Members Asking For Neutral Trust To Be Removed

[Mpamaegbu]

~snipped~

If the same neutral tag says that the user makes a low-quality post just to meet objectives, it can influence the campaign managers' choices.

Fine and good.

However, what beggars explanation is why would a campaign manager accept a user who already had a neutral tag into their campaign but thereafter ask the user to find a way to get it removed? Why not reject the user in the first place? That's the supposed case with OP or that which I alluded to. If from the outset a user is rejected based on a tag, I don't think it will be much of an issue like what is being discussed now.

[1713604725]

1713604725

[joker_josue]

However, what beggars explanation is why would a campaign manager accept a user who already had a neutral tag into their campaign but thereafter ask the user to find a way to get it removed? Why not reject the user in the first place? That's the supposed case with OP or that which I alluded to. If from the outset a user is rejected based on a tag, I don't think it will be much of an issue like what is being discussed now.

That has to be a campaign manager to answer.
I don't even want to be here to individualize the situation, because even the OP didn't do that.

What I just meant is that a neutral tag, even if it's neutral, can contain information that compromises a user. Then comes the question of whether or not this comment is fair, but that is already another question, which was not even called into question here.

[LoyceV]

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.

It's easy: either archive the posts yourself before deleting them (use archive.org, archive.is or any of the alternatives), or use ninjastic.space or loyce.club as reference if the unedited version suffices.

[taguig]

~snipped~

If the same neutral tag says that the user makes a low-quality post just to meet objectives, it can influence the campaign managers' choices.

Fine and good.

However, what beggars explanation is why would a campaign manager accept a user who already had a neutral tag into their campaign but thereafter ask the user to find a way to get it removed? Why not reject the user in the first place? That's the supposed case with OP or that which I alluded to. If from the outset a user is rejected based on a tag, I don't think it will be much of an issue like what is being discussed now.

It's a case of I made a mistake it should have been this rule and the participant is the victim here, the managers should just let the campaign finish, and implement it on the manager's next campaign unless the campaign will last for years like the campaigns Hhampuz is managing but is it on the campaign rules that those with tagged need not apply because they will not get accepted in the campaign.
There are campaigns that specify that there should be this number of merits before you apply, some still apply and leave at the discretion of the manager because they believe they are qualified on the other requirements and let the manager decide if they are qualified or not, and most of the time they get accepted.

[JollyGood]

I leave a couple of feedbacks, few and far between, but have only been contacted to remove a negative feedback I left. A request which I declined by the way.

I understand members being contacted about asking to have negative feedback removed but being driven to such a state that they are having issues dealing with a neutral tag, that is highly unusual.

It's best to give feedbacks within the limit you can manage and review periodically.

Not necessarily because I would counter that point of view with another view that is when an appropriate feedback is left, the giver does not have any obligation to periodically review them. It might be considered good practice if the one leaving feedback reviewed them periodically without compulsion but they could prefer to not and there is nothing wrong with it.

I agree it's a definite improvement, but it's perplexing why people would be asking JG to remove neutrals (I haven't finished reading this thread, but I get the sense that it somehow matters to one or more bounty managers).

Perplexing is the apt word. Royse777 employed campaign participants knowing they had neutral feedback then encouraged them to try to have them removed.

JollyGood, I damn well know you aren't asking for advice as to what to do, but I'm just going to say that any PM I got like that would be deleted in seconds with no reply, and I'd also add the member to my PM ignore list (a massive, massive compilation of morons at this point).

Though I understand your angle on this type of situation, I think it would be inappropriate to dismiss a PM entirely because unless the request is reviewed it would be impossible to know whether it should be revised or removed. For example, if a PM was received asking for neutral/negative trust to be removed but the member had multiple tags (and/or a dubious history) I would probably follow your advice by adding to my PM ignore list otherwise there is a chance the feedback should be revised after reviewing.

I get the impression bounty managers barely give a shit if their participants have genuine negative trust much less a neutral for any reason.

Let 'em eat shit for the holidays.

Maybe there is a distinction made by managers between bounties and campaigns. I have known campaign managers to ignore negative and neutral tags and take on participants based on their posting or even other reasons. I hardly ever frequent bounty threads but from what I recall they were full of newbies (probably with many alt-accounts) trying to maximise anything they could earn.

It is not right for a campaign manager to solicit on behalf of a user who was left a neutral tag.

This is true, I think unless there are exceptional circumstances even the member that received the feedback should not be asking for the feedback to be revised. In this case, the campaign manager (Royse777) did not approach me directly but rather asked the members to do so instead.

I think neutral tag doesn't prevent anyone from joining a campaign, rather it will help the hiring manager to make the right selection of users to be accepted.

That is part of what campaign managers do when assessing which members to hire and which to reject.

I might look like a pessimistic person, but in most cases, they're just trying to cover their tracks ^{[especially if their so-called campaign manager is somewhat new]} and with regard to your question, I haven't received such PMs in recent months ^{[usually, they either stop using their accounts (e.g. rinse and repeat) or leave retaliatory feedback, but there are also a few that continue their operations as if nothing happened]}.

I do not see pessimism in your post. You are definitely not a pessimistic person, all you did was to simply stated the obvious but you are probably right because in most (not all) cases covering tracks is what their motives are about.

The problem with accounts is that they take time to build up in order to be able to receive a $60+ weekly income via signature campaigns therefore there is a desire to try to get any sort of criticism (either neutral or negative) removed. If they cannot do that then sure they will probably go down the retaliatory route by giving revenge feedback and troll around for a while before getting bored and concentrating no their other farmed accounts.

------

I wanted to reply to the remaining members in this post but the comments have been very constructive and I appreciate them, therefore I will reply further in the next post.

[AB de Royse777]

However, what beggars explanation is why would a campaign manager accept a user who already had a neutral tag into their campaign but thereafter ask the user to find a way to get it removed? Why not reject the user in the first place?

You are not my boss to report you the process of my work.

To all who are thinking this new implementation is targeting a particular user then you are wrong, I am managing few campaigns right now, do your own research instead of just dropping few lines in any thread. Your response will be better constructive. My concern is the content of the feedback not who left it.

For conspiracy theorist on the forum, your freedom of speech is your right. But the truth is, either you are giving too much importance to that particular user or maybe even worse he is trying to use you all to get more attention. It seems he hadn't have enough yet.

@JollyGood, stop typing my name. Consider it a very polite request to you in public.

Royse777
Royse777

[JollyGood]

There are some excellent posts made here which deserve a reply, unfortunately when I found an utterly pointless post from Royse777 asking I do not type her name therefore had to address that inconvenience first. I will reply to the excellent posts in the next reply.

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.

I agree it's a definite improvement, but it's perplexing why people would be asking JG to remove neutrals (I haven't finished reading this thread, but I get the sense that it somehow matters to one or more bounty managers).

Perplexing is the apt word. Royse777 employed campaign participants knowing they had neutral feedback then encouraged them to try to have them removed.

@JollyGood, stop typing my name. Consider it a very polite request to you in public.

What a pointless comment from you. Your name will be mentioned when asked by other to name or if needed in context. Just because yahoo62278 asked for his name to stop being used when you threw tantrums in the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam threads and mostly his request was adhere to, it does not mean you can simply ask members to stop typing your name.

In the OP and beyond I clearly avoided using your name but at some point members wanted to know which campaign manager would employ members with neutral feedback then encourage to try to have them removed on the basis it was affecting their chances of staying on the campaign. Poker Player seems to have summed up part of the issue with you and I am adding you back to my ignore list:

The timing of this has coincided with a particular signature campaign being managed by a particular campaign manager who was vouching for a neutral trust to be removed from a participant but I will not claim that is the only reason I am receiving PMs,

Yes, well, a manager who himself has 6 neutral tags changed from negative and who seems to care so much about neutral tags that he disregards them when accepting people into his campaign:

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?

For me it is more a question of ego, of someone who is overflowing with ego and runs $100 a week signature campaigns now, so his ego is even more boosted. I'm curious to see if he wins the antihero award, as you have to think that people who get paid from his campaigns or think they might do so in the future are unlikely to nominate him for that "award".

At the moment he has quite a few votes.

[AB de Royse777]

@JollyGood, stop typing my name. Consider it a very polite request to you in public.

What a pointless comment from you. Your name will be mentioned when asked by other to name or if needed in context. Just because yahoo62278 asked for his name to stop being used when you threw tantrums in the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam threads and mostly his request was adhere to, it does not mean you can simply ask members to stop typing your name.

In the OP and beyond I clearly avoided using your name but at some point members wanted to know which campaign manager would employ members with neutral feedback then encourage to try to have them removed on the basis it was affecting their chances of staying on the campaign. Poker Player seems to have summed up part of the issue with you and I am adding you back to my ignore list:

The timing of this has coincided with a particular signature campaign being managed by a particular campaign manager who was vouching for a neutral trust to be removed from a participant but I will not claim that is the only reason I am receiving PMs,

Yes, well, a manager who himself has 6 neutral tags changed from negative and who seems to care so much about neutral tags that he disregards them when accepting people into his campaign:

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?

For me it is more a question of ego, of someone who is overflowing with ego and runs $100 a week signature campaigns now, so his ego is even more boosted. I'm curious to see if he wins the antihero award, as you have to think that people who get paid from his campaigns or think they might do so in the future are unlikely to nominate him for that "award".

At the moment he has quite a few votes.

Go fuck and use your ignore button.

[joker_josue]

I don't think it's worth getting into personal wars. It's totally unnecessary.

I think we should all act with common sense, even when things don't go the way we'd like.

Even when you think a user hasn't been fair to us. I believe the best way to overcome this is to deal with it and try to work things out as best we can. If there is openness to dialogue, sincerity, honesty, things can be clarified.

These kind of personal wars are not good for the community. And it may affect third parties who have done nothing for this type of situation.

We don't have to like everyone or agree with everyone. But this forum grows based on the differences and freedoms of each one of us. And so, if it continues like this, Bitcointalk will continue to thrive.

So guys, exchange ideas and opinions, but never take these things personally and into a sawn-off war.


Remember there is one point we all have in common: Bitcoin!
If we do not agree on other points, remember that we agree on this one. 

[JollyGood]

The timing of this has coincided with a particular signature campaign being managed by a particular campaign manager who was vouching for a neutral trust to be removed from a participant but I will not claim that is the only reason I am receiving PMs,

Yes, well, a manager who himself has 6 neutral tags changed from negative and who seems to care so much about neutral tags that he disregards them when accepting people into his campaign:

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?

For me it is more a question of ego, of someone who is overflowing with ego and runs $100 a week signature campaigns now, so his ego is even more boosted. I'm curious to see if he wins the antihero award, as you have to think that people who get paid from his campaigns or think they might do so in the future are unlikely to nominate him for that "award".

At the moment he has quite a few votes.

Ego has always been one of her weaknesses as well as anger management issues but I think there are some underhanded tactics going on when she is asking members to send PMs to try to have neutral tags removed, I think it is very strange to employ members first then ask them to try to have feedback removed later.

Those neutral tags you referred to that she received that were revised from red (because of the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam) should never have been changed in my opinion but each to their own, we are all entitled to our views.

I'm guessing it's related to the conditions to be accepted in the signature campaign that is handled by @Royse777, he decided not to continue work with members who received neutral feedback especially if the neutral feedback was related to shitposting.

Surely in that case a campaign manager would only take on a campaign participant if they met the desired criteria beforehand rather than employ them and then ask them to contact the ones that left neutral or negative tags.

I know I've read on Service sub-board where a manager was asking selected members to get their neutral tag issues resolved or get removed from a campaign they already were on. I don't know why a manager would do that or consider a neutral tag to be anything sinister because that's not the way the community saw it a few years ago. I don't know if things have changed now.

Nothing has changed. At this moment, neutral tags are seen as they were years ago and can be left for a whole variety of reasons.

So, would such a campaign manager then base their conclusion on all neutral tags being for a wrongdoing? But of course, no. Screening hunters out based on neutral tag is a wrong call.

If the same neutral tag says that the user makes a low-quality post just to meet objectives, it can influence the campaign managers' choices.

Now the campaign manager must evaluate this in advance.
As well as the user will be able to question this tag in a sincere and honest way.

I think we can all make snap judgments, and things should be handled openly and logically.
And I think that despite this moment, of greater requests, JollyGood is able to manage and evaluate who should or should not get a response.

In general, I just think that each of us should avoid involving others in their disagreements among other users. This is an open forum, with thousands of people from different cultures, interests and backgrounds, who are entitled to different opinions.

You are right on multiple fronts. We are all from differing backgrounds and have different takes on matters within the forum. About your neutral tag it was rightfully removed after reviewing but campaign managers taking on participants first and then asking participants to try to have their feedback removed/revised as a condition of staying within the campaign is (to my knowledge) unheard of.

If the same neutral tag says that the user makes a low-quality post just to meet objectives, it can influence the campaign managers' choices.

Fine and good.

However, what beggars explanation is why would a campaign manager accept a user who already had a neutral tag into their campaign but thereafter ask the user to find a way to get it removed? Why not reject the user in the first place? That's the supposed case with OP or that which I alluded to. If from the outset a user is rejected based on a tag, I don't think it will be much of an issue like what is being discussed now.

Thank you. The point you made sums up the basis of the thread. It does beggar belief that a situation like this could arise and the one causing the commotion is a campaign manager who has already taken on participants based on what their feedback states yet afterwards has issue.

However, what beggars explanation is why would a campaign manager accept a user who already had a neutral tag into their campaign but thereafter ask the user to find a way to get it removed? Why not reject the user in the first place? That's the supposed case with OP or that which I alluded to. If from the outset a user is rejected based on a tag, I don't think it will be much of an issue like what is being discussed now.

That has to be a campaign manager to answer.
I don't even want to be here to individualize the situation, because even the OP didn't do that.

What I just meant is that a neutral tag, even if it's neutral, can contain information that compromises a user. Then comes the question of whether or not this comment is fair, but that is already another question, which was not even called into question here.

Without a doubt you are right. Any feedback that is left regardless of it being positive, neutral or negative should be detailed as well as have a reference link.

It's a case of I made a mistake it should have been this rule and the participant is the victim here, the managers should just let the campaign finish, and implement it on the manager's next campaign unless the campaign will last for years like the campaigns Hhampuz is managing but is it on the campaign rules that those with tagged need not apply because they will not get accepted in the campaign.
There are campaigns that specify that there should be this number of merits before you apply, some still apply and leave at the discretion of the manager because they believe they are qualified on the other requirements and let the manager decide if they are qualified or not, and most of the time they get accepted.

This makes complete sense if applied by campaign managers during the campaign itself but if members already have neutral or negative feedback before they have been selected to join then campaign managers should not be telling participants they can be removed from the campaign unless they try to have the feedback removed.

I don't think it's worth getting into personal wars. It's totally unnecessary.

I think we should all act with common sense, even when things don't go the way we'd like.

Even when you think a user hasn't been fair to us. I believe the best way to overcome this is to deal with it and try to work things out as best we can. If there is openness to dialogue, sincerity, honesty, things can be clarified.

These kind of personal wars are not good for the community. And it may affect third parties who have done nothing for this type of situation.

We don't have to like everyone or agree with everyone. But this forum grows based on the differences and freedoms of each one of us. And so, if it continues like this, Bitcointalk will continue to thrive.

So guys, exchange ideas and opinions, but never take these things personally and into a sawn-off war.


Remember there is one point we all have in common: Bitcoin!
If we do not agree on other points, remember that we agree on this one.  

What a brilliant post to end the thread with, thank you for such an enlightening positive post.

I will lock this thread now and will probably only unlock it if a particular situation arises. Thank you to all that post their views.