@bitbollo and @Murat were abusing trust feedback

[Apocollapse]

What happened : I stumbled across Bounty section and I saw there's a drama on [OPEN] Bitgesell (BGL) | Signature Campaign | Legendary-Full Members between bitbollo and Murat.

This is the summary between the issue
1. bitbollo applying the campaign and already wear the signature.
2. Murat doesn't list his name in spreadsheet, also he doesn't mentioned which users got accepted. But list of participants on the campaign is done in spreadsheet.
3. bitbollo still doubt whether he got accepted or not, so he send PM to Murat.
4. Murat doesn't replied his messages in private messages, he said he's busy and not in forum 24/7.
5. bitbollo mad and said he must need the valid reason why he's not get accepted, he tagged Murat,
6. Murat also tagged bitbollo for trust abuse.

Trust feedback rules

Negative (shown as -1)

• If you believe someone is a scammer, or someone is likely to scam, that deserves negative feedback. Please provide evidence.
• If you really hate someone and he's a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

Why I say both bitbollo and Murat were abusing trust feedback? Because either one of them aren't a scammer or likely to scam, if you don't like someone or feel he's not professional then leave neutral feedback.

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.

My suggestion :
1. If you're a participants don't force the campaign manager to respond your messages, not all user had time to reply all messages especially not really important thing.
2. Check the spreadsheet to make sure you've got accepted by the campaign manager.
3. If someone leave you wrong negative feedback, you shouldn't do same if he's not a scammer.

I'm respecting both users since both of them are valuable asset in this forum. bitbollo is a great scam buster and cheaters in this forum, while Murat is a trustable campaign manager has been handled a bunch campaign in this forum. I'm create this thread since both of them doesn't deserve to get negative feedback for above issue.

[1713975670]

1713975670

[1713975670]

1713975670

[1713975670]

1713975670

[1713975670]

1713975670

[1713975670]

1713975670

[Poker Player]

I think it has become something personal between them, and the feedback they have given each other I agree that it doesn't seem right, although I don't know if I would go so far as to say that they are abusing:

My suggestion :
1. If you're a participants don't force the campaign manager to respond your messages, not all user had time to reply all messages especially not really important thing.
2. Check the spreadsheet to make sure you've got accepted by the campaign manager.
3. If someone leave you wrong negative feedback, you shouldn't do same if he's not a scammer.

Yes, I think it's OK if you don't see yourself on the spreadsheet or if they don't accept you to ask the manager if they can provide constructive feedback on where you can improve, but ultimately the choice is the manager's, and if they don't accept you, it's best to move on and that's it.

The situation is pathetic.

[dimonstration]

The title seems exaggerated. I thought they are nuking red trust to different user without a valid reason. This is not new and many more trusted and prominent user is still doing this for more than 5 years or so like OG-Vod, Lauda-Shorena and many more. You can't force anyone here to follow the guidelines of theymos for the use of trust system since its not moderated and we all have different perspective in every situation.

I'm sure that both user involved will reconcile to each other maybe in the future since the problem is just a misunderstanding. I get the point of Bitbollo as a fellow signature campaign participants and same with Murat side. But in my opinion campaign manager should answer all his PM especially if the concern is about his job that he is managing since this is still belong to the scope of his job.

[NeuroticFish]

While iirc it's not the first drama Murat is involved in (which may or may not mean something fishy), the fact bitbollo tagged him because he was not accepted is, indeed, pathetic.
While a normal user may be OK to put negative trust because he doesn't trust another user, a DT1 has bigger responsibility in using the feedback system.

Without more solid proof, a neutral tag for being unprofessional, would have been a good warning sign without the unnecessary drama.
Again, the lack of response may or may not mean something fishy. Campaign managers are human too; they make mistakes and they have a life. And probably preferences too.

I fear that bitbollo, who had very good points in the case of Italian translations, for example, may suffer as a result of this rushed action.  


Edit: also Murat should have been telling only about the misuse/abuse of trust system. The part related to signature campaigns makes it look as a retaliatory feedback, hence I agree to OP: both did wrong.
Edit2: fun fact:

Murat's judgement is Trusted by:
1. funchiestz (Trust: # +0 / =0 / -9) (92 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. bitbollo (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (5) 1033 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

[Apocollapse]

You can't force anyone here to follow the guidelines of theymos for the use of trust system since its not moderated and we all have different perspective in every situation.

So you're agree both of them were leave correct trust feedback to each other? This forum will be messed up, I could leave you negative feedback because I disagree with your opinion. But I don't because it's not correct.

But in my opinion campaign manager should answer all his PM especially if the concern is about his job that he is managing since this is still belong to the scope of his job.

Have you ever contacted each campaign manager and they answered all your question?

[LoyceV]

@bitbollo @Murat: I don't consider this correct use of the Trust system. You should use neutral feedback (at best) for your personal feelings towards each other. If you don't trust someone's judgement, that doesn't make trading with them high-risk. Exclude them from your Trust list instead (but only if you don't trust their judgement on others).

To quote myself:

Be the bigger man!
With great power comes great responsibility (source unknown). Especially when you're on DefaultTrust (or if you want to be on DefaultTrust in the future), you shouldn't (ab)use that power by leaving (negative) feedback when someone does something you don't like. Your Sent feedback is what others use to judge your judgement.
If someone on the internet is mean to you: boo fucking hoo! Use the Ignore button, and forget about them.

May I suggest you both remove the negative feedback? It loses it's meaning as a warning mechanism if anyone can get it for the wrong reasons.

You can't force anyone here to follow the guidelines

No, but you can exclude them from your Trust list. May I suggest you and OP start making your own Trust list? The more people do so, the more decentralized the Trust system becomes.

Trust feedback rules

I'm flattered, but those aren't "rules":

These are mere guidelines
Trust isn't moderated, but how you use it is your "business card" to the community. Use the above as guidelines only. It's meant to give you a general idea of what I consider good behaviour. It's also wise to ask yourself before leaving feedback: "Does my feedback make Bitcointalk a better place? And if it's negative: is it worth destroying someone's account and reputation over this?". Consider using Neutral feedback if neither Positive nor Negative is justified.

My guide has been called reasonable though:

LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.

[Murat]

* No one gives negative trust for not accepting in signature campaign or delay in pm.
* He sent a pm on Nov 6 & 2 more pms today, i replied today before i saw the trust rating. First thing I did today is replied his pm and then saw the drama…
* I changed the feedback to neutral.

[LoyceV]

* No one gives negative trust for not accepting in signature campaign or delay in pm.

Agreed.

* I changed the feedback to neutral.

Thank you! It now shows:

Code:

Abuse of trust system

I can agree to that (Reference link to this topic would have been even better). Although bitbollo removed his negative now too, so up to you to leave it as is or get rid of it entirely.

To quote upper management again:

I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.

[bitbollo]

just to be clear and honest, I have applied and it wasn't the first time that I have applied or worked in that bounty or with @Murat.

Campaign was open when I have posted.
There is no rule to not reapplying.
There is no rule that doesn't allow me to join.
If manager decide to exclude me without any reason (hence I can't imagine why ) It could be possible ask some update?

I didn't pretend to be accepted.
But isn't normal or can't be honest receive a reply after 10 days just after my "NEUTRAL TRUST" (just to remember....)

Replying was something ridicrolous since "you're not selected because you're not in spreadsheet" LOL !
I was just asking if I was accepted and THE REASON WHY I WAS EXCLUDED.


guys thank you for pointing out this issue in reputation board!
I mean, if we are allowing very low rank member/spammer/bounty abuser to join easily every bounty.
WHY I SHOULD BE EXCLUDED WITHOUT RECEIVE A REPLY OR A REASON?

What I should say for something like this:

"I request all the managers not to accept this guy to any signature campaign."

or maybe this

are you dumb or what?

ok i did wrong for don't trust an user that manage bounty in such way? or is clearly offensive and it seems also "threatening"
"I request all the managers not to accept this guy to any signature campaign."
MEH!

[LoyceV]

WHY I SHOULD BE EXCLUDED WITHOUT RECEIVE A REPLY OR A REASON?

That's a valid question, and you can certainly discuss it on the Reputation board Just not in negative feedback.

is clearly offensive

That's allowed on Bitcointalk It's one of the great perks of freedom of speech, which I cherish whether or not I agree with the statement.

I'm glad you both cleared the negative feedback.

[bitbollo]

WHY I SHOULD BE EXCLUDED WITHOUT RECEIVE A REPLY OR A REASON?

That's a valid question, and you can certainly discuss it on the Reputation board Just not in negative feedback.

is clearly offensive

That's allowed on Bitcointalk It's one of the great perks of freedom of speech, which I cherish whether or not I agree with the statement.

I'm glad you both cleared the negative feedback.

Hi I have just sent a neutral trust today.... there was nothing against this user since I was just asking a simple question.
I don't know why this user decide to reply only after that.
(ehm.... he was active several times each day I mean I don't think that I deserve to get just ignored without any plausible reason).

I still have not idea why I haven't be accepted in that campaign but it is ok nevermind.
I'll never stop to learn. thank you guys for all of your reply.

[Apocollapse]

Thanks for both bitbollo and Murat already change the negative feedback to neutral. I'm glad with this thread this drama has been resolved quickly, but I will keep this thread open since it seems there's a question still need to be answered

No, but you can exclude them from your Trust list. May I suggest you and OP start making your own Trust list? The more people do so, the more decentralized the Trust system becomes.

Okay will do it soon.

[dimonstration]

You can't force anyone here to follow the guidelines of theymos for the use of trust system since its not moderated and we all have different perspective in every situation.

So you're agree both of them were leave correct trust feedback to each other? This forum will be messed up, I could leave you negative feedback because I disagree with your opinion. But I don't because it's not correct.

Where do you see on my post that I agree on there negative trust retaliation? I'm just pointing out that no one can control it except the user that gave it. This issue is an isolated and a typical misunderstanding. They can discuss this issue for themselves since there is no other party involved and the problem is personal. I don't why you want to lengthen this conversation while they already remove there feedback to each other. It will be awkward for them to post cheesy word here if that's what you waiting for. We don't need a further explanation if they both fixed this issue via PM as we are only spectator here.

Let's move on and follow LoyceV suggestion on adding people on our trust list. Actually this my first time to open it and consider putting user there.