It is likely that your neutral tag will somehow affect the managers who are considering the account for acceptance into their company signature, and this is something that accounts with a neutral tag are afraid of. Although everyone assumes that managers always recruit by checking their posting history. You have created a lot of noise and fear for people wearing your neutral tags, and I think this is such a wave of disagreement. Of course, I would not react in any way to ultimatum statements not to participate in subscription companies until the tag is removed if the person really deserved such a review. As they say, do what you want. The question is whether everyone deserves this tag.
This is the part that I find utterly confusing. I have always known campaign managers taking on participants based on their posting rather than just feedback. Even negative trusts are reviewed and if deemed unfair or unwarranted would probably be dismissed by competent campaign managers. For the first time I have known, a campaign manager recently took on participants without issues with their neutral tags and then after employing them asked the participants to see if they can get the neutral tags removed.
They only write to me asking me to remove negative tags, and that is extremely rare. Usually, people understand that they themselves are to blame.
I know not all tags should remain permanently, they can be revised and it depends on the situation but even when they know they are the ones to blame they seem to find the courage to ask for tags to be removed especially when trolls and attention-seekers with ulterior motives and vendettas jump on the bandwagon and use every opportunity to start attacks in the hope they can encourage members from distrusting me.
Seeing this type of low-level barrel scraping desperation vendetta by a couple of trolls and attention-seekers has probably helped encourage some to try to ask for tags to be removed.
Probably you, JollyGood, should start complaining to the moderators if a person is spamming, and let them decide and delete posts, or maybe ban them for a while.
I will definitely start doing that too, thank you for the suggestion
Back to you: I appreciate that you're starting to use more neutral instead of negative. That helps against "inflation" of the value of a negative, and it's less drastic. The only neutrals in your list that I think may be inappropriate are the ones saying "Note to self". There's a userscript for that. If it was intended for public viewing, you didn't have to add the "Note to self".
Additionally, since the Reference links lead to a a deleted post in your own self-moderated topic, I think deleting the post would have been enough.
Yes that is something I thought about later, the references have been deleted in several cases and that was because the post was deleted. I hope I will have a workaround for that in future if I give tags.
I don't think this is some kind of conspiracy or organized action against you. Rather I would say that this is your isolated case because you left any feedback. many have a negative connotation, although you set them as neutral. as a DT member, you somehow have an obligation to look at all requests to withdraw your feedback, so a large number of requests is just the result of many of your ratings. of course, it's up to you if it's not an unnecessary waste of your time.
I am happy to review any feedback if a request is made, I have no problem at all with that. I also believe there is no conspiracy as such but the timing is suspect.
In a post
yahoo62278 suggested I should be flexible on the reviewing between 8-12 months after a request has been made, which means after an initial request has been made and if I reject it I should review it earlier depending on the recent quality of their posts. I am happy to take that advice and did do recently and remove a neutral because the member has contributed positively in global and local boards.
It is better to discuss such things publicly, so I always refer to a relevant topic where the defendant can complain if he wants to. I have received PMs from some people asking for my opinion on neutral feedback posts, and I always respond with my thoughts. I do not mind public discussion, but in some cases it is better to avoid any potential conflict by PMing each other directly.
Absolutely correct. The references should be there but the posts were deleted, it would have been better to keep the reference points but the thread also needed cleaning. Having said that the deleted posts should be available for viewing if they were scraped.
JollyGood, I noticed that you mentioned a particular signature campaign. Could you share publicly which campaign it is about and which members specifically contacted you? It is possible that the signature campaign manager made this a requirement, though I have never seen such requirements before.
Royse777 is managing the sinbad.io campaign. Though something went wrong with the post which received the neutral tag for the OP in the other thread (the neutral tag deservedly has been removed), the second signature campaign applicant also was allowed on to the signature campaign with the neutral tag and it became a problem
later. If it was a requirement from the campaign manager it should have not have been an issue after applicants were selected for campaigns. I also have never seen such a requirement before.
Last appeal I received was from LTC casino back in October.... Probably because of this neutral feedback I left them
| | LTC Casino | | 2022-07-02 | | Reference | | Revised from negative to neutral. There was a scam accusation against them, but they now started paying the victim. |
In the case of the casino, it seems they sent the same PM request to all those that tagged their account including yourself. It could be a case of them wanting their name clear of accusations for the sake a business whereas some members want their name clear for the sake of joining or applying to join signature campaigns.
Are you a dt gang member? If yes then that's normal, I don't know why people worry about neutral feed back, it actually look cool to have the middle digit going up instead of just being a boring zero. If the feed back doesn't serve any purpose then there is no need for it to exist, forgive and move on, someday someone will do the same for you.
I (alongside other members) do rotate in and out of DT1. I also do not know why some members worry about neutral tags. In the recent case, I was happy to remove the neutral tag after reviewing the posting history because the member is definitely contributing positively but others seem to have taken that as a sign to try to make their own attempt.
I have left quite a few neutral trusts for shitposting, excessive trolling and other abuses as well but I didn't receive any PMs recently to remove that neutral trust. Maybe it's just because I've explained each neutral feedback in detail or the members are well aware that if they continue their abuse (also via "unsolicited PMs"), it won't get better. If some members are admitting their mistakes, I'm always open to remove a neutral trust but I like to keep it public, for public record. The best feedbacks are, where everyone can review the evidence via reference link.
Like you I am open to removing/reviewing neutral (and negative) trust and without a doubt the biggest error was to remove the reference. Hopefully I will not be repeating that mistake because others should be able to view and/or scrutinise then comment if valid need arises.
@OP
Regarding your PMs: I would review a particular neutral trust if the request via PM is really honest, constructive and the member is willing to admit his mistake. But that's also including that the abuse which has led to that trust, is lenient enough to be removed from the account's trust page.
If the PM is not constructive at all or the abuse has been simply too harsh, I would keep the neutral trust even longer.
Probably, if someone is sending you repeatedly PMs requesting to remove a neutral trust, it could be considered as "unsolicited PM spam" and could be reported.
Thank you for the advice. I have over the years received both sincere and highly deceptive PMs asking for trust to be removed. I try to be courteous when engaging with members to understand their views but usually their sincerity can be picked up after a couple of sentences.
And for your particular case, it really looks like that these people only care to get rid of your neutral trust due to paid signature campaigns.
So, your neutral trust is most likely very accurate to "warn" campaign managers about signature spammers.
You are right, nearly all the requests from years ago to those being made today are related to signature campaigns but I have to be honest and add that I am only but human and am therefore more than capable of making errors. I have acknowledged several over the years but I do not understand the desperation of some members to have their feedback removed when it is just a neutral tag. Previous PM requests have even been from members with multiple tags and they were probably trying to have them all removed or just mine for reasons unknown.
---------------
Thank you to all. As my reply has got long I will reply to the remaining members in another post.
