Thread locked I owe it to aew. JollyGood and his Feedback

[Poker Player]

It should be red if he can back it up with a proper Reference link with proof. Without that, it's just his opinion. He's entitled to have one, and I prefer neutral over red for it.

If we are talking about a lesser evil we are going to agree on this, but my point is that if you don't have proof you shouldn't write that someone is untrustworthy, a liar and has mental problems. You'd better keep your opinion to yourself and not write it on someone's trust page.

[1714017448]

1714017448

[1714017448]

1714017448

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

[....]
There is an after and before question now since he sent me a retaliatory feedback. 🤣
When I remove my old feedback then technically he will say I sent him the retaliatory feedback because my one will come later. I am thinking a way how to correct it and also use appropriate reference for starmyc case too.

This no longer applies because his feedback on your account is neutral.

You are right. Now it can be changed and I tried to make it closer to accurate. As LoyceV suggested now it's two separate feedback with separate reference also added starmyc so that his feedback can be visible as trusted feedback.

An appropriate reference for negative feedback would be the scam accusation topic.

Where did you get this idea? It does not always need to be on the scam accusation board.

Did you ask starmyc why he didn't create a scam accusation against JollyGood if he felt cheated by him?
[....]

[...] The way things stand, you seem to be taking sides based on the word of one party, despite the fact that neither side has provided credible evidence to support their claims.

Your answers are here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60714131#msg60714131
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60714605#msg60714605

[mindrust]

If you can’t code your own online casino, you shouldn’t be running one imo. That’s all I understand from this case or anything similar happened before.

Take a look at freebitco.in. It is 2-men operation and has been working flawlessly for years (5+)

Running an online casino without knowing how to code is like running a restaurant without knowing how to cook.

It may seem to go fine for a while but sooner or later that damn day will arrive and you’ll have to cook yourself.

Jolly, Royse, Pammy why don’t you all kiss each other and be friends?

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Kiss my ass rusty 😉
It's sad to see some people made the DefaultTrust as their own property. I feel the sigh came out from ETF's response.

[FatFork]

An appropriate reference for negative feedback would be the scam accusation topic.

Where did you get this idea? It does not always need to be on the scam accusation board.

Don't twist my words. I never said "always".
You said: "I am thinking a way how to correct it and also use appropriate reference...", I suggested an appropriate reference.

Did you ask starmyc why he didn't create a scam accusation against JollyGood if he felt cheated by him?
[....]

[...] The way things stand, you seem to be taking sides based on the word of one party, despite the fact that neither side has provided credible evidence to support their claims.

Your answers are here:

From my perspective, that's just more hearsay. My thinking is more in terms of credible evidence.

It's sad to see some people made the DefaultTrust as their own property. I feel the sigh came out from ETF's response.

Each of us should check any trust feedback manually (if needed) and draw our own conclusions based on the evidence presented.

[dkbit98]

In my opinion, Lauda was too trigger happy on the red paint, and JollyGood goes down the same path. I especially dislike that this scares off good users, while real scammers will just continue with a new account.

You remember that Lauda was accusing many scammers and cheaters for plagiarism and in the end someone discovered several plagiarism cases in his own account.
If you start mass producing negative feedbacks left and right, it's almost certain you will make mistakes and accuse innocent people in the process.
At least Lauda had the balls to quit and left the forum on his own terms, so people remember him for good things he did.
I doubt same thing will happen with his copycat.

Meanwhile, his own Reference link shows he didn't ask for source codes, and I think it's unreasonable to expect free source codes after you pay someone for a freelance job.

This looks like borderline scammer or blackmailing behavior, provide source code or you will receive negative feedback.

How even a neutral feedback applies here? My trust page is not for him to write my pathological reports.

I wouldn't worry about this neutral feedbacks.
People can easily search other side of the story and make their own conclusion.

This no longer applies because his feedback on your account is neutral.

No longer applies until next opportunity and next victim he finds.
I think everyone should reconsider if they want to keep positive feedback on JollyBad profile, including you FatFork.
This kind of bully behavior witch hunting is not bad just for him but for whole bitcointalk forum.
I would also suggest ~ him because of his repeated behavior and ignoring suggestions from other members.

[eddie13]

In my opinion, Lauda was too trigger happy on the red paint, and JollyGood goes down the same path. I especially dislike that this scares off good users, while real scammers will just continue with a new account.
I've discussed some of JollyGood's negative tags a few times (probably in Reputation), but gave up after it seemed futile. He must have had enough of it, and stopped trusting my judgement last May.
Why didn't you add starmyc to your Trust list? His feedback seems reasonable, and that would mean he'd be on DT2 when you're on DT1, and would level the playing field a bit:

A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost.

I checked JollyGood's feedback on starmyc, and I'm surprised he tagged the user saying:

When I asked for the source code he declined asking for more money. If I did not get the source code I would have to go back to him for every small tweak I wanted to make and therefore he would ask for more money again and again.

Meanwhile, his own Reference link shows he didn't ask for source codes, and I think it's unreasonable to expect free source codes after you pay someone for a freelance job.

Not speaking if this situation, but JG is pretty snappy with that red paint I agree, but I feel a big difference between the way he is and the way Lauda was..

Long story short, Lauda was the epitome of the entrenched financial game around here running crews of campaign management/escrow organizations, would stand up and destroy the competition at any chance, but at the same time skate extremely close to and cross the line themselves and defend very shady actions of their clients and compadres..
aTriz, mosprognos..

JG would just tag them all.. Not financially motivated that I can tell..
Keeps all them types in check..


Explain to me the source code deal..
Would he not have had to make/have the source code to produce whatever product he gave him? What would be his reasoning for not providing the source code?

I have a tendency to believe JG over that coder guy..

You think JG is hostile and unrelenting now, just wait until he has DT red and really doesn’t give AF anymore..

May be it's because Lauda was not disrespectful in their interaction with others.

OP, what was your motivation to take up this battle?
Royse shit?

[mindrust]

Would he not have had to make/have the source code to produce whatever product he gave him? What would be his reasoning for not providing the source code?

Providing the source code to the employer needs to be discussed separately before the job begins. The freelancer may indeed provide it if he wants to. If he doesn't then you can't force him to do so. The employer is free to find another coder.

If the contract between the two parties says the employee will provide the source once the work is finished, then he should do that. If there isn't anything about that in the contract, then well... the employer should have asked about it.

You want a product, you get the product.

Every time when you buy something from Microsoft or Apple... do they give you the app's source code for free? I don't think so.

[eddie13]

Would he not have had to make/have the source code to produce whatever product he gave him? What would be his reasoning for not providing the source code?

Providing the source code to the employer needs to be discussed separately before the job begins. The freelancer may indeed provide it if he wants to. If he doesn't then you can't force him to do so. The employer is free to find another coder.

If the contract between the two parties says the employee will provide the source one the work is finished, then he should do that. If there isn't anything about that in the contract, then well... the employer should have asked about it.

You want a product, you get the product.

Every time when you buy something from Microsoft or Apple... do they give you the app's source code for free? I don't think so.

Idk man..
He was hiring him to make a program, not buying an off the shelf program..

What would be his reasoning for not providing the source code?
Would it be more work?

I can’t imagine apple or Microsoft hiring someone to create a program and not expecting to receiver the source code..

[mindrust]

Would he not have had to make/have the source code to produce whatever product he gave him? What would be his reasoning for not providing the source code?

Providing the source code to the employer needs to be discussed separately before the job begins. The freelancer may indeed provide it if he wants to. If he doesn't then you can't force him to do so. The employer is free to find another coder.

If the contract between the two parties says the employee will provide the source one the work is finished, then he should do that. If there isn't anything about that in the contract, then well... the employer should have asked about it.

You want a product, you get the product.

Every time when you buy something from Microsoft or Apple... do they give you the app's source code for free? I don't think so.

Idk man..
He was hiring him to make a program, not buying an off the shelf program..

What would be his reasoning for not providing the source code?
Would it be more work?

I can’t imagine apple or Microsoft hiring someone to create a program and not expecting to receiver the source code..

Like I said, It should have been discussed beforehand.

I don't think Microsoft is amateur enough to hire coders without making that clear. If the employee don't want to share his work with MS, then he'll get the boot.

[eddie13]

I don't think Microsoft is amateur enough to hire coders without making that clear. If the employee don't want to share his work with MS, then he'll get the boot.

So it should have been commonly expected?

[mindrust]

I don't think Microsoft is amateur enough to hire coders without making that clear. If the employee don't want to share his work with MS, then he'll get the boot.

So it should have been commonly expected?

Definitely. The coder is under no obligation to share the source code unless it was clearly pointed out in the contract.

[dragonvslinux]

Explain to me the source code deal..
Would he not have had to make/have the source code to produce whatever product he gave him?

Of course, every coder relies on source code to produce a product. Correct, though completely irrelevant.

What would be his reasoning for not providing the source code?

Because JG didn't pay for the source code, simple. You get what you paid for, not what you expect to get after paying for something. Basic laws of commerce I think.

Imagine you pay for a generic chocolate bar. Do you have rights to know the exact ingredients and method to produce it, because you are a customer? Should you expect a refund from your purchase of that chocolate bar because the creator/seller refuses to share with you the ingredients and production method? When you bought the chocolate bar, did it come with the rights to know of the ingredients and production method in order to replicate yourself? Do you deserve a refund on your purchase of the chocolate bar because the vendor refuses to provide you with exact ingredient measurements and production method? All of these answers should hopefully be self-explanatory for you, so I hope you see the point here.

Why someone wouldn't want to share their "secrets" is irrelevant to the conversation, unless you paid for this information, rather than the end result: the product.

He was hiring him to make a program, not buying an off the shelf program..

How do you know this? Why would it not have been an "off the shelf program" that had been modified for JG's benefit?

I can’t imagine apple or Microsoft hiring someone to create a program and not expecting to receiver the source code..

I don't think Microsoft is amateur enough to hire coders without making that clear. If the employee don't want to share his work with MS, then he'll get the boot.

That's because a big corp wouldn't be dumb enough to purchase software without the source code, this has nothing to do with amateur deals.

The coder is under no obligation to share the source code unless it was clearly pointed out in the contract.

While I'm not fan of mindust, or mindrusting (no offence) - then this is the point here.

Meanwhile, his own Reference link shows he didn't ask for source codes, and I think it's unreasonable to expect free source codes after you pay someone for a freelance job.

This looks like borderline scammer or blackmailing behavior, provide source code or you will receive negative feedback.

[AnotherAlt]

I've discussed some of JollyGood's negative tags a few times (probably in Reputation), but gave up after it seemed futile. He must have had enough of it, and stopped trusting my judgement last May.
Why didn't you add starmyc to your Trust list? His feedback seems reasonable, and that would mean he'd be on DT2 when you're on DT1, and would level the playing field a bit

I see you suggest others modify their trust list which is very good. I have checked your trust list and look like you have made only two changes in the last 12 Months (You Included o_e_l_e_o and excluded mdayonliner). That means you care a lot about whom you trust and distrust. I have you on my Trust list and I am curious why don't you modify your trust list and make it bigger so that I can see more accurate feedback? People use their Trust List and Feedback power as daily routine things.

[DireWolfM14]

I really want to refrain from getting involved in this drama, but since I was called out by BitcoinGirl.Club I just want to vouch for what she said.  I have indeed, for months now attempted to have a discussion with JollyGood about his use of the trust system, but all attempts have gone ignored.  This includes one PM I sent regarding his tagging of Royse777.  His unwillingness to discuss the subject tells me that he has no defense for his abusive behavior.

I agree that once upon a time he was doing valuable work as a scam buster.  He was among quite a few members who (a couple of years ago) learned that they could build their accounts, and gain some recognition with merits or trust inclusions by exposing scammers, mostly bounty cheaters.  When they ran out of bounty cheaters to expose they started harassing anyone with alt accounts, regardless of whether they were cheating or not.  I suspect that most of these members recognized the folly of going after alts just for being alts, but not JollyGood.  He held onto the power which was given to him for longer than others.  Then he used the 1xbit excuse to spread his abuse of the trust system to any member that posted an applicaiton in their signature campaign thread.  

Many of these newbies were naïve to apply for the 1xbit campaign, but that does not make them scammers.  JollyGood would hold these tags over their heads, making demands of how they behave if he were to remove his tag.  This is extortion.

At one point (last year?) there was a thread in Reputation accusing a bunch of accounts as alts just for having misspelled the name of an athlete in the same way.  In that thread JollyGood said something that I found ridiculous, I rolled my eyes, he removed me from his trust inclusion.  During the recent Royse777 drama, after many ignored attempts to engage JollyGood in a rational discussion, I decided to exclude him from my trust network.  A couple of weeks go by, and he excludes me.  That's retaliation.

It's been made clear to me that JollyGood abuses the trust system.  He seems drunk with the power that he's been granted.  I don't know anything about starmyc's deal with JollyGood, and I haven't had time to dig too deep.  This however, has been my fear concerning many of the newly appointed DT members; i.e. that they'll use their power to harass and intimidate newbies in an effort to either extort them for money, or merely for more power.

Anyone who keeps JollyGood in their trust inclusions needs to know that they are enabling this behavior.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

An appropriate reference for negative feedback would be the scam accusation topic.

Where did you get this idea? It does not always need to be on the scam accusation board.

Don't twist my words. I never said "always".
You said: "I am thinking a way how to correct it and also use appropriate reference...", I suggested an appropriate reference.

My intention was not to twist your words. It sounded to me that it must be in scam accusations aboard. My mistake when I was wording the sentence.

Each of us should check any trust feedback manually (if needed) and draw our own conclusions based on the evidence presented.

And what do you conclude when one party is explaining his reasoning and other party is silent because they have nothing to say in their defense?

[dragonvslinux]

At one point (last year?) there was a thread in Reputation accusing a bunch of accounts as alts just for having misspelled the name of an athlete in the same way.  In that thread JollyGood said something that I found ridiculous, I rolled my eyes, he removed me from his trust inclusion.  During the recent Royse777 drama, after many ignored attempts to engage JollyGood in a rational discussion, I decided to exclude him from my trust network.  A couple of weeks go by, and he excludes me.  That's retaliation.

While I agree with a lot of points you made in your post, I'm still not convinced distrusting someone who distrusts you is malicious retaliation. At least I wouldn't compare it to returning negative feedback to someone, simply because they left you negative feedback. Not that you were implying that, just my issue is it doesn't help to identify the issue by simply calling it retaliation imo. I think this is about reciprocation, not retaliation.

To elaborate, in JG's trust list, there is something very telling about it. Out of 49 members who distrust him, that distrust is reciprocated for 47 of them. He otherwise is trusted by 17 (now 16) of the 19 members he has included. While he's entitled to include/exclude who he likes, I find it shows a lack of genuine feedback judgement if it's overwhelming based on users who trust him. Though when you distrust thousands of users, then I guess it's expected to add everyone who distrusts you as well (I understand that).

It otherwise make me wonder if JG has a habit of removing users from his trust list when they no longer trust him, as it'd generally show a very bad judge of character if it were the case and I think it might be. For example, in 2019 he trusted 50+ users, not necessarily just those who trusted him, but it didn't take long to refine this list simply to users who trusted him (apart from LoyceV ironically), once enough DT inclusions were gained. So the question is: is this really how a trust list is supposed to be built, based mainly on reciprocation? What changed apart from joining DT1 and gaining DT power?

I'm not even claiming it's trust list abuse, as if he trusts 50+ users and then a dozen trust him back, it's his choice if he wants to cut back on inclusions/DT votes. This is about his character, and whether a lot of those inclusions were based on reciprocation, as opposed to being based on someone's trust feedback like it should be. For example, if someone no longer trusts you, does it make their feedback less accurate and trustworthy somehow? If someone adds you to their trust list, is their feedback somehow more trustworthy all of a sudden? I think not, and would instead be a form of trust harvesting for use of a better phrase. But without checking each individual inclusion/exclusion and which came first, then this remains just a theory for now, but I wouldn't put it past him based on how his lists appear.

It's been made clear to me that JollyGood abuses the trust system.  He seems drunk with the power that he's been granted.  I don't know anything about starmyc's deal with JollyGood, and I haven't had time to dig too deep.  This however, has been my fear concerning many of the newly appointed DT members; i.e. that they'll use their power to harass and intimidate newbies in an effort to either extort them for money, or merely for more power.

Anyone who keeps JollyGood in their trust inclusions needs to know that they are enabling this behavior.

This is also the general impression I have and have had for a while now, despite being someone who trusted his judgement sometime ago.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

based mainly on reciprocation?

Reciprocation when someone is adding him in their trust list and/or sending him positive feedback or worse supporting his ingenuine twisted arguments
Retaliatory when someone tilde him and/or leave him a negative feedback or worse not supporting his twisted arguments.

First is fair enough although this should not be practiced makes it look trust farming but the second is undoubtedly dangerous.
Both together actually make the DefaultTrust system meaningless.

[dragonvslinux]

based mainly on reciprocation?

Reciprocation when someone is adding him in their trust list and/or sending him positive feedback or worse supporting his ingenuine twisted arguments
Retaliatory when someone tilde him and/or leave him a negative feedback or worse not supporting his twisted arguments.

First is fair enough although this should not be practiced makes it look trust farming but the second is undoubtedly dangerous.
Both together actually make the DefaultTrust system meaningless.

Personally I thoroughly disagree.

Distrusting someone simply because they distrust you is childish for sure as well as somewhat naive, but I don't see it as being that malicious. Some people are naturally distrusting of others, so doesn't take much (JG is a great example of this). Trusting someone predominantly because they trust you in return is the sort of trust farming that can easily become abuse of the system as doesn't show good judgement at all.

[dkbit98]

This includes one PM I sent regarding his tagging of Royse777.  His unwillingness to discuss the subject tells me that he has no defense for his abusive behavior.

He ignores anyone who criticize his recent behavior (including me) so you can't contact him in any way, he said I just want to create drama, and he calls out people who don't agree with him trolls that abuse DT system.
With all due respect to his past of scam busting I don't think someone like this should anymore be a part of DT system, and maybe I don't deserve as well.

Then he used the 1xbit excuse to spread his abuse of the trust system to any member that posted an applicaiton in their signature campaign thread.

Look how many posts he made in all 1xbit topics and make your own conclusion.
He is giving 1xbit a free promotion and always keeping them on top, not so strange when you see him trying to act as a gambler.
I understand people who write posts because they are in signature campaign, but using this to burn other people and constantly talk about 1xbit like a broken record is silly.

I decided to exclude him from my trust network.  A couple of weeks go by, and he excludes me.  That's retaliation.

I think DT system is broken and we need reform asap, that is why I cleaned my trust list today.

It's been made clear to me that JollyGood abuses the trust system.  He seems drunk with the power that he's been granted.

I think he is borderline abuser, but it's not to late to change his behavior.
I will admit I made mistakes in past with trust feedback, but I was willing to listen to other people and make changes.
Sure I still have many members on ignore, but I won't ignore everyone I don't agree with, and live in a bubble like some people.