Misuse of feedback system

[Pffrt]

I was looking at my local thread and found one guy was asking how can he remove the tag he got and another guy was suggesting him to get up to date with bounty announcement and if he doesn’t follow, he will get negative feedback. After watching that, I visited the profile of the user who got negative feedback and found that SPQRCoin gave him a feedback which says-
"A bot or a farmer. Will post reports after a warning that the bounty campaign is over. No chance.
Untrusted feedback"
I don't think this is correct use of feedback system, if one thinks there’s a bot working behind an account, they can report the account (there are a lot of bots here, right). If mods think the user should be banned, mod can handle but why such tag and misuse of the feedback system?

Account I'm talking about- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1892504

[1714932149]

1714932149

[lovesmayfamilis]

I looked at this account, there is nothing useful in it, except for reports on rewards, but I see no other violations. The account is not detected for the presence of alternative accounts. And there is also no indication that this account is Ban evasion.
These are the criteria most often used for the bounty hunter tag. As for the review left to him, SPQRCoin is famous for such feedback
If you ask everyone's opinion specifically, I disagree.
If you follow the "reputation" thread, this question about SPQRCoin feedback comes up regularly. And for some, it changes the tag to neutral.
I think it's easier to give neutral feedback at first.

[sujonali1819]

I have seen some such feedbacks in bestchange signature campaign threads due to posting applications without reading the update from the op. They are actually not a bot but they work like a bot. Though it's normal for newbies.

And yeah SPQRCoin is very familiar for giving such trust feedback. Hundreds of accounts are tagged for this reason (though most are newbies). I also think neutral is appropriate in this case. 

[LeGaulois]

It is inappropriate. For the same reason in the case of a shitpost. Using the report button is more suitable, and the person managing the campaign could 'blacklist' the user if he/she is tired of such people. If the campaign is over it's just a matter to lock the topic. It isn't hard, there would not even be a need to report the post.

[LoyceV]

if one thinks there’s a bot working behind an account, they can report the account

Bots aren't against the rules. The normal rules apply to them too.

I've seen SPQRCoin's Sent feedback before, and although I don't consider it to be correct use of the Trust system, I don't really mind the tag on spammers either, except for the fact that it reduces the value of negative feedback for real scammers. I don't see SPQRCoin's feedback by default based on my own Trust network, even though he's on DT.
If you want to influence his Trust status, you'll have to talk to these users:

Trust list for: SPQRCoin (Trust: neutral) (91 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2020-11-21_Sat_04.11h)

SPQRCoin's judgement is Trusted by:
1. Balthazar (Trust: +3 / =1 / -1) (322 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. kzv (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (725 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. sabotag3x (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (725 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. 3meek (Trust: neutral) (249 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. tvplus006 (Trust: +14 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (12) 1342 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
6. witcher_sense (Trust: +15 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (15) 1581 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
7. The0ldl_lser (Trust: neutral) (185 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
8. Ratimov (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (8) 2895 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

~SPQRCoin's judgement is Distrusted by:
1. suchmoon (Trust: +14 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (37) 4911 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. fxpc (Trust: +0 / =1 / -1) (157 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. bitcoin-shark (Trust: +0 / =1 / -5) (85 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. rudilo (Trust: +0 / =0 / -2) (1 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. DdmrDdmr (Trust: +6 / =0 / -0) (4514 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Trust list: backscratchers: users agree, they trust or distrust each other.
Trust list: backstabbers: users disagree, one user trust the other, while the other distrust him.

Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.
Get your own Trust list in BBCode at loyce.club/trust.

It is inappropriate.

This should convince him:

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

[LeGaulois]

I don't really mind the tag on spammers either

You should.

We could start debating about the definition of a spammer on the forum. And we could consider all those low-quality posts as spam and tag people. No problem if people don't mind; (but it's inappropriate too)

What is spam for me is not necessarily spam for you and vice versa.

It can be rude to tag someone who posted once an application because he/she honestly didn't read the OP for once.

[Pffrt]

As you said he is using the system in a wrong way, why not other DT member take step? The system is for everyone and a feedback from DT (both negative and positive) means a lot when it comes to trade on forum. So, every DT member should take care of such tags, right?
Personally I don't like people who have bounty reports only in their post history but that shouldn’t warrant a red tag, spammer should be handled by moderator, not by DT member.

If you want to influence his Trust status, you'll have to talk to these users:

Should I reach them through PM? My PM can be unwanted to them. Should I PM SPQRCoin and link this thread instead?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I don't think this is correct use of feedback system, if one thinks there’s a bot working behind an account, they can report the account (there are a lot of bots here, right). If mods think the user should be banned, mod can handle but why such tag and misuse of the feedback system?

True, except the moderator might not agree with the report that the account is in fact a bot.  If SPQRCoin thinks that account is trying to cheat, I don't see the feedback as being inappropriate since it stands as a warning for other bounty managers who might accept him as an applicant.

In any case, the trust system isn't moderated and even if the feedback is considered inappropriate, it's not to the extent that DT members or others need to act with exclusions/countertags/whatever.  My suggestion would be to let this one go.

From reading others' posts here, I can see I'm in the minority with my opinion--oh well.  There might not be a rule against bots, but  that doesn't mean they can be trusted in every case.  Account selling isn't against the rules, but nobody has a problem with them getting tagged simply because a rule hasn't been broken.  (and yes I know those two things aren't the same)

[logfiles]

I don't agree with how @SPQRCoin  is using the negative feedback. Neutrals should have been more than enough.  I don't know why he chose to leave neutrals in some profiles and negatives in others.

As you said he is using the system in a wrong way, why not other DT member take step? The system is for everyone and a feedback from DT (both negative and positive) means a lot when it comes to trade on forum. So, every DT member should take care of such tags, right?

Tags left by someone are usually personal, so we members can't force someone to change how they leave the feedback but if someone is on DT, then you can choose to exclude the member from your custom trustlist, so that they don't get anywhere near DT if more members exclude him.
It's not all about DT members, even you can do it in your trustlist.

Should I reach them through PM? My PM can be unwanted to them. Should I PM SPQRCoin and link this thread instead?

You can but it looks like his way of misuse of negative feedback has been discussed before, and he hasn't changed from the look of things.

[The Cryptovator]

Doing a bounty campaign isn't against forum rules. It seems user sujit1992 has been posting on the bounty section only. If he/she isn't spamming on the other section then let him spam on the bounty section. Reporting bounty report to moderators wouldn't help. Leaving feedback for the bounty report is inappropriate IMO. Doesn't matter you don't like bounty hunters, but should handle forum policy with the trust system. Admin is discouraging to leave such feedback.

OP, please ask the victim to create a reputation thread. So SPQRCoin would take a look at it and read other's opinions. Most likely leaving neutral feedback for such a poster would be enough but I will not encourage to do that as well. Still, I believe spam shouldn't handle with the trust system.

[LeGaulois]

@The Pharmacist

The original post mainly referred to red tags mentioning that the user continues to post despite the fact that the campaign is over. Not those alerting on multi-accounts cheating campaigns. In the first case, it's not a good thing to do for sure.

Also, it's not really a question of taking actions with exclusions etc, it's more a question of creating a consensus all together so that we can agree on something with the forum activities, it can avoid drama topics (I think there are enough  )

[Cadaver20]

We have thousands of people who come to this forum just to participate on the bounty campaign. A negative trust is enough to ruin a profile. Because most bounty campaigns do not accept negative trust profiles. As a result, they are opening new accounts again. However, if a Newbie profile is ruin, it doesn't matter to the DT member or the forum. But for those whose profile is ruined, their own profile is very valuable.

If a profile does not break any other rules of the forum, then I think it is not right to give a negative trust just by suspecting Bot or Farmer. Here he can be warned for the first time with Neutral Trust.

I think bounty managers also have some responsibility in this regard.  E.g.
 1. Some times there is no information in the bounty thread about when the bounty campaign will end. Instead, bounty managers posted news on the telegram.

 2. The thread should be locked at the end of the bounty campaign.

 3. Can take the bounty report on form.

[JeromeTash]

"A bot or a farmer. Will post reports after a warning that the bounty campaign is over. No chance.
Untrusted feedback"
I don't think this is correct use of feedback system, if one thinks there’s a bot working behind an account, they can report the account (there are a lot of bots here, right). If mods think the user should be banned, mod can handle but why such tag and misuse of the feedback system?

Account I'm talking about- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1892504

If he was so bothered by the users who continue to post bounty reports in the threads even after the bounty has ended, then the best thing to do was to lock the threads as soon as the bounties ended. The feedback he left on the profiles wasn't necessary. I am sure some bounty participants don't read the OP or follow updates once the bounty has started. All they do is post reports in the thread. One can't just assume that a profile is a bot just because it continued posting reports even after the bounty has ended.

[zasad@]

October 21, 2020, 07:00:59 AM

Campaign finished. We are waiting for the first update from you.

November 21, 2020, 01:08:46 PM  

#PROOF OF REGISTRATION
Forum Username: mattdaviz
Forum Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261804;
Telegram Username: @sery2015
Participated Campaigns: Article
ETH Wallet Address: 0xc8ee9ff907bbeed81fc1642fdfc5243415102b7d

Many of the users who posted on this page have already been accused of bounty cheating.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5277165.1000

When forum users automatically stamp bounty reports and do not follow the events in the topic, this is also wrong.

The warning was made several times!

I ask that these facts be taken into account when making a decision!

[Rikafip]

I don't agree with how @SPQRCoin  is using the negative feedback. Neutrals should have been more than enough.  I don't know why he chose to leave neutrals in some profiles and negatives in others.

AFAIK, those neutral feedbacks were once negative, and then he changed them after they deleted bounty reports and asked for feedback removal. Maybe@sujit1992 should try to do the same thing, so maybe he gets it changed to neutral.

If he was so bothered by the users who continue to post bounty reports in the threads even after the bounty has ended, then the best thing to do was to lock the threads as soon as the bounties ended.

SPQRCoin is not the bounty manager, so he can't do that.  SWAPHUB bounty manager went afk basically from the moment he started that bounty and never came back, and bounty hunters as usual don't read until when bounty lasts. I am pretty sure some will keep posting reports for months if BM doesn't come back and lock the thread. Just yesterday two more left their reports.

As I said in previous similar case, I think that giving hunters negative tag over this is an overkill.

When forum users automatically stamp bounty reports and do not follow the events in the topic, this is also wrong.

And for that we have perfectly adequate "Report to moderator" option.

[peloso]

except for the fact that it reduces the value of negative feedback for real scammers

I thought you were a normal elk, but now I see that you are a complete idiot

you have a very stupid logic, you did not condemn red tags in my trust, but do they increase the value of red tags? elk you realy idiot ? or this is your fucking switzerland double standart?



SPQRCoin is absolutely right in its actions

[lovesmayfamilis]

October 21, 2020, 07:00:59 AM

Campaign finished. We are waiting for the first update from you.

November 21, 2020, 01:08:46 PM  

#PROOF OF REGISTRATION
Forum Username: mattdaviz
Forum Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261804;
Telegram Username: @sery2015
Participated Campaigns: Article
ETH Wallet Address: 0xc8ee9ff907bbeed81fc1642fdfc5243415102b7d

Many of the users who posted on this page have already been accused of bounty cheating.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5277165.1000

When forum users automatically stamp bounty reports and do not follow the events in the topic, this is also wrong.

The warning was made several times!

I ask that these facts be taken into account when making a decision!

I can explain to you since you are not familiar with this topic. After a newbie gets negative feedback for it, he goes and registers another account. I assure you it works 95 percent. What happens next? Now two accounts are being deceived in the bounty, and so on according to the scheme. Anyone who has tried to work with one account starts participating with two or three accounts.
Some bounties accept accounts with red feedback.
The most surprising thing is that for those who have a review that he is a bot, it is almost difficult to find other violations.
Therefore, by leaving a neutral review, we do not provoke a person to create even more such accounts. If he sees a neutral response, then he is unlikely to repeat the same mistake another time.