Only for the BOLD and Braves. Let's have a discussion.

[AnotherAlt]

He accuses others of Having Anger and mental issues. I didn't look at their posts. Either JollyGood has some mental problems, or he properly doesn't understand the system. I never had interactions with him. Just because I made This and This posts, JollyGood Added me on his distrust list.

~AnotherAlt's judgement is Distrusted by:
1. NEW JollyGood (Trust: +16 / =1 / -0) (DT1! ( 1081 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

I saw he added 2468 People on his distrust list, and it seems he was doing it for every word people write that he doesn't like or disagrees with. Luckily he cannot distrust someone more than one time. If he can, He would do that. He uses the Trust Feedback system as like daily routine thing. We wake up and Brush our teeth first. But he woke up and figure out if anyone said anything against him and put them in his personal jail. LOL.

AFAICS JollyGood will distrust an user when that's user distrust him, same like this one where an user gave him a negative tag, then he will gave negative tag too or it can be said as revenge minded.

How dare you? Aren't you afraid of getting distrusted by JollyGood?

[1715291017]

1715291017

[1715291017]

1715291017

[1715291017]

1715291017

[examplens]

Are you JollyBad lawyer or you consider him a saint maybe?

obviously, you accept the setting that the OP put in the first post. in short, only the brave dare to put tildes in front of the Jollygood name, and that's what I'm trying to point out here.

I see you gave him positive feedback back in 2019 and that is fine, but you never said anything to criticize his questionable behavior?

A few months later, I gave similar positive feedback to you. you were both young members of the forum then and I wanted to support you because you made a quality contribution to the development of the forum. I still think that these are good feedbacks.
you probably weren't paying enough attention to it, but I advised him several times to think about changing the negative tag when I thought he was wrong. I have no problem being critical of him, the last time I criticized his attitude, even though you were in that discussion

now we go off-topic and talk about JG, which was not the intention when opening this topic. I won't express my opinion about him again, I guess I have to open a new topic for that.

[DaveF]

...and we need a different system for trades as they are 2 totally different things.

Can we get an amen.
I have been saying that for years

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5154576

I don't think it's ever going to happen, but we can keep hoping that it will and complaining when it does not.
I think there are a bunch of things a lot of us would like to see happen on the forum, in terms of trust / feedback / etc but if it has not happened yet, I don't think it ever will.

-Dave

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

although you both changed your feedback, I'm still convinced that both of you were forced and that this is some kind of discussion between you. which again, is not the correct use of the trust rating system here.

Obviously you missed the main conversation. Does it look like I was forced or I considered breaking it because it was more accurate?

everything we have in the case starmyc vs Jollygood is an exchange of feedback between the two of them and a message to you via PM. unfortunately, this is not enough for anything, and without presenting clear evidence by any of them.

Did JollyGood provide any clear evidence or a convincing response about it yet? (1) I offered him to have a one to one conversation in PM. (2) Then he was given chance to support his reasoning on this topic. There are nothing yet. When someone does not have anything to say in their defense silence is the best response which is what JollyGood is using.

But starmyc explained the situation and as an ex Software Engineer I am well aware that how a freelance job conducts. Read and it will help. Starmyc recommends,

I recommend not working with him, or asking to be paid using a third party and really well defined & trackable requirements to not get cheated on.

Also, the amount was really small so (I don't remember the precise amout, but it was like < 200$ in btc)... as this story is old, and I'm out of business, I've no longer any interest about recovering this small amount of money.

I'm sad because I spent quite some time to work on this stuff at the time and all I got is this bad reputation stuff.
But well, that's life and there are more important things to deal with.

JollyGood is lucky that still there are no type three flag against him because starmyc lost his interest.

Point his, how many starmyc you need to see before you realize JollyGood is using his feedback to hostage others and benefit his own satisfactions?

it is evident that your negative feedback was given to him (Jollygood), provoked by your attitude and feelings toward him. I believe you know, such cases are more like a neutral tag, not negative or even positive.

You are asking the wrong person. You need to ask JollyGood when to leave a neutral or when not to leave a neutral also when to leave a negative.

no matter how harsh and merciless he seemed when giving negative tags, however, he is ready to admit his mistake.

How many corrections of mistakes do you think is enough to cool off JollyGood drama in reputation thread?
You will find many only in this single topic : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5260202.0
There were many more cases I read in the last few days against him.
Retaliatory feedback then feel pressure from the community, change it to neutral.
Retaliatory tilde
Even tilde when he does not like a post that does not support his arguments.
That's what he is continuing from the past few years.

I consider you as a sensible forum user but I am sorry to say that you are embarrassing yourself not to see the changed JollyGood which is resulting you are promoting an overzealous, mentally unfit mad man.

you didn't mention him, but all your screenshots were taken via his profile. from the discussion on this topic, I would say that everyone saw it that way.

Please give me few more perfect examples from other members, I will add those too to avoid confusion. I have not found anyone else yet to use unfortunately.

Let's continue JollyGood related conversations here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60722729#new

I was expecting a response of the questions I asked you in my last post.

[JollyGood]

The whole feedback, trust and merit system should be overhauled... it should be overhauled a long time ago. It is understandable you say you think it will not happen. I know you said it years ago but in my opinion it is probably only going to happen if there is a concerted effort by members to push for it.

As mentioned in the above post in a different thread on a slightly topic, the key words "theymos", "flexibility" and "fluidity" are essential. I am not giving up hope with regards to how the forum functions because it just might change.

...and we need a different system for trades as they are 2 totally different things.

Can we get an amen.
I have been saying that for years

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5154576

I don't think it's ever going to happen, but we can keep hoping that it will and complaining when it does not.
I think there are a bunch of things a lot of us would like to see happen on the forum, in terms of trust / feedback / etc but if it has not happened yet, I don't think it ever will.

-Dave

[The Sceptical Chymist]

But when a user's feedback leaving is (1) clearly out of retaliatory, (2) clearly to hostage others to silent against him, (3) clearly based on inappropriate arguments, (4) clearly using it to scam others would you still add him in your trust network or you will tilde (~) him?

No I wouldn't, and that's why I ~'ed JollyGood and a number of other members.

The trust system (including both the DT aspect and feedback giving in general) is just straight-up broken and is way too complicated and full of holes to work as anything people can rely on.  That's not a new opinion from me; I've been saying the same thing for years, but people always defend it.  Who knows, maybe I'm the one who's wrong.

But what's the point of this thread, exactly?

[JazzOne]

I think we should all mass drop out from DT membership, that would force theymos to make some needed changes and reduction of DT1 members.

If everyone mass drop out from the DT, would not it be a heaven for the scammers who have negative feedback???

[goldkingcoiner]

The way that the DT system is right now, it serves nobody but a select few. Its not even a trust system at this point. Its a "you scratch my back and I scratch yours" kind of system. It has almost absolutely nothing to do with how trustworthy a person is but rather who he is liked/disliked by. Its a system of favoritism.

We absolutely need an complete overhaul of the trust system or we will keep seeing people abuse it for their own purposes. I imagine there is even some trust selling going on in the background.

Maybe we should have a community voting system for who gets DT instead? Obviously the "DT club" alone cannot be trusted with responsibility. Anyone who does not deserve to be in the system gets voted out by the entire Bitcointalk community. We can have votes once a year or something.

[JollyGood]

Well, that would be one side-effect of members deciding to delete their trust list. It is not just the scammers that it would become a haven for it would also become a haven for those that are already manipulating the feedback, trust and merit system for their own agenda.

If everyone mass drop out from the DT, would not it be a heaven for the scammers who have negative feedback???

[mv1986]

The way that the DT system is right now, it serves nobody but a select few. Its not even a trust system at this point. Its a "you scratch my back and I scratch yours" kind of system. It has almost absolutely nothing to do with how trustworthy a person is but rather who he is liked/disliked by. Its a system of favoritism.

We absolutely need an complete overhaul of the trust system or we will keep seeing people abuse it for their own purposes. I imagine there is even some trust selling going on in the background.

Maybe we should have a community voting system for who gets DT instead? Obviously the "DT club" alone cannot be trusted with responsibility. Anyone who does not deserve to be in the system gets voted out by the entire Bitcointalk community. We can have votes once a year or something.

I don't know if this makes sense or is too complicated, but I could also imagine a type of lottery based on user IDs that over a certain period of time have fulfilled certain requirements, such that no inactive or really, objectively bad users can be chosen. It could involve a certain number of users for each rank from Full Member to Legendary, with Legendary having sort of a majority maybe? Once you have been chosen in the lottery, your term ends after x months and you are not part of the next lottery anymore UNLESS, and this would then involve a community vote, for a predefined small number of spots it is possible for someone to be voted by the community to keep the status for another term (potentially indefinitely).

A major problem I see is that as soon as someone has something to offer financially (e.g. bounty managers), the voting is almost automatically skewed (or maybe not as those who can't get in have reason to not vote for a manager always picking the same people).

This is of course still prone to manipulation as the predefined requirements in order for someone to 1) participate in the lottery and 2) receive a voting right can still be heavily influenced by, for instance, the merit sources.

Just a thought experiment. Having some probabilistic element involved could make things much fairer I believe?

[tranthidung]

Maybe we should have a community voting system for who gets DT instead? Obviously the "DT club" alone cannot be trusted with responsibility. Anyone who does not deserve to be in the system gets voted out by the entire Bitcointalk community. We can have votes once a year or something.

Community vote won't make sense!

First, the current trust system is decentralized and community-based but still have drawbacks

Second, if you see past community votes that can be manipulated by local communities. If you have a big local community and big fans behind, you will get more votes. Unfortunately, it does not mean you are better than others or have higher quality than others.

Even if you count the voting power (voting weight) by earned merits, it still does not work well! Earned merits are not the same in a ways you earned it globally or locally (international threads or local threads) or just inside your local communities. In addition, you will get more votes if you are merit sources. I mean between two posters, a merit source poster and a non-merit source one, with a same post (same content, same quality), the merit source will more easily to receive merit

Your idea is not bad but it can not work too much well.

[JollyGood]

I don't know if this makes sense or is too complicated, but I could also imagine a type of lottery based on user IDs that over a certain period of time have fulfilled certain requirements, such that no inactive or really, objectively bad users can be chosen.

Something similar is already happening with the current DT rotation system. DT1 users adding others to their trust list thus giving them DT2 is something being manipulated by cliques therefore any new format should take that in to consideration. When it is done with genuine intent it is different but manipulation of the system takes many forms.

It could involve a certain number of users for each rank from Full Member to Legendary, with Legendary having sort of a majority maybe? Once you have been chosen in the lottery, your term ends after x months and you are not part of the next lottery anymore UNLESS, and this would then involve a community vote, for a predefined small number of spots it is possible for someone to be voted by the community to keep the status for another term (potentially indefinitely).

Any form of community vote would be open to manipulation by cliques. I would be against community votes to elect members otherwise it would be another way for egotistic cliques to a get a foothold to create more drama rather than to avoid it.

I do like the idea that once a user has carried out a particular role they cannot be selected again for 'x' length of time, that would severely hamper the drama queens and cliques if they ever in a position to create havoc.

A major problem I see is that as soon as someone has something to offer financially (e.g. bounty managers), the voting is almost automatically skewed (or maybe not as those who can't get in have reason to not vote for a manager always picking the same people).

This is always going to be problematic but goes beyond the finances involved and goes to the networks of members that collude. Thankfully most campaign/bounty managers seem more interested in their actual work rather than the politics and drama therefore would probably avoid putting their name forward.

This is of course still prone to manipulation as the predefined requirements in order for someone to 1) participate in the lottery and 2) receive a voting right can still be heavily influenced by, for instance, the merit sources.

Well I have been saying for some time the feedback system, trust system and merit system is broken. I think the merit system especially the merit source part is not fully functioning the way theymos would have wanted.

And as you said if voting for members comes in to play then those that already wield some influence in the forum could end up trying to use any means necessary to ensure they can get what they want (such as pre-defined requirements to participate in the lottery) when it comes to voting members in.

Just a thought experiment. Having some probabilistic element involved could make things much fairer I believe?

You put forward excellent ideas. Any suggestions which can help make the forum a better place is to be welcomed especially those can minimise or eliminate the efforts of the cliques that are not working for the wider benefits of the forum or the members.

[KingsDen]

But when a user's feedback leaving is (1) clearly out of retaliatory, (2) clearly to hostage others to silent against him, (3) clearly based on inappropriate arguments, (4) clearly using it to scam others would you still add him in your trust network or you will tilde (~) him?

I am having a latent understanding of leaving a retaliatory feedback.
I can say that if someone leaves you a feedback, then because you also have the freedom to retaliate, it's fine and I have seen it severally.
But it will be more damaging to anyone leaving an untrue feedback in order to retaliate. I believe that the more a user is leaving an untrue or frivolous feedback, the more his/her feedback value is reducing. It will get to an extent that your feedback will no longer carry weight, be you a DT1 or DT2.
Your feedback will certainly be meaningless if after reading your feedback, a user still do successful business with the person, managers still accept the user into campaigns and the user still offer services unaffected.

I believe that what should be 100% retaliatory is custom trust list. Like myself, I didn't know I was in someone's distrust list, but I was lucky to view from LoyceV thread. I simply excluded the person from my trust list aswell. For someone to distrust you without a genuine reason means that the person's judgment shouldn't be trusted aswell.