030 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
11. dopey (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (6 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
12. SiNeReiNZzz (Trust: neutral) (28 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
13. DaveF (Trust: +22 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (9) 844 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
14. owlcatz (Trust: +45 / =0 / -1) (DT1! (21) 350 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
15. examplens (Trust: +2 / =3 / -0) (DT1! (7) 220 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
16. nutildah (Trust: +7 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (16) 2381 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
17. LFC_Bitcoin (Trust: +16 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (13) 2399 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
18. psycodad (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (212 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
19. TwitchySeal (Trust: +6 / =1 / -0) (641 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
20. vlom (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (113 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
21. JaredKaragen (Trust: neutral) (158 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
22. eddie13 (Trust: +1 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (9) 988 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
23. Slow death (Trust: +3 / =1 / -0) (322 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
24. IconFirm (Trust: +1 / =2 / -0) (63 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
25. johnsmithx (Trust: +0 / =2 / -1) (7 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
26. blurryeyed (Trust: +1 / =5 / -1) (18 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
27. CryptopreneurBrainboss (Trust: +2 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (12) 1341 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
28. mosprognoz (Trust: +6 / =2 / -0) (175 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
29. KTChampions (Trust: +6 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (4) 905 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
30. invincible49 (Trust: neutral) (91 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
31. logfiles (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (7) 661 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
32. tvplus006 (Trust: +14 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (16) 1239 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
33. witcher_sense (Trust: +15 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (22) 1440 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
34. darcon_pr (Trust: neutral) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
35. Coolcryptovator (Trust: +16 / =1 / -0) (1283 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
36. lovesmayfamilis (Trust: +17 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (14) 1208 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
37. cryptobenn (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (1 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
38. TalkStar (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (9) 578 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
39. Little Mouse (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (289 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
40. zasad@ (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (11) 1123 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
41. NotATether (Trust: neutral) (256 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
42. villain_Mr.Burns (Trust: +0 / =1 / -2) (1 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)


Do not trust this user (@JollyGood) who abuses the system and sabotages him with anger.

If you don't trust a user or their judgment, add it to your disttrust list. If a user is a scammer, give him a negative. Don't forget to add the evidence. Members who do not follow these simple rules should not have DT power.

[JollyGood]

Yes Loyce, you are well aware I respect and trust you and a couple of users in the forum. One of them sent me a PM asking me to reconsider the original feedback which I said I would.

The original feedback has been revised to neutral though it can be revised back to red if any circumstances arise.

Thank you all for your concern and participating in this thread  

Since JollyGood trusts my judgement, I'll respond here:

[actmyname]

Yes Loyce, you are well aware I respect and trust you and a couple of users in the forum. One of them sent me a PM asking me to reconsider the original feedback which I said I would.

Glad to see some level-headed decision-making.

There may be hope yet for the forum.

If his was a normal user, we would just ignore it. But he has DT1 power. I condemn anyone who has a weak judiciary, an injustice, and supports a cruel member. I call out to the members who added it to the list.

Those are a lot of buzzwords you're tossing around. As an aside, I think it's important for all users to leave accurate feedback because conditioning users to adopt the DefaultTrust network as a centralized trust list is the opposite of what we should do. ALL users should be leaving neutral and negative feedback accordingly, and though the impact of individual feedback has been lessened due to the trust changes over the years, I would still advocate for seldom use of the positive feedback feature.

I don't like to use ad-hominem attacks either, but is there any specific reason you're seeking out this apparent vendetta? Apart from getting a negative for the whole "sending merit to yourself" thing.

[Bthd]

Yes Loyce, you are well aware I respect and trust you and a couple of users in the forum. One of them sent me a PM asking me to reconsider the original feedback which I said I would.

The original feedback has been revised to neutral though it can be revised back to red if any circumstances arise.

Thank you all for your concern and participating in this thread  

Since JollyGood trusts my judgement, I'll respond here:

Other negative feedbacks which has same reference link are still active. All feedbacks was same but you only neutralized one of them, really ?   (@BitcoinTurk, @muslol67)

Your reference links:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200529232531/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225711.msg53851746#msg53851746
https://web.archive.org/web/20200706153350/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225711.msg53865312

[trendcoin]

Thank you to everyone who contributed to the issue and solved the simple mistake.

thank you JollyGood. I can accept everyone in my world as they are. I accept you as someone who cannot distinguish between black and white. Dear members of the forum said the mistake. you finally distinguished black and white, you did the right thing. Well done. I hope you can make the right decisions alone, and you can distinguish between black and white alone. I hope you can achieve this.

I also thank the barcelona club and thank you to the big boss @theymos who turned the forum into a circus.


this is my truth-based neutral feedback.

unable to distinguish between black and white. Relying on the decisions of someone who cannot make such simple distinctions can create enormous chaos. look, there is a topic here that he receives advice from valuable members of the forum to distinguish black and white. please be careful. black and white are simple concepts.

[LoyceV]

revised to neutral

Great!

neutral feedback.

Also great!

This is what I consider correct use of feedback. To quote myself:

Neutral (shown as =1)

• Use Neutral feedback for anything that doesn't mean someone can or can't be trusted. This can be good feedback, for instance when someone helped you out.
• I think Neutral Feedback is currently undervalued on Bitcointalk. It's a great tool to de-escalate without drastic consequences. Please use it when appropriate.

[TalkStar]

The original feedback has been revised to neutral though it can be revised back to red if any circumstances arise.

Yeah why not, Trust system has given you the power to apply and change it whenever its necessary. Specially if you think you need to change this for community users safety in the future then i don't see nothing wrong there.

By the way, thanks for the reconsideration. 

"OP" You can lock this topic now.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

The OP doesn't deserve red trust. Ignore - fine. Excluding from trust lists - probably advisable. Red trust due to posting in Vispilio's thread? No. That looks like red trust for an opinion.

Agreed.  I'm not saying JollyGood is wrong in what he's saying (I actually don't know the facts so I don't have an opinion) but ignoring and/or excluding seem like better options for him to take.

Also, I don't think this issue reflects on DT as a whole.  You don't see a lot of negs being left for differing opinions these days, and you're seeing DT members disagree with another DT member for doing that right here. 

Looks like this has been resolved, which is surprising to me but refreshing.

[JollyGood]

The original feedback has been revised to neutral though it can be revised back to red if any circumstances arise.

Yeah why not, Trust system has given you the power to apply and change it whenever its necessary. Specially if you think you need to change this for community users safety in the future then i don't see nothing wrong there.

By the way, thanks for the reconsideration.  

"OP" You can lock this topic now.

Thank you for your comments TalkStar. I revised the feedback simply because LoyceV posted here and because a highly respected member sent a PM asking me to reconsider, I could not say "no" either of them as I have a very high regard and respect for them.

For what it is worth the red trust for the OP was actually valid in my opinion because to me (maybe not to others) it seemed like he was shilling more (and promoting less) Vispilio and his so-called campaign management service knowing full and well the highly volatile, highly aggressive, highly divisive and highly profanity-laden posts Vispilio has made in the past. Vispilio is the complete antithesis of what a competent regular average user of this forum should be like and anybody promoting his 'services' should not be trusted especially when glancing at the manner in which maybe some merits have been given.

In my opinion it is clear that anybody with even an iota of grey matter in their head would never be able to recommend Vispilio to anybody except to a doctor specialising in psychiatric issues - but to save this drama from getting more attention then it deserved I decided to simply nip it in the bud. The OP is still added to IGNORE list as he deserves nothing else in my view.

The OP doesn't deserve red trust. Ignore - fine. Excluding from trust lists - probably advisable. Red trust due to posting in Vispilio's thread? No. That looks like red trust for an opinion.

Agreed.  I'm not saying JollyGood is wrong in what he's saying (I actually don't know the facts so I don't have an opinion) but ignoring and/or excluding seem like better options for him to take.

Also, I don't think this issue reflects on DT as a whole.  You don't see a lot of negs being left for differing opinions these days, and you're seeing DT members disagree with another DT member for doing that right here.  

Looks like this has been resolved, which is surprising to me but refreshing.

Thank you for your feedback The Pharmacist. Yes this situation has been resolved.

I am a very approachable person, if someone wants to send a PM and ask me to reconsider or would like me explain various things to me in order to change feedback to include/exclude on my Trust list I am very happy to engage with users. The OP should have sent me a PM but as a first step of resolution but decided to attention-seek but it was a pointless exercise because after two highly respected DT1 members asked me to revising my feedback I was going to do it.

[trendcoin]

yes, mr.jolygood has finally come to answer the issue. after a full day. he thought for a day and realized that there were some differences between black and white. I don't want to deal with psychiatric experiences and thoughts that are based on strange inferences about people. After a full day, I thank him for coming and answering. we have resolved a simple and unnecessary issue that is time consuming, with your permission I lock the issue. I wish you all a good day.

I am not blocking anyone, there is room for everyone in my free world understanding. Have a nice day again.

edit: I was advised to lock the subject before. I locked the subject because I thought it was a requirement. Now I learned that there is no such obligation. There is a "false claim" that we are a group. I remove the lock so that everyone can express themselves and serve to correct this mistake.

[BitcoinTurk]

Unfortunately, I have the same problem as well, although I did not deserve the mentioned person applied me a red trust feedback. As the aforementioned person claims, I am not part of a trolled community, I have never done merit begging or trading, and I have never done anything that would shake the "Trust" system.

Last night, I sent a private message to the member @JollyGood about this incident and asked him to remove this negative feedback he had applied to me. He said that he would definitely not step back and remove this feedback he had sent unfairly. He also said that when I create a topic about this situation, other DT members will also send a red trust statement to me. I want to ask him one more time from here.

Could you please remove this red trust?

I am waiting for the support of all other DT members if there is a negative answer. I am someone who has done a lot of work in our local forum and has helped many people by producing their own content. I think I do not deserve this negative notification sent for such manipulative and invalid reasons.

[AB de Royse777]

I am waiting for the support of all other DT members if there is a negative answer. I am someone who has done a lot of work in our local forum and has helped many people by producing their own content. I think I do not deserve this negative notification sent for such manipulative and invalid reasons.

It's the same feedback I see that was left for the OP.
I will say this is another invalid feedback and Jolly needs to change it. It's not good to hear about the same case again and again against a user.

[dragonvslinux]

I am waiting for the support of all other DT members if there is a negative answer. I am someone who has done a lot of work in our local forum and has helped many people by producing their own content. I think I do not deserve this negative notification sent for such manipulative and invalid reasons.

It's the same feedback I see that was left for the OP.
I will say this is another invalid feedback and Jolly needs to change it. It's not good to hear about the same case again and again against a user.

Only just noticed this topic being unlocked, I referenced this issue in the other topic:

What about the others though that I referenced above as well as PM'd you about?



Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1016855

References:
1. https://web.archive.org/web/20200529232531/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225711.msg53851746#msg53851746
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5252627.0
3. https://web.archive.org/save/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225711.msg53865312#msg53865312
4. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5252627.0

In references 1&3, there are no references to "merit abuse and fake trust circle" in the referenced posts that endorses Vispilio's campaign services.
In references 2&4, there are no mention of promoting Vispilio in the referenced post. What does Vispilio have to do with these users?

Ultimately it's up to you how you leave your feedback, but referencing your allegations is always a good start, as it's strengthens your feedback.
Surely there isn't the need for another 4 topics to clear this up. You're 33% there now, you're doing great.

I'm really hoping we don't need 6 topics for this 

[Bthd]

This would be related to this unresolved situation: Re: To all DT1 members | Interesting negative feedback from JollyGood!

From that topic:

I am a very approachable person, if someone wants to send a PM and ask me to reconsider or would like me explain various things to me in order to change feedback to include/exclude on my Trust list I am very happy to engage with users. The OP should have sent me a PM

Last night, I sent a private message to the member @JollyGood about this incident and asked him to remove this negative feedback he had applied to me. He said that he would definitely not step back and remove this feedback he had sent unfairly. He also said that when I create a topic about this situation, other DT members will also send a red trust statement to me. I want to ask him one more time from here.

There were 3 negative feedbacks with same reference and same reason (trendcoin, bitcointurk, muslol67). One of them deleted and others are still negative. This should be a big joke.

I wrote 2 times with proofs. dragonvslinux wrote it too. Bitcointurk and muslol67 sent you messages and anything didnt change. I'm not a "highly respected DT1 member" but your negative feedbacks are wrong jollygood (they are same with trendcoins negative feedback).

Your decisions are like a paradox. If being " highly respected DT1 member" is a rule for communicate with you. @Loycev and @The Pharmacist please do it again for justice.

Other negative feedbacks which has same reference link are still active. All feedbacks was same but you only neutralized one of them, really ?   (@BitcoinTurk, @muslol67)

Your reference links:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200529232531/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225711.msg53851746#msg53851746
https://web.archive.org/web/20200706153350/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225711.msg53865312

...

[Vod]

He said that he would definitely not step back and remove this feedback he had sent unfairly.

I haven't followed this too closely, but I doubt Jolly would say that.  Why would consider trust he left as unfair?

[SiNeReiNZzz]

I have JollyGood on my trust list for reasons not like that.
And this here would be no reason for me to delete him.

I don't care of someone is accused from others for things that can be easily clarified with each other, as long as no one is cheated out of their money or otherwise sustains damage.
May sound selfish, but I would not do anything else all day long but read soap operas here

My Trust List is updated more frequently, in most cases there must have been a post or an action that knocked me out so much that he came on my trust list.

I orientate myself here by emotions in connection with the value of the contribution here in the forum!
But since I can't and don't want to be informed about everything, every once in a while, I put someone on my list, that other people don't like...

On the other hand it can also happen that I have deleted people who were on my list before, because I couldn't further support new contributions from them...

[examplens]

I have JollyGood on my trust list for reasons not like that.
And this here would be no reason for me to delete him.

I don't care of someone is accused from others for things that can be easily clarified with each other, as long as no one is cheated out of their money or otherwise sustains damage.
May sound selfish, but I would not do anything else all day long but read soap operas here

My Trust List is updated more frequently, in most cases there must have been a post or an action that knocked me out so much that he came on my trust list.

I orientate myself here by emotions in connection with the value of the contribution here in the forum!
But since I can't and don't want to be informed about everything, every once in a while, I put someone on my list, that other people don't like...

On the other hand it can also happen that I have deleted people who were on my list before, because I couldn't further support new contributions from them...

after Lauda was pushed aside, it seems the next target is @JollyGood. it all seems to me like an already seen witch-hunting scenario.

[Bthd]

I have JollyGood on my trust list for reasons not like that.
And this here would be no reason for me to delete him.

I don't care of someone is accused from others for things that can be easily clarified with each other, as long as no one is cheated out of their money or otherwise sustains damage.
May sound selfish, but I would not do anything else all day long but read soap operas here

My Trust List is updated more frequently, in most cases there must have been a post or an action that knocked me out so much that he came on my trust list.

I orientate myself here by emotions in connection with the value of the contribution here in the forum!
But since I can't and don't want to be informed about everything, every once in a while, I put someone on my list, that other people don't like...

On the other hand it can also happen that I have deleted people who were on my list before, because I couldn't further support new contributions from them...

after Lauda was pushed aside, it seems the next target is @JollyGood. it all seems to me like an already seen witch-hunting scenario.

No this sentence is not true. Jollygood and Lauda are not my enemies and i'm not an enemy for jollygood and Lauda. So this is not a war or not a rally against anyone (Not a witch-hunting too). Making too much true feedback and being a good scam warrior is usefull for community. But this good works doesnt give anyone right to tag another user without real proofs.

I'm not defending muslol67 or bitcointurk or not attacking to jollygood, i'm only defending justice. Yes, jollygood is a good warrior against scam projects but this is not means he can do what he wants for other users (without a real proof). If we let someone for tagging without proofs this will hurts all of us at the future.

[suchmoon]

after Lauda was pushed aside, it seems the next target is @JollyGood. it all seems to me like an already seen witch-hunting scenario.

Witch hunt or not - red trust for trolling, propaganda, etc doesn't seem reasonable. Ironically those kinds of accusations are thrown around by Vispilio et al against users they dislike so it's a bit of a pot-kettle situation going on here.

Some of the red-trusted users have been shown to exchange trust and merits between sockpuppets so that's fair game but it would make more sense to have properly worded ratings for those cases instead of copy pasta that makes it look like all of them are the same.

[hacker1001101001]

after Lauda was pushed aside, it seems the next target is @JollyGood. it all seems to me like an already seen witch-hunting scenario.

This clearly show's your biased judgement over various other situations in the past and even your trust list. There are people shouting abuse, financially and emotionally suffering from it and trying to prove it, at the same time you crawl with it being an witch hunt. Looks like a cancer overall.