[Blacklist Request] the Neg Rating Spammer Defamatory Troll ~JollyGood

[Vispilio]

Despite warnings and even advice to the contrary by the "old guard" running DT1, the troll known as JollyGood continues to defame many innocent members with his false negative rating spree,

repeatedly lies to call me a "scammer" and bases many of his spam neg. ratings on this absolute falsehood and similar false accusations.

Below is a copy of the letter I sent to admin about him, he is causing us and Bitcointalk some problems in ad revenue, and I hope gets blacklisted asap so that this broken forum can attempt to get back on track.

I also consider it an absolute disgrace for the brand value and prestige of Bitcointalk, that in the light of this ongoing debacle, no one from Default Trust even deigned to exclude this ninja troll from their trust list so far despite overwhelming evidence that he is grossly incompetent and exhibits the judgement skills of a toddler...


I would also be curious to hear from a philosophical perspective, why admin and staff still refuse to take any action to improve a provably damaged DT system that cannot self-correct some of its glaring flaws over more than a period of 1.5 years now, when @theymos mentioned many times that he reserves the right to blacklist and intercede as necessary.

Hi theymos & Cyrus,

I hope you guys are doing well.

My colleagues and I have difficulty bringing professional exchanges and a few upcoming crypto projects to advertise on the forum because of non-sensical ratings left by a few bad actors, as discussed at length on the Reputation boards.

There is a community consensus that irrational members who have provably bad judgement are now deep DT1 because some people like to use them as hitmen...

You need to step in and revamp the DT so that grossly incompetent people with ulterior motives cannot cause financial damage because of their petty spiteful reasons.

Please have a look:

just one example from troll ~jollygood's neg rating spam:






Best

[andulolika]

All I will say is that hilariousandco wouldn't remove his trust rating on parodium after he promoted a scamcoin and keeps promoting shady projects but the rating is there.

If a mod does that then it's a pretty clear perspective on the forum's situation, and i'm not happy at all with my trust list as i get erroneous positives.

[suchmoon]

You might want to look up "consensus" in the dictionary.

Hint: if there was a consensus you wouldn't need to send a PM to theymos.

[andulolika]

You might want to look up "consensus" in the dictionary.

Hint: if there was a consensus you wouldn't need to send a PM to theymos.

Actually there is and it worries me, as soon as I excluded a bunch of your gang, ratings I see aren't as reliable and before, but simply having 90% of your ratings well done that doesn't change the abuse, and also the possibility of the same very group that tags most and most successfully these scams be the same group that creates them is huge and you know it.

[trendcoin]

It is really horrible to accuse the people who gave the forum effort and time with false claims. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5260202.0

I'm getting away from this forum and everything. I did not deserve any of this. With unjust accusations of a person who decides skeptically, I get a bad perception. in a way that I never deserved.

It is imperative to say "stop" to someone who uses their power in witch hunting.

Although all dt1 members said there was an invalid feedback, they insisted on a negative notification.

@theymos, say something. make a comment about this happening. Say "yes right" or "no wrong"!

[andulolika]

It is really horrible to accuse the people who gave the forum effort and time with false claims. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5260202.0

I'm getting away from this forum and everything. I did not deserve any of this. With the wrongful accusations of a person who decides with his suspects, I get a bad perception. in a way that I never deserved.

It is imperative to say "stop" to someone who uses their power in witch hunting.

Although all dt1 members said there was an invalid feedback, they insisted on a negative notification.

@theymos, say something. make a comment about this happening. Say "yes right" or "no wrong"!

Most people i know left the forum or never touched it.
If it helps I see you as positive +2 but that might go wrong in some cases so gotta watch out if you exclude the whole gang.



I'm not sure where these trust settings will lead me.

[suchmoon]

Although all dt1 members said there was an invalid feedback, they insisted on a negative notification.

All 100 of them? I have some doubts about that statement - can you point me to where that occurred?

[trendcoin]

Although all dt1 members said there was an invalid feedback, they insisted on a negative notification.

All 100 of them? I have some doubts about that statement - can you point me to where that occurred?

The moment you give god's profile link, I will give them all.

Your effort to break the integrity by tweezing some things from the issues is really great, man. you look very smart. especially in the eyes of people with low IQ ...

Such behaviors are nice actions to affect people with low IQ but it is not possible to affect me.

Does anyone in this forum do anything other than disrupt topics and take them to different meanings? I really wonder.

[suchmoon]

Although all dt1 members said there was an invalid feedback, they insisted on a negative notification.

All 100 of them? I have some doubts about that statement - can you point me to where that occurred?

The moment you give god's profile link, I will give them all.

Your effort to break the integrity by tweezing some things from the issues is really great, man. you look very smart. especially in the eyes of people with low IQ ...

Such behaviors are nice actions to affect people with low IQ but it is not possible to affect me.

Does anyone in this forum do anything other than disrupt topics and take them to different meanings? I really wonder.

You're the one claiming that "all dt1 members said there was an invalid feedback". BTW I'm one of those members but I'm reasonably certain that not all members said so. So what is the supposed meaning here?

If you decide to climb off your high IQ horse you might be able to see that I support your dispute regarding trust feedback but not your absurd exaggerations and religious nutjobbery and other nonsense. It's really up to you what's more important.

[dragonvslinux]

Appealing to a centralized power is accepting defeat. Not to mention utterly pointless.

Although all dt1 members said there was an invalid feedback, they insisted on a negative notification.

All 100 of them? I have some doubts about that statement - can you point me to where that occurred?

I'd assume he meant all DT1 members (that voiced their opinion), excusing the bad vague English that is. Sounds about right:

I see this bad practice from users tagging or leaving feedback just because they told something good about user x who they do not like or do not trust somehow.

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.

Red trust is not deserved in my opinion, I don't see a reason why I shouldn't trust OP based on this feedback.

I am not agree with this feedback, reference is too weak comparing what wrote on the comment.

I do not think this is a good use of the feedback system.

I don't think this is correct use of the Trust system, and I don't think this deserves a negative tag.

@Trendcoin certainly does not deserve such a negative feedback.

Not sure if all of these opinions are DT1, but you get the idea. Apart from Vod's opinion I think, after he was talking about "liberating" thousands of Bitcoins that is, not convinced you can take that off-topic shit seriously though. Sounds like a Bitcoin bank robbery. examplens otherwise thought it was a witch-hunt, but didn't explicitly express disapproval.

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

This is now the fourth I see FFS

[suchmoon]

I'd assume he meant all DT1 members (that voiced their opinion), excusing the bad vague English that is. Sounds about right:

No, it doesn't, because the second part says "they insisted on a negative notification."

Who "insisted"?

This is the kind of shit that seems to exist for the sole purpose of making more drama rather than solving issues.

[trendcoin]

religious nutjobbery

look, suchmoon looks like this:

oow religious nutrition? Are you saying that religions prioritize God? oow the idea of god can also prioritize religion. we cannot know which is the primary factor. Can you give me a definite proof link on this subject, I want to see them.

Come on, but that's not the point, we all know. :) these are false discussions that take us away from the right path. talking off topic here does not benefit us. Please, let's solve this issue, it gets ridiculous as it gets longer.

also thank you for supporting me. If we were in similar positions, I would do my best to support you.

Who "insisted"?

the person giving the negative feedback, one person, only the person who gave it, one person.


please note that my english is bad. I may not have been able to express myself well. Please, let's not go off topic.

[dragonvslinux]

Although all dt1 members said there was an invalid feedback, they insisted on a negative notification.

All 100 of them? I have some doubts about that statement - can you point me to where that occurred?

I'd assume he meant all DT1 members (that voiced their opinion), excusing the bad vague English that is. Sounds about right:

No, it doesn't, because the second part says "they insisted on a negative notification."

I actually had no idea what that second part meant. What is a negative notification in legible English? I was only responding to the first part and your questioning of it. I was responding directly and exclusively to "All 100 of them?" - the statement you referenced in re-inserted quote above, not any un-referenced statement you've freshly generated since my reply. Therefore, assuming what was meant by this "all dt1" statement, it still sounds about right.

You should know, it pains me to have to explain the simplicity of this conversation to you. Please note my cautious use of terminology "seems" and "about". Please don't make me return with dictionary definitions, this topic is already devoid of any utility, hence attempting to redirect back to the "original" topic.

This is the kind of shit that seems to exist for the sole purpose of making more drama rather than solving issues.

I'm not here to deny that claim, this topic is utterly pointless as I said before. I also already said I hope there won't be 6 topics of the same discussion.
Unless one of them is related to god's profile being revealed and subsequently negged, this would be a worthwhile topic for sure.

[Vispilio]

this topic is utterly pointless as I said before.

no, Bitcointalk is gradually becoming "utterly pointless" in the eyes of the greater crypto space because of failed dystopian experiments and their blind followers.

This thread is merely attempting to turn this forum into a more relevant platform again, and I simply would like to have business interests here. I couldn't care less whether on some isolated philosophical level a crude, decentralized, open-ballot democracy should work in keeping order and meritocracy or not;

for all the intents and purposes of this forum, it doesn't, that has been proven to be certain beyond a shadow of doubt at least in the current deeply flawed DT format where everyone who actually wants to use the system gets instantly chastised and manipulated by the "old guard" who are incentivized to do so with salaries (unlike the vast majority of the community who would otherwise be able to form the long sought after public conscience), so please don't derail this topic with nonsense pseudo-philosophical sentiments...

[LoyceV]

@theymos, say something. make a comment about this happening. Say "yes right" or "no wrong"!

This sums up theymos' intent of the Trust system:

LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

In part, the idea of the system is to organically build up & enforce a community consensus on appropriate trading behavior. However, those parts of the consensus which have less agreement should be more difficult to apply than those parts which have widespread agreement, and also subject to change. Everyone agrees that if Alice promises Bob 1 BTC for $8000 and doesn't pay it, that warrants flags & ratings, and it should be very easy to create these flags and ratings. If Alice promotes something without disclosing that she was paid to do so, and the thing later turns out to be a scam, then 65% of the community will call this highly shady behavior, and 35% will call it not a contractual violation and therefore more-or-less fine; it may be possible to make flags and/or ratings stick, but the people doing so should feel as though they are on less solid ground, and maybe the community consensus on this will shift against them (depending on the exact facts of the case, politicking by interested parties, etc.). I refuse to set down a single "correct" philosophy on ethical behavior, since this would permanently divide & diminish the community, and I am not such a wise philosopher that I feel the moral authority to do so.

For ratings and type-1 flags, proactive scam-hunting is good! But as explained above, if you're acting near the edge of community consensus, it should be more difficult. If the community is not overwhelmingly behind you on your scam hunting, then it's probably going to end up creating more drama, division, paranoia, and tribalism than the possible scam-avoidance benefit is worth.

Ratings

 - Leave positive ratings if you actively think that trading with this person is safer than with a random person.
 - Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
 - Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.
 - Post-flags, ratings have less impact. It's only an orange number. Some amount of "leave ratings first, ask questions later" may be OK. For example, if you thought that YoBit was a serious ongoing scam, the promotion of which was extremely problematic, then it'd be a sane use of the system to immediately leave negative trust for everyone wearing a YoBit signature. (I don't necessarily endorse this viewpoint or this action: various parts of the issue are highly subjective. But while I wouldn't blame people for excluding someone who did this, I wouldn't call it an abuse of the system.)
 - Exercise a lot of forgiveness. People shouldn't be "permanently branded" as a result of small mistakes from which we've all moved past. Oftentimes, people get a rating due to unknowingly acting a bit outside of the community's consensus on appropriate behavior, and such ratings may indeed be appropriate. But if they correct the problem and don't seem likely to do it again, remove the rating or replace it with a neutral. Even if someone refuses to agree with the community consensus (ie. they refuse to back down philosophically), if they're willing to refrain from the behavior, their philosophical difference should not be used to justify a rating. For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.
 
Flags

 - Use flags only for very serious and clear-cut things. They're an expression of ostracizing someone from the community due to serious, provable misconduct or really obvious red flags.
 - Use type-1 flags when the message which will be shown to newbies/guests is appropriate: "the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. [...] you should proceed with extreme caution."
 - Use type-2 and type-3 flags only if the person is absolutely guilty of contractual violations. Imagine a legal system in which there is no law but contract law, and consider if this person would owe damages.

Trust lists

 - If you find someone who has sent accurate trust actions and has no inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions, add them to your trust list. Inclusion in trust lists is a more a mark of useful contributions than your trust in them, though at least a little trust is necessary.
 - If you think that someone is not using the trust system appropriately, or if you disagree with some of their subjective determinations, exclude them from your trust list. If bad outcomes happen in DT, this is partly the fault/responsibility of: the bad actors themselves; DT1 who include the bad-actors; DT1 who don't exclude the bad-actors; DT1 who include or don't exclude failing DT1; anyone else who includes failing DT1. While it's best to spend some time trying to fix things at the lower levels before escalating it, it's reasonable to complain to any of those people, as I did regarding Lauda that one time, for example. (Of course, the system itself is probably also imperfect, and that's on me.)

You (Vispilio) don't make a very strong argument though, the feedback you left JollyGood doesn't match the forum's description: "Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk.":

The endless lies and negative rating spam of this troll are causing considerable financial damage in ad revenue lost both to forum and innocent members.
Admin should blacklist ~jollygood instantly from all layers of DT, if there is even the slightest intent of maintaining a functional crypto forum.

In my opinion (which you even translated), this feedback should be neutral. To quote Mahatma Gandhi: “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”.

[dragonvslinux]

this topic is utterly pointless as I said before.

no, Bitcointalk is gradually becoming "utterly pointless" in the eyes of the greater crypto space because of failed dystopian experiments and their blind followers.

This thread is merely attempting to turn this forum into a more relevant platform again, and I simply would like to have business interests here. I couldn't care less whether on some isolated philosophical level a crude, decentralized, open-ballot democracy should work in keeping order and meritocracy or not;

That's exactly where we differ. I'm not interested in relying on central authorities to remove "bad apples" from a system (a blacklist request), I'm more interested in changes in a system that in itself reduces bad actors from emerging, and/or more effectively counter them. Otherwise similar situations occur over and over again. Blacklisting isn't a solution, Lauda already proved that by gaining DT2 inclusion with negative DT1 strength (a feline loophole). I realise you are also suggesting a "revamp" of the DT system, but within your post your only suggestion is blacklisting. This is why I said the topic is utterly pointless, it's redundant of any useful proposal. I hope that's the on-topic constructive criticism you were looking for anyway.

You (Vispilio) don't make a very strong argument though, the feedback you left JollyGood doesn't match the forum's description: "Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk.":

The endless lies and negative rating spam of this troll are causing considerable financial damage in ad revenue lost both to forum and innocent members.
Admin should blacklist ~jollygood instantly from all layers of DT, if there is even the slightest intent of maintaining a functional crypto forum.

In my opinion (which you even translated), this feedback should be neutral. To quote Mahatma Gandhi: “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”.

I also thought you were better off with the "moral highground" of leaving neutral feedback for the past 6 months, whether that was working or not, but that's up to you. You could of altenativey left neutral feedback highlighting the fact that JollyGood is somewhat indiscriminately tagging users who endorsed your services, but you didn't either.

[trendcoin]

@loycev

I don't know anyone from the global forum. I am at an equal distance to everyone. but you were the one who made the most logical approaches from the very beginning.

Please tell me:

While my reputation is damaged by unfounded accusations; What should I do against someone who is irresistibly strong (dt1) and acts only with suspicion? What should I do against someone who comes to me with new negative feedback ideas every two days?

Should I go from this forum? Should I ask the forum admin to put an end to this wrong practice?

I asked for help from all dt1 members. but my situation has not changed. this is an opportunity for me. I call on theymos to check the system it has created.

[Vispilio]

In my opinion (which you even translated), this feedback should be neutral. To quote Mahatma Gandhi: “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”.

Your guide to trust system is for absolute beginners and is lacking in many ways, I'm using the trust system to maximize the utility and intellectual strengths of Bitcointalk. You lost all credibility when you didn't speak out once against all the bullshit ratings left against me many months ago.

I also thought you were better off with the "moral highground" of leaving neutral feedback for the past 6 months, whether that was working or not, but that's up to you. You could of altenativey left neutral feedback highlighting the fact that JollyGood is somewhat indiscriminately tagging users who endorsed your services, but you didn't either.

Agreed.

Blacklisting isn't a solution, Lauda already proved that by gaining DT2 inclusion with negative DT1 strength (a feline loophole). I realise you are also suggesting a "revamp" of the DT system, but within your post your only suggestion is blacklisting. This is why I said the topic is utterly pointless, it's redundant of any useful proposal. I hope that's the on-topic constructive criticism you were looking for anyway.

Blacklisting lauda was one of the best decisions admin gave in years, you should have seen how much panic it caused among the DT1 cultists, they almost had a collective heart attack realizing that their fat salaries might be in danger soon , alas @theymos made a very elementary mistake, the blacklist was only for DT1, not for the whole DT (or perhaps he caved into peer pressure or was instructed to make it only a half measure by his boss, that's open to debate).

And you are right the whole DT needs a revamp, first of all a forum member shouldn't be penalized, coerced or outcast just for casting his vote, you cannot encourage people to vote and then try to invalidate them because they don't agree with the corrupt, hypocritical nature of DT1.

Picture this, most members in the Turkish local have wiped their trust lists because they are afraid of suchmoon, foxpup, etc. excluding them, marlboroza writing "ban requests" against them, jolly ninja leaving red trust against them, and LoyceV sneakily social engineering to invalidate them from the forum... This resembles more slavery in ancient Rome than a "decentralized democracy".


All the Best

[LoyceV]

While my reputation is damaged by unfounded accusations; What should I do against someone who is irresistibly strong (dt1) and acts only with suspicion? What should I do against someone who comes to me with new negative feedback ideas every two days?

Should I go from this forum? Should I ask the forum admin to put an end to this wrong practice?

Unfortunately, I don't think there's much you can do. You can try to redeem yourself, but you (and many others) don't even think you did something wrong, so there's not much to redeem. You can keep petitioning to have JG excluded, and eventually you may be successful, but it's going to take a while. The number of Trust exclusions probably grows when there are more bad feedbacks, but the reality is that it's not going to happen instantly.

It's up to you if you leave this forum, but you probably didn't start here because of a Trust rating, so I don't think you should leave because of that either. I don't expect Admin to interfere, I've read the theory that the entire Trust system is just theymos' social experiment, and from what I've seen, theymos leaves it to the users. He doesn't want to be in charge.

Blacklisting lauda was one of the best decisions admin gave in years, you should have seen how much panic it caused among the DT1 cultists, they almost had a collective heart attack realizing that their fat salaries might be in danger soon , alas @theymos made a very elementary mistake, the blacklist was only for DT1, not for the whole DT (or perhaps he caved into peer pressure or was instructed to make it only a half measure by his boss, that's open to debate).

Or maybe it was carefully planned to keep the cat on DT2 by blacklisting from DT1:

[stompix]

My colleagues and I have difficulty bringing professional exchanges and a few upcoming crypto projects to advertise on the forum because of non-sensical ratings left by a few bad actors, as discussed at length on the Reputation boards.

The moment you wrote this you destroyed every chance, assuming there was any, of theymos intervening in this, bringing in the financial aspect in a way that resembles at least bribery if not worse is the bulletproof way to make him ignore this. If indeed Theymos does something like this only because the forum "is losing money"  it will probably be in the same moment he lets ICO again advertise on the forum and introduces mandatory KYC.

Oh, and have fun deleting this, I'm pretty sure theymos is a fan of deleting opinions and he will rank your request higher in his to-do list the more you try to silence the ones that don't agree with you.