JollyGood and his devaluing attitude

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I am going to distrust you exactly for the reason of your strong urge of leaving feedback. There are no other reason. You are possibly a good fella in the community.

I don't think this is the best way to use your custom Trust list. "You should exclude users who leave inaccurate feedback." ^[reference] , but I guess that's your prerogative and you can do whatever you want with your trust list as far as I'm concerned. Although I'm not entirely sure what I did to step on your toes, I don't really care.

You did nothing and you did not step on his toes. He is an attention-seeking troll as you probably know from other threads where he and his buddies were defending the indefensible while spouting nonsense about me and other members that challenged them. For what it is worth, him distrusting you is meaningless because the troll himself is untrustworthy.

FatFork, I support your neutral tag, thanks for bringing this to your attention.  In this case, this is a clear abuse of the merit system, and in 2018, red tags were left for such cases immediately, so the neutral tag, written without any insults, it really is the place to be. But arguing with those who have double standards in the use of trust system, in my opinion, is pointless.

You are right, it is a clear abuse of the merit system and it most probably should be addressed and noted.

As for those that have double standards in the trust system (such as the troll following FatFork around), you are absolutely correct, it is pointless to either debate, engage with or argue because they are not worth giving any attention to. Speaking of which, I found this feedback that was left for you somewhat laughable because it is ridiculous and should never have been left but when they are driven by revenge the trolls and attention-seekers do weird things:

I noticed several times JollyGood wants to devalue everyone with his words who do not support his feedback abuse. This is one of the example from many. You are seeing he is talking to FatFork (in a discussion which was already dead) and deliberately choosing words which are troll, untrustworthy, spouting nonsense. He is doing it to justify his feedback leaving habit. The neutral I left for Ratimov was also found interesting by him as if it was supposed to be a negative.

The words he deliver towards the people he does not like, on his negative feedback he left for others at-least shows that he is disrespectful and feels happy when insulting the people he does not like. He also does not have the ability to admit his own mistakes. Obviously have egocentric issues. All these concludes me JollyGood may need to seek professional advice for his mental health. He do things out of overzealousness and obsession.



Recently I am seeing he is leaving neutral feedback to others for low quality posts and as he is taking it as a matter in his own hand. He could just report the low value posts to the moderator and could have a personal note for himself using a plugin created by TryNinja.
His attitude is, he always wants to devalue others either it's with a negative feedback or neutral feedback (seems a new strategy for him because others are started to talk against the negatives recently*) or even in a dead conversation.

*
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5418565.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5417940.0

[1714953868]

1714953868

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Recently I am seeing he is leaving neutral feedback to others for low quality posts and as he is taking it as a matter in his own hand. He could just report the low value posts to the moderator and could have a personal note for himself using a plugin created by TryNinja.

All of the other points before this aside, leaving a neutral feedback for a shitposter is acceptable and in some cases desirable.  By putting into words on a member's trust page just how bad of a poster he/she is, you're (hopefully) warning campaign and bounty managers that they won't be a good prospect.

I've left those kinds of feedbacks plenty of times, and if you look on my trust page and see what I've left for people in the years 2016-2017 there will probably be zillions of neutrals related to post quality.

I think JollyGood is willing to listen to advice and change his habits. I'd like to see him remove all of those feedbacks that have nothing to do with anything forum-related.  Neutrals are another story, though.  If you ask others, they'd probably tell you that a neutral is the way to put a note on a member's profile.  Not a big deal.

[DaveF]

I think I am in a very small group that would like to see more negative feedback and less neutral. I really thing nobody reads the neutral.
Perhaps, it's just me but I have had some people who I told to take a look at this board come back and say "nope, it's a crapfest would rather be on r/CryptoCurrency/ or one of the discord discussions"  Think about how bad we look when things like that are said.

I don't know if there really is a good solution, you want to have an open forum you have to put up with crap posters.
You start aggressively moderating people it annoys a lot of them.
Having users self patrol seems to work to a certain extent, but then you get what we have now which is people who don't like the way others are doing something and think their way is better.

-Dave

[yahoo62278]

I have never had an issue in speaking with Jollygood. Every time we have interacted via pm, he has been nothing but respectful towards me, even if it's on a matter we might disagree upon. Sometimes he may be a little aggressive on leaving tags but unless it's just a bad tag he should be able to leave whatever tag he wishes. All of those neutrals IMO are fine looking at the examples you posted. I look at tags when filling a campaign, red or neutral, to determine if I want to give a user a spot.

Are you sure this is an issue, or does his tag on you bother you? Maybe if you guys tried having a respectful conversation with each other vs trying to force an opinion on one another, you might be able to resolve your differences?

We don't all have to like each other, but we should respect others' opinions and try to get along. If we cannot, use the ignore button.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Aren't there people here complaining about spam in gambling threads? I think that by leaving a neutral mark on low-quality posts, Jollygood warns the user to start taking responsibility for what he writes. I have looked at the neutral reviews that Jollygood has left and many of them are true.
A simple example is a user with a neutral tag from Jollygood and a trust review warning.
He is waiting for the moderators to ban him from visiting the forum .

[Little Mouse]

We don't all have to like each other, but we should respect others' opinions and try to get along. If we cannot, use the ignore button.

That's where Jollygood wouldn't mind to use a negative feedback and later change the feedback when victim post in the reputation board. But I see no problem to leave a neutral feedback when it comes to detect a shitposter. That's not the first time here in bitcointalk. I have seen a lot of neutral tags from actmyname to the shitposters.

Part of the Spammer Blacklist: this user has made at least 233 replies that are not up to forum standards.

[LoyceV]

His mental illness is, he always wants to devalue others

You can't base psychological diagnostics on forum posts. And by calling it "mental illness", you're doing exactly what you accuse him of: devaluing him.

I think I am in a very small group that would like to see more negative feedback and less neutral.

As long as it's for the right reasons, that's okay. But if it's for the wrong reason, it reduces the warning potential of negative feedback by making it too common.

I really thing nobody reads the neutral.

I sometimes use neutral feedback to stand out.

[1miau]

I don't see anything controversial about the neutral feedbacks from JollyGood. Maybe it's because some spammers are quick to overreact when being caught and making a lot of drama. Spam is still a problem and the Gambling section is prone to it.

Neutral feedback is certainly helpful in some sort to "warn" spammers and make campaign managers aware of low quality posters. Spam and shitposting has to be discouraged. And shitposters should be aware that complaining too much after being caught could result in much more troble (ending on a blacklist / more neutral trusts or even possibly a negative trust from JollyGood). That's some sort of deterrence to avoid shitposting, see the post from DaveF. 
Of course, when submitting a neutral feedback, we should also provide a meaningful reference link to prove our feedback.

And the recent case is a good example how the spammer admitted his mistake and the issue has been settled.

[Issa56]

I sincerely hope that what I'm about to say won't really annoy anyone here. I'm just trying to make a little contribution regarding neutral trust that has been given, I have nothing against jollygood or other members giving neutral trust, but my suggestion is that if a user is being tagged as a shit poster, remember that we all joined the forum as newbie, and over time, our posts quality have gotten better as a result of learning more about bitcon and cryptocurrency in general, am sure nobody will want to wake up every day to keep on seeing that their account has been tagged for the mistake made when they just joined the forum, so I'm only trying to make a suggestion, but am sure not everyone will agree with me, or let me say it won't really make sense to everyone.

I think it will be nice if we all go through our trust feedback after few months or even after one year just to check people that have been tagged as shit posters if there is improvement in their post quality and if you are satisfied with their post quality, I think the neutral trust should be removed and if there is not improvement in post quality, then the neutral trust should remain. This is just a suggestion which am sure not everyone have time for that, but have seen some accounts which have been tagged as shit poster since 2020, but if you check their post quality now, it has really improved but the neutral trust still remain, am sure nobody will be happy seeing that kind of review on their profile.

[Awaklara]

am sure nobody will want to wake up every day to keep on seeing that their account has been tagged for the mistake made when they just joined the forum, so I'm only trying to make a suggestion, but am sure not everyone will agree with me, or let me say it won't really make sense to everyone.

if you look at the neutral Trusts that jollygood does, most are not newbie accounts. even the account is 1-4 years old.
is that too short a time for someone to study on the forums?
if the spam posting was done by an account with a high rating, and there is a history of changing passwords and emails. there is an indication the account has changed hands (hacking or trading).
that means there are newbies disguised as higher ranks just for the sake of getting paid from the campaign.

I think it will be nice if we all go through our trust feedback after few months or even after one year just to check people that have been tagged as shit posters if there is improvement in their post quality and if you are satisfied with their post quality,

I think jollygood has already done that. I saw a few who created a thread on reputation asking for the removal of the tag on their account. as in the case of About My Red Trust (Remove Request). jollygood gives 8-12 months to revisit the case.
In the case of I wish I could contact jolly good, the applicant also received a change in the tag from negative to neutral.

neutral feedback for the shit poster is not a problem. but if indeed those who are tagged make a change in post quality. submissions for deletion of feedback should be possible.

[dkbit98]

All these concludes me JollyGood may need to seek professional advice for his mental health. He do things out of overzealousness and obsession.

I don't know about his mental condition, but he is certainly name-calling and ignoring everyone who don't agree with his point of view.
You will notice that everyone who criticized his constant trust abuse is now called a troll or attention seeker, and he doesn't want any discussion so he often tells topic creators to lock topic after his final word.
It's like he is judge, jury and executioner all in the same time.

I think JollyGood is willing to listen to advice and change his habits.

Not really, until he is under pressure.
He continues with his trust abuse and he ignores everyone who don't agree with him.
Please look at his trust list and judge for yourself:
https://loyce.club/trust/2022-10-29_Sat_05.05h/1016855.html

Anyone who is still trusting this guy is directly supporting him and indirectly doing trust abuse with him.

We don't all have to like each other, but we should respect others' opinions and try to get along. If we cannot, use the ignore button.

You obviously never said anything he didn't like, or you would be ignored by him long time ago.
Try to be objective and see what he is doing with trust system and his feedback.
This guy listens to nobody (in his eco chamber) until his actions get more attention from community.
I don't have anything against neutral feedbacks, but look at the bigger picture of things he is doing.

[examplens]

I don't know why, but after the last removing JG neg tag appeal, I expected a thread like this  maybe I would have expected a thread called "Announce your inappropriate JollyGood feedback..."
maybe this could be a common thread for all those who feel that they have been unfairly marked by JG, to reduce the number of opening new topics with the same subject. Of course, OP can't be on their ignore list 

Yes, really his feedback is a little sharper, seems to have less than zero tolerance for any hint of abuse. It is also obvious that he has made many mistakes and overreacted through negative tags.
I have actually seen several cases where JG changed the feedback after a suggestion, which in a way is the positive side of the whole thing. (for example, this was not the case for Lauda). now it's more a question for JollyGood himself, why did it happen that he often has to revise his feedback?
maybe he could review all his feedback once more and possibly change it to neutral, purely to prevent any new dramas. but I believe it is too much work.

As for the influence of such tags on participation in signature campaigns, I don't think it's a big minus. most serious managers know how to "read" this kind of feedback.

Recently I am seeing he is leaving neutral feedback to others for low quality posts and as he is taking it as a matter in his own hand. He could just report the low value posts to the moderator and could have a personal note for himself using a plugin created by TryNinja.

honestly, you're getting into a personal conflict here. A neutral tag is fine while it is only informative, but you try to turn his every word as a fact against him.

All these concludes me JollyGood may need to seek professional advice for his mental health. He do things out of overzealousness and obsession.

His mental illness is, he always wants to devalue others either it's with a negative feedback or neutral feedback (seems a new strategy for him because others are started to talk against the negatives recently*) or even in a dead conversation.

This is a very serious diagnosis you are making, you sound like a psychiatrist.
what is the difference between your conclusion and the one he left on your profile as feedback?

[dbc23]

Are you sure this is an issue, or does his tag on you bother you? Maybe if you guys tried having a respectful conversation with each other vs trying to force an opinion on one another, you might be able to resolve your differences?

We don't all have to like each other, but we should respect others' opinions and try to get along. If we cannot, use the ignore button.

It is really hard resolving differences with JollyGood and I doubt if after his tags he bothers revisiting the users whom he gave those tags for shit posting to see if there have been any improvement. And no matter how respectful the user's conversation might be he takes his final judgement even before any fair hearing.

I don't condemn his judgement especially when it has to do with quality of posts but there should be room for flexibility and adjustment preferably a room for a personal appeal other than giving out tags and still use the ignore button on them.

[Igebotz]

Aren't there people here complaining about spam in gambling threads? I think that by leaving a neutral mark on low-quality posts, Jollygood warns the user to start taking responsibility for what he writes. I have looked at the neutral reviews that Jollygood has left and many of them are true.
A simple example is a user with a neutral tag from Jollygood and a trust review warning.
He is waiting for the moderators to ban him from visiting the forum .

I'm one of those gambling posters who has been trying so hard to clean up the gambling section by reporting and making a list of some of the bad posters on that section. I don't have the nerves to tag them yet, but I do monitor those on my list and remove them when I see some positive changes.

List]Gambling Board Spammers; Concerns, Solutions & Suggestions

Those who want to tag can go ahead but don't let the neutral sounds like negative.

[mindrust]

Back in my day, red trust ratings meant something. It wasn't something you would convert to a neutral rating so easily.

You youngsters don't know that but there was a hero...

Her name was "Lauda"...

She was the perfect scam buster and when you received a tag from her, it was impossible to get rid of it.

Once she marked you, it was over.

No second chances, no negotiations.

Appeals? Fuck em.

She would defend her position with clever arguments to the very end. She was convincing too. Never backed down. No apologies.

Those were the days...

Then eventually she got compromised. She apologized. That day I lost a piece of mine.

Aah...

[Poker Player]

-snip

If I were you, either of you two, I would put the other on ignore and forget about it. Ignoring certain members has worked very well for me. The time I spend on the forum I don't want to spend angry, no more than absolutely necessary at least. And if you think that no matter how much of a reputation we have, we're just someone behind a nickname, it's not worth getting too upset.

[LoyceV]

Back in my day, red trust ratings meant something. It wasn't something you would convert to a neutral rating so easily.

That's still how it should be, and that's how I leave feedback. Many of the accounts I tagged got Nuked, and the only reason I'm not removing the feedback is to serve as a historic reference. The ones that didn't get banned still deserve the feedback.

Her name was "Lauda"...

She was the perfect scam buster and when you received a tag from her, it was impossible to get rid of it.

Once she marked you, it was over.

No second chances, no negotiations.

Appeals? Fuck em.

Lauda was too trigger happy. I remember the day he (she?) tagged 500 accounts, just to reclaim the record. You can't tag that many accounts and check of them individually.
Lauda often turned out to be right, but not always. And scaring Newbies with trigger happy tagging makes Bitcointalk look very hostile.

[DaveF]

....And scaring Newbies with trigger happy tagging makes Bitcointalk look very hostile.

It's a very fine line as to where keeping it not a disaster ends and hostile begins.

I have left negatives for some users, not as much as a I think I really should but it's a time thing.

I have also removed a couple when asked to, by the users. Not being willing to change is not a good thing. Allowing, scammers, shit posters, and people who are causing issues on the forum and not having repercussions is also not a good thing. As I said it's a fine line and easy to cross it. Personally, I would rather be on the too harsh but willing to forgive side. But, as I said I am also too busy to tag a lot so it's kind of moot for me.

-Dave

[dkbit98]

Lauda often turned out to be right, but not always. And scaring Newbies with trigger happy tagging makes Bitcointalk look very hostile.

Is there any way to see exact statistics for number of tags by each individual member?
I know Lauda tagged a lot of people, but this guy mentioned in this topic title could be worse than him (yes Lauda is a male), he could very well brake his bad record and he is not planning to stop.
Problem is that I see some members are thinking he is doing a good job (maybe because his username claims he is good  ) and they justify anything he does in this forum.
Just look how he is bumping certain topics, using altaccounts, tagging people left and right, and abusing trust all the time.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I think JollyGood is willing to listen to advice and change his habits.

Not really, until he is under pressure.
He continues with his trust abuse and he ignores everyone who don't agree with him.

Often when someone receives advice, it's because they're not doing something right and/or are under pressure, so my statement still stands.  Regardless of whether he'd have changed any feedbacks all on his own or not, my point is that he's not someone who just hardens their position on something if they're challenged (like me sometimes, or like Lauda, TECSHARE, and some other members that come to mind).

And as I said, I had excluded JollyGood from my trust list well before I simply wiped it altogether, so hopefully no one here is taking my words to be a ringing endorsement for him.  I think his heart is in the right place and he's trying to do a good thing for the forum, but he's using the wrong tool to do it with.