Neutral feedback is fine. based on what was written, it seems that you were writing in a self-moderated gambling thread started by JollyGood. He must have deleted some of your posts. somehow I'm not very surprised, because it happened by Jolly, but to be honest all mega threads in gambling discussions are mostly spam and signature quota fulfilment.
I don't think it will affect your participation in the campaigns, at least not in those managed by experienced managers (you mentioned some of them). they will always first trust their judgment by looking at your post history, and only after that, they rely on the assessment of the importance of feedback on your trust page.
According to the OP, there was communication between himself and Royse777 (the campaign manager) before he sent me the PM. There is a lot more to this thread started than just someone finding it difficult to cope a neutral trust.
Wait for the
BitcoinGirl.Club and
dkbit98 to jump in to spout nonsense. Any opportunity no matter how pointless or ridiculous, is enough for these two individuals who just feel the urge to comment against me because i did not share their views in the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam threads
In this case it's not fine for the campaign. There is another user in the same campaign who has same type of feedback. I am sure he is working on it too.
so you're just proving that this neutral feedback doesn't mean anything, because it's still firmly in your campaign. I guess the reason is not just because it is from JG, knowing your previous history of conflict.
As a manager, don't you check the post history, or rather accept members based on the trust rating on their profile?
As I said, there is more to this thread than just a member finding it difficult to cope with a neutral tag.
But this neutral tag with questioning your post quality is not something I would like to consider in the campaign participants feedback page. It's not a negative tag but it's directly questioning your post quality. The product of a signature campaigner is the posts they make and if the product itself is in question then it does not look nice especially when it's given by a DT status user and showing on trusted feedback section.
It makes no sense. As a campaign manager, you decide who to accept in the campaign and who not. Both joker_josue and NdaMk had a neutral tag on their profiles before signing up for your campaign. If you doubt the quality of their "product", then why did you accept them in the campaign in the first place?
Neutral feedback is fine.
In this case it's not fine for the campaign. There is another user in the same campaign who has same type of feedback. I am sure he is working on it too.
Are you sure this isn't just another drama involving you and JG? You don't seem to mind the neutral tags (with a negative connotation) from DireWolfM14, for example.
Though the OP may not have intended, the thread is being used a pretext to start another drama (as you put it). A campaign manager stating he has a problem with a neutral feedback on the profile of a member yet still employs him. Has this sort of drama happened before?
I know Royse777 tried to get Poker Player to remove the negative feedback he placed because of the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam and he did it by starting a thread
After all I miss this board. I am not sure if the tactic is connected by according to the OP both he and Royse777 were in contact about the neutral tag and Royse777 allegedly wanted it removed. Coincidence? Maybe.
I know JG has been criticized for frivolous trust ratings, and deservedly so in some cases, but this ain't it. It's a neutral. Anybody can post a neutral for any reason, and using neutrals to comment on post quality is fine IMO.
Having said that, a sig campaign manager can interpret neutrals (or negatives/positives as well) any way they see fit, and a user can choose to join or not to join a sig campaign if they like/dislike that, so it's a non-issue either way. But it would be better to have such rules (e.g. "no neutral ratings from DT members") posted publicly instead of being applied ad hoc. Informed decisions FTW.
This campaign manager chose to select the OP for a campaign even though the neutral tag was there. Then wanted it removed because the campaign manager had a problem selecting someone with a neutral trust. This drama is over something frivolous and it has been manufactured to gain free publicity.
I'm surprised you got this kind of feedback. I would say that you are very far from those who create low-quality posts. But JollyGood, as always, has its logic, and publication in its topics suggests some incidents. I don't know what he wants to see as quality answers, but I would just skip JollyGood's self-moderated threads.
And as for managers, I think that to evaluate a user by the quality of his posts, it is enough to set aside some time to read his posts and form your own opinion on whether to accept the user into your company or not.
Your advice is perfect, the OP should in future skip my self-moderated threads if he makes low quality posts or drivel. And as deleting posts in self-moderated threads is at the discretion of the OP, he might for one reason or another have other posts deleted therefore he should avoid them too.
So here's the post where JollyGood think it's a low quality post.
https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6115/61154334.htmlIt really can seem strange to see a team that recently won the Premier League, like Leicester, being in this situation.
But we have to be realistic, Leicester have never been a team at all in the table. It was always a team of ups and downs of devision.
To be honest JollyGood is right to say your post has a bad quality, your post doesn't contain any points. It's not surprising anymore a bad team can beat a good team especially on football. But if I look the other of your posts, I can say you're not a shitposter, actually you have a good quality post in general.
I cannot recall the exact circumstances surrounding the neutral tag or deleting that particular post but it was drivel. I will review his tag in a few months time, I will have no problem revising the tag after I read through some posts.
~trash can
Un-ignored to read then immediately added back to my ignore list. Ah well, it was inevitable, it had to happen because my stalker BitcoinGirl.Club is still clinging on to me. Sending PMs to
nearly all members that trust me is another low from a low-life. This obsessed stalker needs to get a life for the sake of their own mental stability
~trash can
Another member un-ignored to read then immediately added back to my ignore list. The second obsessed stalker who just needs an excuse to jump on the bandwagon
@OP suchmoon gave you a perfect explanation and you might consider locking this topic. No other explanation is going to be better and unless everyone ~Jollygood, he will remain on DT. My suggestion to JG would be that sometimes a user deserves to be heard well before 8-12 months, but if you get so many messages regarding a trust issue then you prob start giving the same i'll review it in 8-12 month response to move on.
Yes you are right. The 8-12 months will probably not apply here, I will look in to it earlier than that but not because the OP created a drama with this thread but because I already had a change of mind. It was only when I logged in to write a PM to him that I noticed this thread.
Still, since I am not vindictive I will not let this thread sway me negatively. I will review it earlier. The tag was to remind me that I should watch out for his low quality posts and delete them. He never noticed it all this time then all of a sudden noticed it then sent PMs a couple of days ago mentioning Royse777 effectively has a problem with it.
Your suggestion to lock the thread is the best advice the OP had in line with what suchmoon stated. The OP should lock the thread as it is now serving trolls and attention seekers who have no interest in the OP but will jump to spout nonsense against me whenever they get an opportunity because they have their own hidden agendas.
~
This type of tag, despite being neutral, jeopardizes the quality of my posts, which can make people who don't know me at all question my work.
And I think that yes, it's annoying, a person being limited in the opportunities they can enjoy because of someone else's misinterpretation or opinion.
There is no need to be upset about this. Although we would like all feedback to be based on concrete facts, this is unfortunately not always the case. Negative feedback may be based on feelings, assumptions or other reasons that are not necessarily related to your quality as a poster. But one single neutral feedback on your account has no impact whatsoever, let alone that it can jeopardize the quality of your posts. The only person who can damage the quality of your posts is you. As for your participation in sig. campaigns, I do not see a problem since no respectable campaign manager will base their judgment of the quality of your posts on that neutral tag but rather on your previous posting history. I am not sure what Royse777's criteria are, but he obviously felt you were qualified enough to be accepted into the campaign.
As you said there is nothing for the OP to be upset about.
The strange thing about Royse777 getting involved in this matter is he did so after selecting the OP to participate in a campaign and then telling him to have the feedback removed.
As mentioned, even if the OP wanted to start this thread for his own purposes it has been derailed by a couple of attention seekers using it to distract as they have their own personal agenda against me from when I posted against their views in the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam threads.
