JollyGood is trusted by - and question.

[JollyGood]

Maybe sending a PM to discuss what he wanted to achieve would have been a better start than seeing him starting at gutter level with this thread. I could be wrong but it seems he opted for the latter because he is managing several campaigns and probably thinks he can exert influence over the majority of members who trust a member he does not like.

After his previous experience, I wouldn't blame Royse for not sending unsolicited PMs. He didn't want to go down that road again.

What previous experience are you referring to? Which road did he not want to go down again?

His only option was to start a thread.

How can you state that with certainty?

That is your opinion, you are entitled to it. I have my opinion and I am entitled to it. Since the comment was addressed to Royse777 he should be allowed to respond with his opinion because his opinion could differ from yours or mine. Maybe he should be given time to respond what he thinks rather than others (including you) replying what they think he is thinking, when in the end he can think of the reply himself if he chooses to reply.

As a participant in Royse Sig management, the highlighted portion of your post did not sit right with me. You're implying that individuals in Royse's management (we) are involved in a conspiracy and that our judgement is clouded and biassed. It's insulting to think about it that way.

You misconstrued my comment, at no point were campaign participants mentioned. Relax

The goal of this thread is to find common ground, not for both of you to start new dramas. Don't you think there's a need to reevaluate your tag if the majority of the DT says it's crossedline?

The goal of this thread is/was determined by the OP not by you or what your opinion is. You do not know what his goals are, he knows what his goals and opinions are and he should be given ample time to post them if he wishes to do it because he was the one who started the thread with the intention of creating new drama.

According to you it is to find common ground but according to the OP he started the thread effectively asking for members to exclude me from their trust on the basis he does not agree with a negative tag he received following the lead from a known troll who posts my trust list asking members to exclude me whenever any opportunity arises. That does not help the situation.

As for the second part, you stating the goal of the thread is not for both of us starting news dramas, that comment does not sit right with me and it is insulting to think that you equated the two. My first post in this thread was post #35. There are a total of 41 posts in this thread at the time of writing and this is post #41 which also happens to be just my second post. I added no drama here. That sort of imbalance does not help the situation and I do not appreciate it therefore do not start implying that this thread was created on a equal footing, it was not.

The drama was already playing out by him from moment he created the thread 35 posts before I made my first of two posts in this 41 post thread.

----------------

I am approachable and open to discussion with anybody on any subject but for now I am out of this thread unless I am advised something significant has been posted that requires my reply.

[1714261220]

1714261220

[1714261220]

1714261220

[1714261220]

1714261220

[Igebotz]

After his previous experience, I wouldn't blame Royse for not sending unsolicited PMs. He didn't want to go down that road again.

What previous experience are you referring to? Which road did he not want to go down again?

This road.....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5432989.0

How can you state that with certainty?

Its common sense - if there is no PM, thread is the only way to pass his message.

You misconstrued my comment, at no point were campaign participants mentioned. Relax

Your message was so clear, there is no need shying from it. well, Royse can not play me to do his bidding, my judgement on this matter is unbiased.

The goal of this thread is/was determined by the OP not by you or what your opinion is. You do not know what his goals are, he knows what his goals and opinions are and he should be given ample time to post them if he wishes to do it because he was the one who started the thread with the intention of creating new drama.

He stated his goal on the first paragraph of this thread- he said your feedbacks on his profile is damaging his business and want them gone! (in a cool tone)

So I was thinking just to ignore the feedback left by JollyGood, it's been long days and I thought it isn't gonna matter. I have enough in my portfolio to continue my business without the effect of the feedback. But it turns out I still get refused by clients because of the feedback he left on my trust page.

According to you it is to find common ground but according to the OP he started the thread effectively asking for members to exclude me from their trust on the basis he does not agree with a negative tag he received following the lead from a known troll who posts my trust list asking members to exclude me whenever any opportunity arises. That does not help the situation.

I agree that the OP made a mistake by requesting members to remove you from their trust list; that was not an appropriate approach to handle the matter; nonetheless, the OP still wants you to review your feedback on his profile.  

BitcoinGirl.Club and Ratimov have already reached an agreement to settle their long-running disagreement and have moved on! Why are you both taking so long to find common ground? As adults, ignore each other and move on.

[AB de Royse777]

I have my opinion and I am entitled to it.

They, and everyone else of the forum have their opinions and they are entitled too express it without your permission.

Since the comment was addressed to Royse777

Addressed to Royse777? My apology to think that the whole post was directed to the board. I don't blame others to respond you in that because I am sure they thought the same. English must be your 7th language that you write and speak or you are too afraid to face me directly. In any case, things will look better when you fix:
1. Addressing (Glow in red)
2. Use words/sentences that comes from good mouth (Glow in black). You are a bad mouth unfortunately.

These clients on the forum are new, they have no idea who left negative feedback for what reason, their only justification is the negative feedback is there and it's visible, they believe a negative feedback is bad for their business (it make sense when there are others who does not have it, it's the first thing that they see before everything else when they do their home work).

If it is not Poker Player being accused of contacting prospective clients telling them to not use ..his.. services and ..him.. allegedly losing business, it is now allegedly me causing lost business to ..him...

I guess the previous times set a precedent. Tags are placed but ..he.. wants them revised or removed and ..he.. gets them revised or removed therefore ..he.. thinks ..he.. can go after someone every few months trying to get a tag removed or revised. ..Narcissist.. is a word that immediately comes to mind.

There should be no argument that the feedback were left because JollyGood was felt insulted of the response I had when he was trying to show his usual bossiness to me that he shows to other members all the time to destroy their reputation (people who does not go along with him). JollyGood failed to destroy me entirely though but his action is effecting me until this date.

First, if ..he.. chooses to revisit the Bitlucy scam then ..he.. should do it with complete honesty and not be selective in an attempt to show ..himself.. in a much better light considering what actually took place. As a gesture of goodwill, I will refrain from posting links to comments ..he.. made related to the Bitlucy scam.

Second, I am fairly sure ..he.. blamed someone else when ..he.. said (words to the effect of) previously ..he.. was down and out, depressed, suicidal even, before ..he.. miraculously recovered and came back to the forum and bombarded every ANN thread ..he.. could trying to manage their campaigns. ..He.. is now alleging I tried to destroy ..him... What a ..melodrama...

Third, the feedback I left was based purely on the fact ..he.. was self-proclaimed Co-Partner of Bitlucy as well as Marketing Director of Bitlucy and added to that ..he.. was also campaign manager too (and all the associated issues I will not post here) therefore to allude I left feedback for any reason other than ..his.. conduct within various roles at Bitlucy is absurd and is an attempt to misdirect from the facts.

Do you guys (who have him in your trust list) really think a controversial user like JollyGood should be in the DT area?^(Q2)
I will be grateful to hear some justified response from you for the both questions left for you.

Cheers,

Putting cap in hand trying to have members add or remove me from trust lists based on ..a campaign managers whim.. (while having the lure of signature campaign participation), is quite insulting. Can anybody here imagine any other campaign manager posting such ..complete and utter nonsense wrapped in a one-sided melodrama laden with deception.. all for the sake trying to use any means necessary to try to have a negative tag removed or to render it useless by way of trust exclusions? The two campaign managers that I hold in very high regard would never stoop that ..low...

Maybe sending a PM to discuss what ..he.. wanted to achieve would have been a better start than seeing ..him.. starting at ..gutter level.. with this thread. I could be wrong but it seems ..he.. opted for the latter because ..he.. is managing several campaigns and probably thinks ..he.. can exert influence over the majority of members who trust a member ..he.. does not like.

Regardless, if ..he.. had any decency ..he.. would have sent a PM to start a discussion in order to get an understanding of perspective from both sides but I guess ..arrogance and over-confidence.. was always part of ..his.. persona and it grew over time as ..his.. portfolio of campaigns increased. ..He.. contacted another member that left ..him.. negative feedback to discuss the issue but did not contact me, instead ..he.. jumped straight to creating this thread allowing a group of trolls working in tandem to post their propaganda whenever they get a chance.

Besides, here is what I get when I read your response.
1. You are now playing victim: "If he had .... he would send PM, May be sending a PM..."

Stop the excuses. How many times members complained in different boards that you blocked PM, don't answer PM, don't listen their side of story, insult them? I wonder how am I not in your ignore list yet. Don't you do it all the time?
You sounds like, a PM would solve it. Judging by the way you represent yourself, it won't.

For example: Are you even listening some of the members who already wrote what they think about the feedbacks you wrote for me? You are not. Because that's the last thing you have in your mind. You call me melodrama?

You like to have attention and you are receiving it
- Giving these careless feedback to others.

2. More way of playing a victim: "x is not being accused of contacting prospective clients..... it is now allegedly me causing lost business..."

Not sure if you really did in private like a coward (you asked for it, haven't you) but you of course is causing loss in my business. Didn't you even read what I wrote in my first post about two potential businesses to lose because of the negative feedback in my trust feedback page? Your one year earning* from signature campaign (how much? $100 x 52) will not even cover two month's potential loss if I would not lose ONLY these two businesses. Who knows how many more I lost which were unnoticed and untold.

Do you think you can compensate me? I hope you have the financial ability. If this was a real world business structure like we have in-person using office setup with business license from approved agency and fiat currency then I would take you to the court for the loss you are causing me and would sue at least over for a $500,000. You are lucky that we are in an anonymous forum.

3. Speculating whatever you like and insulting however you feel about everything: You want everyone to believe your side of speculation and approve the insults.

4. Licking the ass of two managers: Who are they? My guess* are Hhumpuz and icopress. Correct me if I am wrong.
By the way, How can you state that with certainty?
Sorry, if it sounds like the same question you asked to Igebotz but I assure you that it is the same question.

5. Accusing members are losing their forum value: You are suspecting they are going to be the same ass licker like you. Show some respects to people, a lot of them are way too intelligent than you.

I must ask this very uncomfortable question before I wrap up this post:
Did you really question the mental state I had that was caused by the Bitlucy scammer and everything that happened after with me?

If you really did then it's a very low level thought you had. Unfortunately you did not even stop to exaggerated it by using completely inappropriate word that I never used which is: suicidal.

You must wanted me to disappear after that, it seems you are not happy at all to see my return. Surely you never expected me to come back such strong, in fact stronger than ever.

I am proud for what I have achieved and I know I still have a long road ahead which is not going to be smooth when people like you are around. But mark my word, every negative vibe you give to me, a chain-reactive sucks it all and convert it into positive energy. Try harder, but trust me you will be more disappointed. You are too little to stop me. Sometimes I react but most of the time I am surrounded by some impressive people around me to supply me positive energy so they make me calm. Thanks to all who supported me and understood me in my bad time.

Such a shame for your mentality JollyGood. I will suggest you to show some respects to the people who have you in their trust setting and still believe that you are a good person.

*Hhumpuz and icopress and everyone else: You all must know that I mean no offense to any of you.

[DireWolfM14]

Yes, I have JollyGood on my trust list because in my opinion, it's overally very beneficial for Bitcointalk to have JollyGood on DT due to many valid feedbacks left by JollyGood.

You and I will have to disagree on whether he's good for DT or not, and apparently we'll also have to disagree on whether his feedback is valid.  To me, his most recent feedback appears full of speculation and projections, not facts or evidence.

In addition, JollyGood is actively giving our shameless and annoying shitposters a hard time. As someone who's very well aware of certain shitposters not trying to improve anything, it's very important to support community members like JollyGood for calling out shitposters and remind them to improve.

That's commendable, but none of that is dependent on him being in DT.  There are plenty of folks who are engaged in hunting spammers that aren't in DT, but that hasn't stop them.  The issue with JG is that he clearly WANTS to be on DT, he lusts for the power and he abuses it in situations where he knows he'll get little to no blowback.  It's my opinion that anyone who wants it as bad as JG has no business being on DT.

My main concern is that when people abuse the trust system the way I see JG doing, the whole system suffers by making it less impactful.  More and more people are ignoring DT red-tags because more and more DT red-tags are frivolous in nature.  I'm not saying JG is the only one, but he's definitely one of the more prolific abusers of DT power.

If I am going to have to really start going through all my trust lists from who I added (Either good or bad) and look at all they have done since then it's going to take a while. So leaving it alone is what I (and I am making an assumption here) others have done.

I think this is something that DT1 members should do on a regular basis.  I often take the opportunity to go through my inclusion/exclusion lists whenever I fall of DT1 because it's less impactful if I'm only DT2.

I am approachable and open to discussion with anybody on any subject

You'll have to excuse me for calling you out on this blatant lie.  How approachable or open to discussion have you been when I challenge your abuses of the trust system over the last two years?  Don't worry, I don't expect a response since you've been ignoring me whenever I raise concerns about your abuses, and that's not something you can hide.  The evidence of your flat out lie can easily be observed by all.

[1miau]

In general, I'm in favor of giving DT a possibility to remove certain feedbacks, for example if at least a net amount of 5 DT1 members would oppose a certain controversial trust feedback, these feedbacks would vanish in untrusted feedback, even if it's a feedback from a DT1 member (like our case here) if enough DT1 members agree on removing it vs. don't agree to remove it.

Such a feature would be able to solve issues like mentioned by OP.

This is interesting. I guess you mean being able to vote, for example like with flags, but with trust feedbacks.

Yes, you are right, I've meant that. Mainly for voting out controversial or very outdated feedbacks in a decentralized way.

I think the idea is worth to open a thread in Meta

LoyceV did it few years ago and the community was generally supportive about it. I've supported LoyceV's suggestion as well and I've also explained why: because as additional argument in favor of that suggestion, many currently active DT feedbacks will have a high likelihood to tend getting inaccurate over time. In such cases, we would need to choose between keeping the account on DT and have an increasing number of outdated feedbacks or we would need to remove the account entirely from DT making ass of his feedbacks untrusted.
Both options are not satisfying.
LoyceV's suggestion is a nice solution.

And disputes could be solved in a decentralized way. Yes, some people would still feel offended by that as well. So probably not really less drama but just a different drama. However, in my opinon, it's definitely worth a try because it migh be a useful feature for various issues.  
OP is one of it, for example.

Yes, I have JollyGood on my trust list because in my opinion, it's overally very beneficial for Bitcointalk to have JollyGood on DT due to many valid feedbacks left by JollyGood.

You and I will have to disagree on whether he's good for DT or not, and apparently we'll also have to disagree on whether his feedback is valid.  To me, his most recent feedback appears full of speculation and projections, not facts or evidence.

No doubt, some feedbacks are controversial but DT has a long history of that. Like Lauda, marlboroza, TMAN or many more. All of them good DT members and beneficial for the community but yes, controversial.
That's why I've brought up the suggestion of removing certain feedbacks from DT. That way, we could sort out controversial feedbacks in a decentralized way and keep the good ones, where JollyGood is doing a very good job.
Maybe it's time to bump that topic, implement it and we can have a solution.

In addition, JollyGood is actively giving our shameless and annoying shitposters a hard time. As someone who's very well aware of certain shitposters not trying to improve anything, it's very important to support community members like JollyGood for calling out shitposters and remind them to improve.

That's commendable, but none of that is dependent on him being in DT.  There are plenty of folks who are engaged in hunting spammers that aren't in DT, but that hasn't stop them.  The issue with JG is that he clearly WANTS to be on DT, he lusts for the power and he abuses it in situations where he knows he'll get little to no blowback.  It's my opinion that anyone who wants it as bad as JG has no business being on DT.

If spammer blacklists would be applied by Signature campaign managers as a default tool, we could shift a part of that workload for hunting spammers, probably.
Until that, DT is a very helpful position to give shitposters a hard time and for that, one needs to be at least DT2.
Like actmyname tagged a shitload of such accounts.

As I've said I'm neutral on that case (pro and con) and hopefully it can be solved by everyone who's involved.  

My main concern is that when people abuse the trust system the way I see JG doing, the whole system suffers by making it less impactful.  More and more people are ignoring DT red-tags because more and more DT red-tags are frivolous in nature.  

That's an issue but mainly that's an issue because people need to take DT seriously and red tags should be applied, especially for Signature campaign enrollment. Like 1xbit's scamming operators are ignoring DT...
Evereyone can vote in DT and if the community decided to have member xy on DT, that decision is final for the moment (until voted out).
Once again, removing certain feedbacks is a nice solution for such controversies.

When thinking about it, I'm getting more and more convinced to start another try to push this suggestion in Meta.

[suchmoon]

English must be your 7th language that you write and speak or you are too afraid to face me directly

This and your entire wall of text sounds petty and vindictive and will not get you closer to any sort of resolution here (or answering the rhetorical question in the OP). Not sure why you keep starting these threads and not listening to anything said by impartial outsiders - not talking about myself here; there are respected forum users advising you to lay off the cringy unnecessary drama if you really care about your business reputation. I understand the need to vent sometimes, been there done that, but framing it as an argument against some intentional damage to your reputation does not feel genuine.

Based on this thread alone without any other context, I'd be hard pressed to figure which one of you (JG or yourself) has a worse judgement impairment.

[AB de Royse777]

English must be your 7th language that you write and speak or you are too afraid to face me directly

This and your entire wall of text sounds petty and vindictive and will not get you closer to any sort of resolution here (or answering the rhetorical question in the OP). Not sure why you keep starting these threads and not listening to anything said by impartial outsiders - not talking about myself here; there are respected forum users advising you to lay off the cringy unnecessary drama if you really care about your business reputation. I understand the need to vent sometimes, been there done that, but framing it as an argument against some intentional damage to your reputation does not feel genuine.

Based on this thread alone without any other context, I'd be hard pressed to figure which one of you (JG or yourself) has a worse judgement impairment.

I am sorry to give the bad vibe. The answer of the why was already given though

Sometimes I react

After all I am made with flesh and bone who sometimes surrender to his emotion especially knowing many potential clients are having wrong idea about my business reputation which has been built in exchange of a lot of sweat and blood.

I see some of you are misunderstanding the goal of the thread. May be I am not good enough to create a to the point post but the core goal of this thread is to find some justifying answers of the following questions (perhaps next time I can use your answers as a reference to potential contacts who will be too quick to give a bad conclusion about my business because of these negative feedbacks):
1. Do you all still think the feedback deserves to be on the page?
2. Do you all really think a controversial user like JollyGood should be in the DT area?

After reading two references of the first post and some numbers from this post, you all must have a little idea how these careless negative feedbacks are effecting my business reputation (I don't expect to win all the bids I make but I also don't want potential contacts have a very quick wrong impression about my business reputation) although I am happy and proud with what I have now and the projects those are in pipeline.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

So I was thinking just to ignore the feedback left by JollyGood, it's been long days and I thought it isn't gonna matter. I have enough in my portfolio to continue my business without the effect of the feedback. But it turns out I still get refused by clients because of the feedback he left on my trust page.

Just spitballing thoughts here, but perhaps you ought to provide projects that you want to work for a much more thorough explanation of why you got those negative feedbacks and why you think you didn't deserve them than you did in Solosanz's thread, because from what I saw your answers there satisfied very few of the members who challenged you.

I'm not saying that sarcastically, either.  If your hands are clean, it should be a relatively short conversation.

This thread sucks. 

Based on the title I thought you were going to make a generic argument about JollyGood's abuse of the trust system. 

You really want another one of those?

[Timelord2067]

You disrespect me - now you want me to justify why I trust another user you don't trust.

Timelord2067

2022-10-17

Reference

I previously distrusted this person, then gave them the benefit of the doubt only to have (ref link) occur. I no longer trust them and wouldn't do a trade with them. (Delete)

Figure it out for yourself.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

@BitcoinGirl.Club There is no need for you to add more drama to the thread; you are diverting the thread's objective to something else. If you want to discuss backscratchers, open a new thread and make it rain.

Darling I am not diverting it at all. In fact it's very important to understand the root of the problem. That's what I wanted to show who have him in their trust page.

JollyGood is a DT power seeker, he eat for it, poo for it, sleep for it. He is manipulating the trust system for his own benefits.

He will add those if they are somehow powerful member in the community and will wait for them to vote him back.
He will add those to his DT setting who voted him for DT.
He will remove those from his DT setting who devoted him from DT.
He devote those who devotes him from DT.

Data/statistics does not lie, all my efforts were to show the data.

JollyGood is a prime example of how dangerous it can be if you trust a power seeker. Power seekers use your trust to fulfill their own desires, to justify their wrong. Unfortunately, he is using you too like others.

I am pretty sure, you and those of others who are giving him your unverified trust, voted for him, dare to go against him in a logical argument.

Involve in a conversation which he does not like to go against him, challenge his hunger of seeking power, show some disagreement with him where it is needed, if you are already convinced then remove your vote for him; very soon you will also find yourself lost his vote, he will keep saying you are in his ignore list, he will starts to disrespecting you with insulting language and obviously he will add you back but this time you will be in his distrust list. The whole process may take few months to couple years to make it look genuine.

This is a good example.

In his early days he added TP who is now TSC: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-01-11_Sat_18.59h/1016855.html
But former TP was ugly and badass MF LOL so he devoted him: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-10-10_Sat_05.17h/1016855.html
Obviously he could not remove him immediately, it will look obvious. After 1.6 years he removed TP: https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-28_Sat_05.06h/1016855.html

[dragonvslinux]

Yes, I have JollyGood on my trust list because in my opinion, it's overally very beneficial for Bitcointalk to have JollyGood on DT due to many valid feedbacks left by JollyGood.

You and I will have to disagree on whether he's good for DT or not, and apparently we'll also have to disagree on whether his feedback is valid.  To me, his most recent feedback appears full of speculation and projections, not facts or evidence.

No doubt, some feedbacks are controversial but DT has a long history of that. Like Lauda, marlboroza, TMAN or many more. All of them good DT members and beneficial for the community but yes, controversial.

As a correction, Lauda isn't DT and hasn't consistently been DT since March 2020 - ignoring the few "lucky" weeks here and there - prior to leaving the forum 7 months later. She was kicked off DT long before leaving the forum, in case there was any doubt. Since then Lauda hasn't managed to consistently return to DT status either and has instead been consistently excluded for the past year. She otherwise ranges between Top 10 to 50 most distrusted DT members. In summary, Lauda isn't a good example of controversial DT members, but more so an example of how you can go from one of the most trusted DT members (+30) to least trusted (-10) within a year, which is an impressive turnaround. Lauda remains the greatest example of how not to act when you are on DT if you want your feedback to remain trusted by default.

That's why I've brought up the suggestion of removing certain feedbacks from DT. That way, we could sort out controversial feedbacks in a decentralized way and keep the good ones, where JollyGood is doing a very good job.

I am generally in favour of this, it's the kind of solution that would have saved Lauda from being dropped by DT I think. There were only ever a dozen or so invalid feedbacks from her as far as I remember, and she remained too stubborn to ever back down or correct her feedback. Most DT members didn't care for a while as her feedback still remained 99+% accurate with thousands she had left for genuine scammers.

I'm otherwise not intending to compare Lauda and JG here, as they are considerably different. JG has removed or amended feedback after criticism, which is something Lauda would never do. Just thought I'd provide some context regarding Lauda since you bought her up as a "good DT member", which couldn't be further from the truth, at least based on the raw data available regarding DT inclusion/exclusion.

[suchmoon]

After all I am made with flesh and bone who sometimes surrender to his emotion especially knowing many potential clients are having wrong idea about my business reputation which has been built in exchange of a lot of sweat and blood.

This thread will not help your clients to have the "correct" idea, is what I'm saying, so you're working against yourself here.

1. Do you all still think the feedback deserves to be on the page?
2. Do you all really think a controversial user like JollyGood should be in the DT area?

Yet it devolves, as these threads usually do, into name calling and just general bickering between you two. And let's face it, the answers you want to hear are "no" and "no". To get there you need to make a solid case with facts. If you redirected your effort into collecting examples of JG's improper feedback, aforementioned "controversies", etc, maybe you'd have a chance. The two trust ratings against you are about half-factual, half-opinion so it probably won't get JG booted off on that alone.

[DireWolfM14]

This thread sucks.
Based on the title I thought you were going to make a generic argument about JollyGood's abuse of the trust system.  

You really want another one of those?

I don't know that I've ever seen a thread like the one I suggested about anyone, let alone about JG.  All the "Bitching about DT" threads I've seen are just like this one; "Woe is me, look at what this DT bully did to MEEEE!"  That includes all the ones I've seen about JG specifically.

It always comes off like an interpersonal dispute, and is unlikely to sway anyone's opinion.  Threads like this one never illicit the sympathy or outrage the OP is hoping for, especially when the DT member in question is calculated in his abusive use of the trust system.  More often than not, these threads end up creating even more division in DT by driving people to form cliques of members that agree with each other or have supported each other in the past.  Or, as is being demonstrated in this thread; those who've already included the individual in the past are more likely to feel attacked and called out, and react by digging their heals in and defending their previous choices.  I only need to look at my own behavior to see this play out, I'm human and therefor, not immune.

I am convinced that a non-biased, objective, and very generic critique of JollyGood's trust system habits would convince many to remove him from their inclusions.  Not to mention he has a history of supporting shady services that turn out to be scams.  Remember that virtual credit card scam for which he repeatedly vouched and defended when the line of questioning got sticky?  There are many examples of JollyGood's poor judgement on display on this forum.  Kind of ironic and hypocritical of him to leave the tag he did for Royse, considering his own history.

[1miau]

No doubt, some feedbacks are controversial but DT has a long history of that. Like Lauda, marlboroza, TMAN or many more. All of them good DT members and beneficial for the community but yes, controversial.

As a correction, Lauda isn't DT and hasn't consistently been DT since March 2020 - ignoring the few "lucky" weeks here and there - prior to leaving the forum 7 months later. She was kicked off DT long before leaving the forum, in case there was any doubt.

Well, I haven't stated any timeframe in my post.  
In addition, my list was more meant like an overview of controversial DT members, I guess every case will be different from each other.
I can add OgNasty in my list as well, because despite many controversies, he's still one of the most trusted DT members. So, I wasn't planning to publish a dissertation on that issue.

In summary, Lauda isn't a good example of controversial DT members, but more so an example of how you can go from one of the most trusted DT members (+30) to least trusted (-10) within a year, which is an impressive turnaround. Lauda remains the greatest example of how not to act when you are on DT if you want your feedback to remain trusted by default.

For most of the time, Lauda was a DT member until (as I remember correctly), Lauda was distrusted heavily in June 2019. DefaultTrust (Marketplace Trust) existed since 2013, with Lauda first time on DT probably around 2014 / 2015.
Therefore, I've added Lauda to my list. Maybe not a perfect example considering how it ended but until 2019 it's a good example.
But as I've said, I wasn't going to publish a dissertation about how cases are similar and where are the differences. We can probably add some more members in the list and the members mentioned in my list were just the ones coming to my mind when thinking about historically important DT members who have been very controversial while being on DT for a very long time. Because it takes a massive wrongdoing to remove a DT member who has left thousands of accurate feedbacks.

I'm otherwise not intending to compare Lauda and JG here, as they are considerably different. JG has removed or amended feedback after criticism, which is something Lauda would never do. Just thought I'd provide some context regarding Lauda since you bought her up as a "good DT member", which couldn't be further from the truth, at least based on the raw data available regarding DT inclusion/exclusion.

That's true, I wouldn't compare JollyGood to Lauda as well, the only thing I wanted to point out is: DT has always been controversial and as we've seen from other cases, where JollyGood is involved, JollyGood also listens to community feedback to solve issues, which is a very important point in my opinion.

[dragonvslinux]

No doubt, some feedbacks are controversial but DT has a long history of that. Like Lauda, marlboroza, TMAN or many more. All of them good DT members and beneficial for the community but yes, controversial.

As a correction, Lauda isn't DT and hasn't consistently been DT since March 2020 - ignoring the few "lucky" weeks here and there - prior to leaving the forum 7 months later. She was kicked off DT long before leaving the forum, in case there was any doubt.

Well, I haven't stated any timeframe in my post.  

Fair point I guess. I was going by the grammar of present tense. If you had used the past tense I wouldn't of said anything. No need to take my dissertation too seriously or personally for that matter, it's been a while that I've read others claiming Lauda is a good DT member over the years - or simply a DT member - whereas neither is currently true, so thought I'd put my correction in there at some point.

I guess over all it's still up for debate whether Lauda was net positive or net negative for DT. Within 6-12 months she'll statistically be net negative at current pace, so until then it's still up for debate. Personally I'd say spending years tagging thousands of scammers only for all your feedback to no longer be trusted by default is not only a massive waste of time but also an epic fail, so it's net neutral at best.

In summary, Lauda isn't a good example of controversial DT members, but more so an example of how you can go from one of the most trusted DT members (+30) to least trusted (-10) within a year, which is an impressive turnaround. Lauda remains the greatest example of how not to act when you are on DT if you want your feedback to remain trusted by default.

For most of the time, Lauda was a DT member until (as I remember correctly), Lauda was distrusted heavily in June 2019. DefaultTrust (Marketplace Trust) existed since 2013, with Lauda first time on DT probably around 2014 / 2015.
Therefore, I've added Lauda to my list. Maybe not a perfect example considering how it ended but until 2019 it's a good example.

I agree with you that up until 2019 Lauda was probably the best example of a controversial DT member, as one of the most controversial. Ironically it would be her downfall in the end.  Can't even remember what the mass distrusting of Lauda was back in 2019, but it wasn't until 2020 that she became excluded from DT for reference sake. She went from 30+ DT strength down to 0-10 in 2019 roughly, then reached -10 by 2020. I think it was around the time trust flags were introduced and she went a bit rogue with it, with Timelord highlighting her numerous incorrect uses of them (many flag references).

Because it takes a massive wrongdoing to remove a DT member who has left thousands of accurate feedbacks.

Also agree it does take a lot of wrongdoing to get removed from DT if you have thousands of accurate feedback left, but ultimately it's all in proportion. Leave 100 feedback with more than 1 error and you'll likely lose some support. Likewise leave a thousand with 10 wrong and you're in the same boat etc. Introduce trust flags and you give everyone the opportunity to make 2x the amount of mistakes it seems.

I'm otherwise not intending to compare Lauda and JG here, as they are considerably different. JG has removed or amended feedback after criticism, which is something Lauda would never do. Just thought I'd provide some context regarding Lauda since you bought her up as a "good DT member", which couldn't be further from the truth, at least based on the raw data available regarding DT inclusion/exclusion.

That's true, I wouldn't compare JollyGood to Lauda as well, the only thing I wanted to point out is: DT has always been controversial and as we've seen from other cases, where JollyGood is involved, JollyGood also listens to community feedback to solve issues, which is a very important point in my opinion.

From what I've seen it's not community feedback that JG listens to, probably as it's not "the community" that maintains his DT status. It's only been those who have included him in their trust list (namely his DT1 sponsers) that he listens to. Otherwise there's basically no reason to listen or consider anything anyone else is saying, as it won't directly effect his DT status. That's my interpretation anyway.

[1miau]

No doubt, some feedbacks are controversial but DT has a long history of that. Like Lauda, marlboroza, TMAN or many more. All of them good DT members and beneficial for the community but yes, controversial.

As a correction, Lauda isn't DT and hasn't consistently been DT since March 2020 - ignoring the few "lucky" weeks here and there - prior to leaving the forum 7 months later. She was kicked off DT long before leaving the forum, in case there was any doubt.

Well, I haven't stated any timeframe in my post.  

Fair point I guess. I was going by the grammar of present tense. If you had used the past tense I wouldn't of said anything.

Yes, of course.
I'm also sure there are better examples than Lauda. If we really want to elaborate this, maybe marlboroza is a much better example here.
And marlboroza is still DT (DT2).

No need to take my dissertation too seriously or personally for that matter, it's been a while that I've read others claiming Lauda is a good DT member over the years - or simply a DT member - whereas neither is currently true, so thought I'd put my correction in there at some point.

Yes, I didn't specify that, maybe I should have worded it a bit better and elaborating it a bit more but since I've just written down some names quickly, I thought it's not necessary. I didn't want to write an extended DT history lesson.  
I've removed Lauda at some point from my trust list as well, so I'm definitely not claiming here that Lauda still is a good DT member. But I would say despite Lauda's bad ending in DT, Lauda has been a good DT member for a long time by tagging a huge number of abusers over the years.
And there's always a risk that accounts will lose all of their red paint when formerly famous DT members get removed from DT indefinitely.

In summary, Lauda isn't a good example of controversial DT members, but more so an example of how you can go from one of the most trusted DT members (+30) to least trusted (-10) within a year, which is an impressive turnaround. Lauda remains the greatest example of how not to act when you are on DT if you want your feedback to remain trusted by default.

For most of the time, Lauda was a DT member until (as I remember correctly), Lauda was distrusted heavily in June 2019. DefaultTrust (Marketplace Trust) existed since 2013, with Lauda first time on DT probably around 2014 / 2015.
Therefore, I've added Lauda to my list. Maybe not a perfect example considering how it ended but until 2019 it's a good example.

I agree with you that up until 2019 Lauda was probably the best example of a controversial DT member, as one of the most controversial. Ironically it would be her downfall in the end.  Can't even remember what the mass distrusting of Lauda was back in 2019, but it wasn't until 2020 that she became excluded from DT for reference sake. She went from 30+ DT strength down to 0-10 in 2019 roughly, then reached -10 by 2020. I think it was around the time trust flags were introduced and she went a bit rogue with it, with Timelord highlighting her numerous incorrect uses of them (many flag references).

Yes, looks like Lauda lost most support in June 2019 but Lauda still got back into DT from time to time after that, maybe we have some experts on that case, why this happened exactly.
But Lauda's case is very unique in my opinion, where many established members were involved (big clusterfuck) and the distrust between them got too big at some point (and also the issue, where Lauda got distrusted massively, like you've pointed out).
Instead for JollyGood and Royse777 here I believe, a solution is much easier. There's not such a clusterfuck as for Lauda's cases, not even close.
Even in case of OP's negative trust won't be removed, a single negative feedback (or two, to be accurate, there's one from efialtis as well) won't matter much long-term. More positive feedbacks will be added on top and that's it.

I'm otherwise not intending to compare Lauda and JG here, as they are considerably different. JG has removed or amended feedback after criticism, which is something Lauda would never do. Just thought I'd provide some context regarding Lauda since you bought her up as a "good DT member", which couldn't be further from the truth, at least based on the raw data available regarding DT inclusion/exclusion.

That's true, I wouldn't compare JollyGood to Lauda as well, the only thing I wanted to point out is: DT has always been controversial and as we've seen from other cases, where JollyGood is involved, JollyGood also listens to community feedback to solve issues, which is a very important point in my opinion.

From what I've seen it's not community feedback that JG listens to, probably as it's not "the community" that maintains his DT status. It's only been those who have included him in their trust list (namely his DT1 sponsers) that he listens to. Otherwise there's basically no reason to listen or consider anything anyone else is saying, as it won't directly effect his DT status. That's my interpretation anyway.

I'm not sure for which case JollyGood reconsidered the tag because I've just noted in my book that JollyGood reconsidered the tag.
Maybe JollyGood still knows but as far as I can remember it's a case from 2023.

Because most of the time, when someone complains about JollyGood's feedback it's like that: a shitposter has shitposted somewhere and JollyGood has issued a negative (instead of a neutral) trust. The shitposter creates a topic in Reputation, complains and acts like he's completely innocent. And I don't like it at all, when shitposters are playing the victim card.
I've had that as well that some shitposters / abusers complained via PM to me to remove my (often just neutral) trust and there's a clear pattern where shitposters / abusers just play the victim card. They don't want to improve and I've read a lot of such cases being similar for JollyGood, where these shitposters don't show any commitment to improve. Yes, JollyGood has put some negative trusts on these accounts, where sometimes negative trust is not appropriate and a neutral trust should be chosen instead. But still, many shitposters / abusers acted like they are completely innocent. Take this case for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1114408
He complained, lied to DT and acted like he's completely innocent...
And for his case, a negative trust is well deserved after more evidence was presented.
That's why I can understand JollyGood in many cases (not related to JollyGood vs. Royse777 case of course).

[Timelord2067]

Obviously he could not remove him immediately, it will look obvious. After 1.6 years he removed TP

Evidently you haven't had a chance to browse their trust feedbacks to see how devoid of accuracy (let alone a link to a post as reference) their posts have become.

It's more about the thin skinned DT troll gang members massaging each other's bruised egos as opposed to objectively verifying trust feedback entries.

"Do as we say, not do as we do" is their motto.

Why would you want to stoop to their level?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

This is a good example.

In his early days he added TP who is now TSC: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-01-11_Sat_18.59h/1016855.html
But former TP was ugly and badass MF LOL so he devoted him: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-10-10_Sat_05.17h/1016855.html
Obviously he could not remove him immediately, it will look obvious. After 1.6 years he removed TP: https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-28_Sat_05.06h/1016855.html

Huh, I never noticed that (but even if I had, I've got no faith in the trust system so I wouldn't have cared).  Lack of caring not withstanding, I do find it somewhat interesting if someone excludes me from their trust list.  JG doing it after 1.6 years, though?  Do you really think that's retaliation?  I suppose it could be, but I'd be curious to know the reasoning behind that move, because members are supposed to be excluded from your trust list only if you think their feedback-giving is wrong for whatever reason. 

Since JG and I aren't exactly on bad terms despite me excluding him from my trust list (we've actually discussed it via PM), maybe he's got a good reason for it?  Maybe?  Possibly?

[NotATether]

BitcoinGirl.Club and Ratimov have already reached an agreement to settle their long-running disagreement and have moved on! Why are you both taking so long to find common ground? As adults, ignore each other and move on.

You think this is long? Use forum search button to find "Vod vs OgNasty". Now that's years of quarreling to research.

[Igebotz]

BitcoinGirl.Club and Ratimov have already reached an agreement to settle their long-running disagreement and have moved on! Why are you both taking so long to find common ground? As adults, ignore each other and move on.

You think this is long? Use forum search button to find "Vod vs OgNasty". Now that's years of quarreling to research.

I know that right! Vod and OgNasty had balls and it got to a point that Vod was writing to the FBI, reviewing OgNasty real identity and even planned a lawsuit, I mean that was epic.

The difference between OgNasty vs Vod and JG vs Royse is that the first were not fighting over feedbacks as they were both abusing that on a daily, they were fighting real course.

Royse and JG are simply shifting blame - That's not a true fight; they're merely misunderstanding theirsives, with which I hope they will come to terms soon.

The reality is that you can't have 10k+ people from diverse cultures and beliefs in the same forum and expect them to have a united opinion on everything. Controlling 200 cows is easier than controlling 10 adults. Trust me