For the reputation of this forum: you HAVE to rule on this flag! Share 10mBTC

[PaperWallet]

Hello everyone,
It's been a while that I created a flag against one of the sponsors on this forum, FortuneJack, and I see that a lot of people, especially advanced ranking members, read it thoroughly yet they did neither support nor oppose my flag.

Here's the link for the 120k usd (or 105k euros at the time) scam accusation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5368279.0

In case you're not familiar with this case, you only have to read my first post on page 1 and the posts of @FortuneJack on page 2, and my very last post on the thread (page 6)

And here's the link for my flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=303298;page=iflags

I am asserting that bet number 3 is a scam in the most pure form, and it is worth 95,000 euros. I am also asserting that bets 2 and 4 in an implied agreement should have never been "cancelled", and are also a scam though in some less perfect manner.

Don't be sensitive, in some way, if I might say it like this, I don't care even if 100% oppose it. So go ahead and make a ruling, I just want closure with this forum.

As a gesture of good will and to demonstrate that I really care, and not trolling, for all participants who either oppose or support the flag, I will be giving away 10mBTC (~300$ as of today) on the 1st of June to 10 members who either supported or opposed the flag. You have the same probability of winning whether you opposed or supported.

Here is how it works:
-There is going to be a list, in alphabetical order, for members (except newbies or those that FortuneJack obviously pay) who participated in this. Date limit is 30th of May 17h UTC. It is your rank on this day that is going to be taken into account.
-Using the hash of bitcoin block number 738888 (which should occur on the 31st of May): All of the numbers in the hash are going to be added, then divided by the number of participants. The remainder of the division (after what we call modulo operation) constitutes the number of the first winner, then the next 9 on the list in alphabetical order are picked. Example: hash 000000037efa8aef04ef675 and 16 participants --> We add 37 + 8 + 04 + 675 = 724 and divide by 16. The rest of the division is 4, so the winners are the 4th to 13th on the list. If the rest of division is 0, then winners are 16 and 1 to 9. If it’s 15, then winners are 15, 16 and 1 to 8.

Who can participate:
-Anyone who is a member, not newbie, does not have a FotuneJack signature or is much obviously in their pocket (a quick profile and messages check will take place. Example: @Hhampuz of course does not participate). Please make sure that your BTC address is visible either on your profile or just leave it in a comment here.
-You can't participate if you have a total trust score (adding positive and negative) of less than or equal to -2.
-In any case the list of participants  is going to be published here before bitcoin block 738888 is mined.
-If participants are 10 or less, no need for a BTC block: The 10 mBTC prize is going to be simply divided among them.
-If, among winners, no BTC address is communicated here or on profile by the time list of winners is created, then the next on the list are immediately chosen.
-People who already submitted a ruling on this before the giveaway also participate

It'll be fun. Let's see what happens.

If a trusted member (only Senior or more) wants to do the job of the lottery + distribution that would help, please manifest so that I can send you 13.1 mBTC (cauz +3mBTC for your help + 0.1 for transaction fees). You'll also though have to do the job of creating the list and picking up and paying the winners:) If any member is appointed as an escrow I will be editing this post and declaring it. If any member is selected he'll be sent the money at most by next Wednesday May 25th. But don't worry! I won't be interfering with your work, nor arguing with you if you were to oppose or support my flag. Just enjoy the job:)

I will most likely not be replying to the posts here since I replied to almost every single argument about this, but your participation is much appreciated.

Thank you thank you:) I know I am already much better in providing a provably fair game than FortuneJack’s “probably” fair games looool (and this is my first time I organise a game!)


With my best regards

[owlcatz]

I've read FJ's reply to your accusation, and clearly here is where the devil lies (for You sorry)!

"Correspondingly, we as a company reserve the right to cancel several identical bets and consider only the first one active as well as valid"

All i can say here is if you got your deposit back at least... Well, then...  "Fuck off".... If not (?) ... 🤷‍♂️

[PaperWallet]

I've read FJ's reply to your accusation, and clearly here is where the devil lies (for You sorry)!

"Correspondingly, we as a company reserve the right to cancel several identical bets and consider only the first one active as well as valid"

All i can say here is if you got your deposit back at least... Well, then...  "Fuck off".... If not (?) ... 🤷‍♂️

Added just one rule: if you come in here cursing and swearing and using foul language you don't participate. For me it is self evident but it is amazing that I'll have to remind some to stay civil.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Added just one rule: if you come in here cursing and swearing and using foul language you don't participate. For me it is self evident but it is amazing that I'll have to remind some sub-humans to stay civil.

Foul words are OK, but straight up insults are acceptable?  Got it.

My question to you: Is owlcatz correct, despite the offense you took to his post?  I haven't read your scam accusation for the flag you want supported (I will), but you didn't refute his point.  If what he said is true, it makes all the difference as far as whether anyone should support the flag or not.

Edit:

Regarding your no-cursing rule added after the fact, I guess it only applies to members who don't support your case:

These shameless fucks<snip>
Why are some cocksuckers even defending FortuneJack here<snip>

Hey there, you've come to the right place.<snip>

I haven't read that whole thread yet, but seeing as how it's from October of last year, I don't think you're going to get many people to support your flag.  You've been bumping it for a while, so if someone hasn't added their support by now they're not likely to.  Don't know if you're in the right or not, but best of luck to you.

[PaperWallet]

Added just one rule: if you come in here cursing and swearing and using foul language you don't participate. For me it is self evident but it is amazing that I'll have to remind some sub-humans to stay civil.

Foul words are OK, but straight up insults are acceptable?  Got it.

My question to you: Is owlcatz correct, despite the offense you took to his post?  I haven't read your scam accusation for the flag you want supported (I will), but you didn't refute his point.  If what he said is true, it makes all the difference as far as whether anyone should support the flag or not.

Edit:

Regarding your no-cursing rule added after the fact, I guess it only applies to members who don't support your case:

These shameless fucks<snip>
Why are some cocksuckers even defending FortuneJack here<snip>

Hey there, you've come to the right place.<snip>

I haven't read that whole thread yet, but seeing as how it's from October of last year, I don't think you're going to get many people to support your flag.  You've been bumping it for a while, so if someone hasn't added their support by now they're not likely to.  Don't know if you're in the right or not, but best of luck to you.

Edit:
Cursing and using foul language does not disqualify.

For the flag, I did not know they existed back then in October, was created just recently.

No owlcatz is not correct. I've just added one thing: you can read my very first post on page 1, answer of FortuneJack on page 2 and my very last post in the thread on page 6.

[yogg]

Opposed the flag.

Never cursed.

Is the 10mBTC escrowed ?
Or are we supposed to believe that you'll send the BTC when you think and feel is right ?

With my best regards.

[LoyceV]

-If you use foul language and come in here cursing and swearing you are ineligible. You can still express and be offensive no problem but no foul language or insults.
~
If a trusted member (only Senior or more) wants to do the job of the lottery + distribution that would help, please manifest so that I can send you 13.1 mBTC (cauz +3mBTC for your help + 0.1 for transaction fees).

I would have offered to do the escrow, but I'm offended by the "no insults" rule. That's too subjective to base my ruling on. Owlcatz is more subtle than TMAN. Words on the internet don't bother me.
If you allow full freedom of expression (within the forum rules), I can escrow this for you.

Allow me to quote myself on the subject at hand.
Why I didn't Support it:

I was asked to respond here.

After reading most of the topic, including FortuneJack's response about their Terms, I won't Support the Flag that claims they "violated a casual or implied agreement".
I do think the Terms are shitty though. If certain bets are not allowed, cancel them before the match.

Not all the duplicated bets are canceled, only the ones that exceed 100,000 in euros.

You should clarify this in your Terms and Conditions.

Why I didn't Oppose it:

FWIW: the reason I didn't Oppose the Flag is that I don't like the "shitty" Terms. Terms should be clear, not sneaky.

for members (except newbies

Jr. Members will love it! Paying low-ranking accounts to "vote" won't give you accurate results.

[morvillz7z]

Am i the only one who has a problem with OP offering money (being that in the form of a giveaway) in exchange for participating in flag support/opposition? WTH, really? 

[LoyceV]

Am i the only one who has a problem with OP offering money (being that in the form of a giveaway) in exchange for participating in flag support/opposition? WTH, really? 

As long as the payment isn't based on the outcome, and the reward is public, I think it's okay. It's different when people pay for for positive reviews or negative feedback (I've seen both cases).
It's certainly a first

[PaperWallet]

-If you use foul language and come in here cursing and swearing you are ineligible. You can still express and be offensive no problem but no foul language or insults.
~
If a trusted member (only Senior or more) wants to do the job of the lottery + distribution that would help, please manifest so that I can send you 13.1 mBTC (cauz +3mBTC for your help + 0.1 for transaction fees).

I would have offered to do the escrow, but I'm offended by the "no insults" rule. That's too subjective to base my ruling on. Owlcatz is more subtle than TMAN. Words on the internet don't bother me.
If you allow full freedom of expression (within the forum rules), I can escrow this for you.

Allow me to quote myself on the subject at hand.
Why I didn't Support it:

I was asked to respond here.

After reading most of the topic, including FortuneJack's response about their Terms, I won't Support the Flag that claims they "violated a casual or implied agreement".
I do think the Terms are shitty though. If certain bets are not allowed, cancel them before the match.

Not all the duplicated bets are canceled, only the ones that exceed 100,000 in euros.

You should clarify this in your Terms and Conditions.

Why I didn't Oppose it:

FWIW: the reason I didn't Oppose the Flag is that I don't like the "shitty" Terms. Terms should be clear, not sneaky.

for members (except newbies

Jr. Members will love it! Paying low-ranking accounts to "vote" won't give you accurate results.

I would love to have you as an escrow, with your conditions (we can reverse the foul language rule). Nonetheless there is one obstacle to this: you'll have to make up your mind. Of course, you don't have to communicate to me what your decision is, just mention in a post when you make up your mind, and I'll appoint you the escrow and send you the money, and only afterwards you rule on the flag.

We're all humans and make mistakes and I think you're making a mistake. It is clearly obvious that I got freerolled by fortunejack. And even by their own rules it just doesn't add up. Either it's 100k max win per bet and I had 2 different bets, either it's 100k max win per sports outcome event and I had bets on 2 different matches. Either way, I should be getting my 200k win. Yet for some reason I only get half. Bookmakers are responsible for the rules they put out and for the bets they accept as I am responsible of any betting I make.

It would be a bad example of not making up your mind in front of such extreme accusations I am making. It's either true or not. Your stand on this is incoherent. Either I got scammed or not.

As far as the argument that I would be having a more accurate result without the Jr members, I think Sr and Hero Members should be motivated first by the sense of integrity and disdain in front of any act of scamming, and also for the reputation of the forum. The giveaway is just a little more incentive to take the time to read my scam accusation, we can always as well see the percentage of higher ranking members what they voted for.

[LoyceV]

I would love to have you as an escrow, with your conditions (we can reverse the foul language rule). Nonetheless there is one obstacle to this: you'll have to make up your mind. Of course, you don't have to communicate to me what your decision is, just mention in a post when you make up your mind, and I'll appoint you the escrow and send you the money, and only afterwards you rule on the flag.

I can escrow, but I will neither Support nor Oppose the Flag.
If that's okay:

Code:

escrow addy:
REMOVED since OP doesn't seem to want it

It would be a bad example of not making up your mind in front of such extreme accusations I am making. It's either true or not. Your stand on this is incoherent. Either I got scammed or not.

I'm not sure about either side. The Terms aren't in your favour, but the Terms seem unreasonable too. It would be interesting to see how a judge would rule on this, but I can't.

Because I like clear rules, if you pick me as escrow these rules apply:
Decision making:

Here is how it works:
-There is going to be a list, in alphabetical order, for members (except newbies or those that FortuneJack obviously pay) who participated in this. Date limit is 30th of May 17h UTC. It is your rank on this day that is going to be taken into account.
-Using the hash of bitcoin block number 738888 (which should occur on the 31st of May): All of the numbers in the hash are going to be added, then divided by the number of participants. The rest of the division constitutes the number of the first winner, then the next 9 on the list in alphabetical order are picked. Example: hash 000000037efa8aef04ef675 and 16 participants --> We add 37 + 8 + 04 + 675 = 724 and divide by 16. The rest of the division is 4, so the winners are the 4th to 13th on the list. If the rest of division is 0, then winners are 16 and 1 to 9. If it’s 15, then winners are 15, 16 and 1 to 8.

Who can participate:
-Anyone who is a member, not newbie, does not have a FotuneJack signature or is in their pocket (a quick profile and messages check will take place. Example: @Hhampuz obviously does not participate). Please make sure that your BTC address is visible either on your profile or just leave it in a comment here.

This means anyone from Jr. Member and up qualifies, unless they have a FortuneJack signature. There's no exclusion of users with negative feedback.
What about the users who Supported/Opposed the Flag already before you opened this topic, haven't posted here, and don't have a Bitcoin address in their profile?

-If you use foul language and come in here cursing and swearing you are ineligible. You can still express and be offensive no problem but no foul language or insults.

This rule won't apply if I'm escrow.

-In any case the list of participants  is going to be published here before bitcoin block 738888 is mined.
-If participants are 10 or less, no need for a BTC block: The 10 mBTC prize is going to be simply divided among them.

Last rule

[DireWolfM14]

The rest of the division constitutes the number of the first winner, then the next 9 on the list in alphabetical order are picked. Example: hash 000000037efa8aef04ef675 and 16 participants --> We add 37 + 8 + 04 + 675 = 724 and divide by 16. The rest of the division is 4, so the winners are the 4th to 13th on the list. If the rest of division is 0, then winners are 16 and 1 to 9. If it’s 15, then winners are 15, 16 and 1 to 8.

What do you mean by "The rest of the division"?  I don't understand where these numbers are coming from.

I would love to have you as an escrow, with your conditions (we can reverse the foul language rule). Nonetheless there is one obstacle to this: you'll have to make up your mind. Of course, you don't have to communicate to me what your decision is, just mention in a post when you make up your mind, and I'll appoint you the escrow and send you the money, and only afterwards you rule on the flag.

If anything, you should pick an impartial person who's NOT going to be ruling on the flag.  I understand that the results will be open and transparent, but there could appear to be a conflict of interest.  Especially if the rules are a bit vague (see above.)

As for impartiality, Switzerland is by far the most impartial person I know on this forum, you'd do well to have his help.

I won't be supporting or opposing this flag for similar reasons to LoyceV.  Casinos in general need to be exceptionally clear in their TOS because these types of "accusations" are annoying, and very rarely are they actually scams.

[LoyceMobile]

What do you mean by "The rest of the division"?

The rest or remainder, see https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=724%2F16

[DireWolfM14]

What do you mean by "The rest of the division"?

The rest or remainder, see https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=724%2F16

I see, here in 'Murica we call that fractional reduction.  Got it, thanks.

[PaperWallet]

I would love to have you as an escrow, with your conditions (we can reverse the foul language rule). Nonetheless there is one obstacle to this: you'll have to make up your mind. Of course, you don't have to communicate to me what your decision is, just mention in a post when you make up your mind, and I'll appoint you the escrow and send you the money, and only afterwards you rule on the flag.

I can escrow, but I will neither Support nor Oppose the Flag.
If that's okay:

Code:

escrow addy:
1PAPERKhH5Mt6xUF398oApefDy28u53uEf

It would be a bad example of not making up your mind in front of such extreme accusations I am making. It's either true or not. Your stand on this is incoherent. Either I got scammed or not.

I'm not sure about either side. The Terms aren't in your favour, but the Terms seem unreasonable too. It would be interesting to see how a judge would rule on this, but I can't.

Because I like clear rules, if you pick me as escrow these rules apply:
Decision making:

Here is how it works:
-There is going to be a list, in alphabetical order, for members (except newbies or those that FortuneJack obviously pay) who participated in this. Date limit is 30th of May 17h UTC. It is your rank on this day that is going to be taken into account.
-Using the hash of bitcoin block number 738888 (which should occur on the 31st of May): All of the numbers in the hash are going to be added, then divided by the number of participants. The rest of the division constitutes the number of the first winner, then the next 9 on the list in alphabetical order are picked. Example: hash 000000037efa8aef04ef675 and 16 participants --> We add 37 + 8 + 04 + 675 = 724 and divide by 16. The rest of the division is 4, so the winners are the 4th to 13th on the list. If the rest of division is 0, then winners are 16 and 1 to 9. If it’s 15, then winners are 15, 16 and 1 to 8.

Who can participate:
-Anyone who is a member, not newbie, does not have a FotuneJack signature or is in their pocket (a quick profile and messages check will take place. Example: @Hhampuz obviously does not participate). Please make sure that your BTC address is visible either on your profile or just leave it in a comment here.

This means anyone from Jr. Member and up qualifies, unless they have a FortuneJack signature. There's no exclusion of users with negative feedback.
What about the users who Supported/Opposed the Flag already before you opened this topic, haven't posted here, and don't have a Bitcoin address in their profile?

-If you use foul language and come in here cursing and swearing you are ineligible. You can still express and be offensive no problem but no foul language or insults.

This rule won't apply if I'm escrow.

-In any case the list of participants  is going to be published here before bitcoin block 738888 is mined.
-If participants are 10 or less, no need for a BTC block: The 10 mBTC prize is going to be simply divided among them.

Last rule

I have reversed the "no insult" rule. I agree it's too subjective and complicated, let's keep it simple. For negative trust you are right since we are talking about scamming I will exclude those clearly with negative score. I have edited rules to answer all of your questions. As of now these changes don't affect anyone who participated so we can make these adjustments.



I would have really loved to have you as an Escrow. Although in accepting a neutral standing on this I would already be acknowledging the failure of my giveaway. The giveaway is going to take place no matter what, I can't go back, and I agree. But for me 13 mBTC is quite a sum and if I fail in getting the most people to participate, I would be disappointed.

[PaperWallet]

The rest of the division constitutes the number of the first winner, then the next 9 on the list in alphabetical order are picked. Example: hash 000000037efa8aef04ef675 and 16 participants --> We add 37 + 8 + 04 + 675 = 724 and divide by 16. The rest of the division is 4, so the winners are the 4th to 13th on the list. If the rest of division is 0, then winners are 16 and 1 to 9. If it’s 15, then winners are 15, 16 and 1 to 8.

What do you mean by "The rest of the division"?  I don't understand where these numbers are coming from.

I would love to have you as an escrow, with your conditions (we can reverse the foul language rule). Nonetheless there is one obstacle to this: you'll have to make up your mind. Of course, you don't have to communicate to me what your decision is, just mention in a post when you make up your mind, and I'll appoint you the escrow and send you the money, and only afterwards you rule on the flag.

If anything, you should pick an impartial person who's NOT going to be ruling on the flag.  I understand that the results will be open and transparent, but there could appear to be a conflict of interest.  Especially if the rules are a bit vague (see above.)

As for impartiality, Switzerland is by far the most impartial person I know on this forum, you'd do well to have his help.

I won't be supporting or opposing this flag for similar reasons to LoyceV.  Casinos in general need to be exceptionally clear in their TOS because these types of "accusations" are annoying, and very rarely are they actually scams.

For choosing the Escrow there are no rules, except that the limit date is 25th of may. Or I might do the giveaway myself. I am unable to do all of this for getting people to rule on this flag and the Escrow does not. I simply need any trusted member to come out and say "I made up my mind" and he'll get the money. Only afterwards he'll rule. And believe me I won't be disappointed for whatever he does. On the other hand I won't be neither trying to interfere in his work whatsoever nor trying to argue with him on why he opposed the flag or....  I'll just leave him alone.

I will be checking Switzerland thks.

And last, if you want to state clear ToS to be in line with what they actually did, it would be (in italicized what they DON'T put in their terms)
-We reserve the right, to cancel any identical bets and consider only the first bet as valid. Cancelling these bets could take place after the outcome of the game has taken place, whether the bets won or lost. This is to be decided at our sole discretion.
-The maximum win allowed per player on sportsbets is 100,000 euros. If any player was to win more than 100,000 euros, he'll only be paid 100,000 euros, and the rest of his balance will be forfeited.

They'd lose their licence in a second, even by Curaçao standards. But their terms are not what was written above.

[DireWolfM14]

For choosing the Escrow there are no rules, except that the limit date is 25th of may. Or I might do the giveaway myself. I am unable to do all of this for getting people to rule on this flag and the Escrow does not. I simply need any trusted member to come out and say "I made up my mind" and he'll get the money. Only afterwards he'll rule. And believe me I won't be disappointed for whatever he does. On the other hand I won't be neither trying to interfere in his work whatsoever nor trying to argue with him on why he opposed the flag or....  I'll just leave him alone.

That's a silly stipulation, and to be honest it makes me think that you're not really committed to honoring the lottery.  In your position, I would want someone who's not participating in the giveaway to manage the money, if for no other reason than to ensure impartiality from the escrow.

I will be checking Switzerland thks.

Lol, Switzerland already gave you his answer.

And last, if you want to state clear ToS to be in line with what they actually did, it would be (in italicized what they DON'T put in their terms)
-We reserve the right, to cancel any identical bets and consider only the first bet as valid.

That sounds pretty clear to me; i.e. they can cancel the bets.  It doesn't say that they can cancel the bet only before the event.  It's obvious they don't want people making duplicate bets on their site, probably because they want to limit the prize to something they can afford to pay.  So, either find another site without a limit or without a duplicate-bet stipulation, or don't duplicate your bets on FortuneJack.  

Maybe their terms aren't as clear as they can be, but what is clear and obvious; you were engaging in funny business, and they're protecting themselves from your shenanigans.

[PaperWallet]

For choosing the Escrow there are no rules, except that the limit date is 25th of may. Or I might do the giveaway myself. I am unable to do all of this for getting people to rule on this flag and the Escrow does not. I simply need any trusted member to come out and say "I made up my mind" and he'll get the money. Only afterwards he'll rule. And believe me I won't be disappointed for whatever he does. On the other hand I won't be neither trying to interfere in his work whatsoever nor trying to argue with him on why he opposed the flag or....  I'll just leave him alone.

That's a silly stipulation, and to be honest it makes me think that you're not really committed to honoring the lottery.  In your position, I would want someone who's not participating in the giveaway to manage the money, if for no other reason than to ensure impartiality from the escrow.

I will be checking Switzerland thks.

Lol, Switzerland already gave you his answer.

And last, if you want to state clear ToS to be in line with what they actually did, it would be (in italicized what they DON'T put in their terms)
-We reserve the right, to cancel any identical bets and consider only the first bet as valid.

That sounds pretty clear to me; i.e. they can cancel the bets.  It doesn't say that they can cancel the bet only before the event.  It's obvious they don't want people making duplicate bets on their site, probably because they want to limit the prize to something they can afford to pay.  So, either find another site without a limit or without a duplicate-bet stipulation, or don't duplicate your bets on FortuneJack.  

Maybe their terms aren't as clear as they can be, but what is clear and obvious; you were engaging in funny business, and they're protecting themselves from your shenanigans.

Ok you think I am not committed, but I said I am. Maybe you live around people or come from a place where it is ok for someone's word not to be good. The thing is you're not participating and already complaining.

Then go ahead and please oppose the flag. Believe me it would be fun to see how many members oppose it.
I am saying I have been SCAMMED. If you agree with LoyceV, then it would be something for a judge to determine and not an outright scam and not that clear, and something so complicated. You both with LoyceV should oppose it.

If you were to take the rules with that very basic and "stupid" (in a positive sense) interpretation, then:
"which team will win the rest of the match"
"final result"
maybe for any English speaking person are not identical bets?

If you were to have just a little more sense of some unwritten rules in life, like if you deal with somebody he's not supposed to steal you, then just maybe, bets 2, 3 and 4 were outright scams. Of course they should be adding to their terms engaging in funny business voids all pays and plays, it's so clear.

At some point I can't argue with bad faith.

In any case, good luck everyone.

[examplens]

Why I didn't Oppose it:

FWIW: the reason I didn't Oppose the Flag is that I don't like the "shitty" Terms. Terms should be clear, not sneaky.

terms are still terms. sometimes they seem so stupid, but obviously, it is necessary to emphasize everything. People come up with all sorts of things

Then go ahead and please oppose the flag. Believe me it would be fun to see how many members oppose it.

I remember your case, and while it was still current, I opposed the flag still then. as far as I remember of my decision, there was only one reason, their ^FortuneJack casino, their rules. You can't much complain, the rule existed before this specific case.
I will look at the whole discussion once again, maybe I made the wrong decision earlier.

[suchmoon]

Am i the only one who has a problem with OP offering money (being that in the form of a giveaway) in exchange for participating in flag support/opposition? WTH, really?  

As long as the payment isn't based on the outcome, and the reward is public, I think it's okay. It's different when people pay for for positive reviews or negative feedback (I've seen both cases).
It's certainly a first

That's not what the trust system is for. At best this is low-effort spam, incentivizing which is against the rules when posting on the forum, and I can't think of any reason why such incentive could be good for the trust system either.