Warning To Merit Hunters Mentioning Deceased Forum Members

[JollyGood]

I have left a neutral tag for Ricardo11 for his disgusting attempt at trying to get merits under the guise of a commemorative thread: Happy birthday o_e_l_e_o.

Once upon a time I would have given a red tag but those days are far behind me. Now I tend to try to give a neutral tag for almost 99% of nefarious activity I notice.

Many months ago I should have given a tag for another the relatively new account at the time of Mia Chloe ended up creating a thread containing a poem hoping to get merits without evening knowing who the person actually was but took advantage of the situation: Eulogy for light_warrior.

Just as I should have given a neutral tag when the borovichok account claimed he went on a charity run to raise money for a Bitcoin hero when he did no such thing but decided to go on a merit hunting spree after he purchased the account and that helped get him to Hero rank and on the Stake campaign: Hal Finney RUNNING BITCOIN- What was Bitcointalk contribution? $65k raised!

Enough. Any threads created by relatively new accounts mentioning deceased forum members that seem to be disgusting attempts for merits will receive an appropriate tag.

The excellent manner in which Pmalek captures the thread in the first two posts highlights what a commemorative thread should look like. Here is a perfect example of how to create a genuine thread to preserve the legacy of someone important to the forum: o_e_l_e_o's 100 Most Merited Posts

[_act_]

I think if you respect Leo, you do not need to give Ricardo11 any tag at all because Leo registered on this forum on the 5th of October 2017. Today is 5th of October and the OP think it is good if people post about it.

But OP is not a good poster. He should have used better word than birthday.

[DireWolfM14]

Enough. Any threads created by relatively new accounts mentioning deceased forum members that seem to be disgusting attempts for merits will receive an appropriate tag.

Ironically enough, o_e_l_e_o did more than most to help build up new accounts.  Rather than squash them with trust ratings he encouraged them to learn, even when they asked silly questions which they could have easily answered by doing a little research on their own.  He gave more merits to newbies in the technical board than anyone else I can think of.

[Ricardo11]

Farewell

I couldn't hold my tears when I saw this post. I tried to understand how each day would pass if one gets the news of his death that he will live only 45-60 days. He has done a lot for forum members. Today his forum register day by which I opened the thread as happy birthday. He may not be with us but his posts still live on our forum. We lost him and there will be many legendary figures who will be gone and no one will remember those legends. My intention was to honor and remember him.

I sincerely apologize to you and request you to remove my tag if possible . I will definitely refrain from doing such things in the future and will try my best to improve the quality of my posts.

[Shishir99]

He writes in broken English like me and many other forum members. I agree that was kind of merit farming thread. I won't say I am 100% sure that it was a merit farming thread. You don't know what was in his mind when he created that thread. Since it's just a neutral feedback, I don't think he should think much about it. Instead, he should move forward.

Don't forget Leo said:

and I hope you'll remember me fondly.

Leo

If that thread creator opened that thread emotionally, I guess you should have some respect. I see that thread is locked and Ricardo also apologized to you. @Recardo, it's a neutral feedback. You should move on and refrain from creating threads which may look like you are trying to farming merits.

[Stalker22]

I agree with Jolly, threads like that are disgusting. Let the man rest in peace.

Leo's legacy will live on through his posts. We can honor him in other ways without resorting to desecration.  I even saw in that thread that someone wished him all the best and hopes he is fine and well. WTF???

[PowerGlove]

I don't think this is a wise direction to be heading in...

The thing is, everyone's different, and some people really do get more (genuinely) emotional about certain things/people than they have enough rational cause for. That doesn't make them untrustworthy (I mean, at least not according to any realistic standard).

Probably you're right in a fair few cases and some people really are just hunting for merit in unconscionable ways, but there's no real way for you to know when you're right and when you're mistaken.

Your declaration basically amounts to: "From now on, if I see someone behaving in a certain way that suggests to me that their moral compass is broken, I'm going to tag them."

(If I put my forum-dev hat back on, it might be nice if topic-starters could, under "Additional Options", opt out of receiving merit for a given topic. Then, for the kinds of topics you're talking about, it could become taboo for them to be created without that option, instead of it just becoming taboo in general.)

[yahoo62278]

I don't think this is a wise direction to be heading in...

The thing is, everyone's different, and some people really do get more (genuinely) emotional about certain things/people than they have enough rational cause for. That doesn't make them untrustworthy (I mean, at least not according to any realistic standard).

Probably you're right in a fair few cases and some people really are just hunting for merit in unconscionable ways, but there's no real way for you to know when you're right and when you're mistaken.

Your declaration basically amounts to: "From now on, if I see someone behaving in a certain way that suggests to me that their moral compass is broken, I'm going to tag them."

(If I put my forum-dev hat back on, it might be nice if topic-starters could, under "Additional Options", opt out of receiving merit for a given topic. Then, for the kinds of topics you're talking about, it could become taboo for them to be created without that option, instead of it just becoming taboo in general.)

I tend to agree but I have also been a part of this community for awhile now and see people doing all kinds of things to get ahead so to speak. I don't tag them for silly or trivial things, but I do make a mental note. For the most part, tagging them is abusing the trust system, so I have to agree with you that it's a bad road to travel down.

Patch it and we will see how genuine people are.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Ironically enough, o_e_l_e_o did more than most to help build up new accounts.  Rather than squash them with trust ratings he encouraged them to learn, even when they asked silly questions which they could have easily answered by doing a little research on their own.  He gave more merits to newbies in the technical board than anyone else I can think of.

That might well be true, but if everyone did just as Leo did there would be nobody fighting forum idiots, of which there are thousands.  In other words, we need members doing good deeds in a number of different ways.

That "happy birthday" thread was just straight-up idiotic.  It was not only poorly-written, but the sentiment contained within was generic at best (which might have been a function of the OP's limited English skills, but still).  While I think leaving that guy any sort of feedback for creating it is a bit harsh, a neutral is fine by me.  At least JollyGood has calmed down his raging fury and isn't bombing negatives on people's trust pages anymore.  I give him credit for that and for poking back at these members who do stupid things like merit fishing.  Make no mistake, that's precisely what that thread was all about; if Leo had been so important to Ricardo11, the latter most likely would have at least stated that the former had helped him out somehow instead of the scattered smattering of flattery that got posted instead.

[DireWolfM14]

Ironically enough, o_e_l_e_o did more than most to help build up new accounts.  Rather than squash them with trust ratings he encouraged them to learn, even when they asked silly questions which they could have easily answered by doing a little research on their own.  He gave more merits to newbies in the technical board than anyone else I can think of.

That might well be true, but if everyone did just as Leo did there would be nobody fighting forum idiots, of which there are thousands.  In other words, we need members doing good deeds in a number of different ways.

That "happy birthday" thread was just straight-up idiotic.  It was not only poorly-written, but the sentiment contained within was generic at best (which might have been a function of the OP's limited English skills, but still).  While I think leaving that guy any sort of feedback for creating it is a bit harsh, a neutral is fine by me.  At least JollyGood has calmed down his raging fury and isn't bombing negatives on people's trust pages anymore.  I give him credit for that and for poking back at these members who do stupid things like merit fishing.  Make no mistake, that's precisely what that thread was all about; if Leo had been so important to Ricardo11, the latter most likely would have at least stated that the former had helped him out somehow instead of the scattered smattering of flattery that got posted instead.

That's what the merit system is designed to combat, not the trust system.  Using the trust system to call out every shitposter would even further dilute it's potency, which as we can see here, it's already getting to the point where it's less meaningful every month.  Even the OP of this thread has negative DT trust ratings, one because of his tendency to do exactly what he's doing here.  

In the past I've been rather critical of the OP for throwing his DT weight around to harass newbies, and I've noticed he seems to have tempered a bit in the last several months.  However, this is exactly the type of abusive use of the trust system that irritated me with him in the past.

[Vod]

I saw no problem with his thread - if he did not post it, some other account would have.   Many people cannot contribute to bitcoin in a technical way, so they contribute in a social way.   I myself am watching my activity birthday closely (365 days of activity) and I will be posting it for merit - I need merit to reward others who make good posts.

I saw no problem with this warning either.  It takes a community to run a community - varying opinions are welcome but I hope no one leaves negative trust for an opinion. 

[Sandra_hakeem]

This ain't even the time to argue about who's wrong or right ^{[realized that you got several reputable members like yourself bluntly against yo decision?]}-- why? I had to burn time to go through these posts and, TO BE VERY HONEST, I don't think the dude had the right words in place at the time to use. He was trying to do the right thing, but in a more convincing and somewhat desperate way - He was too intentional without prioritizing his context!

The man smells a rat - especially with crap post on the WO thread (barely on constructive discussions)... I'm not even trying to cover these facts and I could say he deserved his fate, but only if this WAS A REPEATED COURSE; that way, it will no longer be an allegation against him, he'll be guilty for trying to lie twice. ^{[dunno if you get my point]}
....and moreso, leave the trust the way it deem fit your interest as that'd certainly disincentivize alot more of cases like this, but always wait for the most appropriate moment to strike HARD.

Just being honest

 [...]the latter most likely would have at least stated that the former had helped him out somehow instead of the scattered smattering of flattery that got posted instead.

The language barrier was a problem. I can bet my kidney he'd never known how best to write that even if he was given another chance to correct his mistakes...lol

[TheUltraElite]

I think a neutral tag is necessary to put some sort of a mark on this account, backing this with the number of "boot-licking" threads that have been created by them - on well reputed users or campaign managers - the second one was used to put a neutral tag on them by @pakhitheboss 6m back.

On the forum both "Merit" and "Trust" becoming more decentralized, recently people are looking forward to make up threads with nothing but praise about some event in the forum in the attempt to gain the above two things. This is not the first time I came across such a thread also the reason why I detest from posting in such threads.

[JollyGood]

I agree with Jolly, threads like that are disgusting. Let the man rest in peace.

Leo's legacy will live on through his posts. We can honor him in other ways without resorting to desecration.  I even saw in that thread that someone wished him all the best and hopes he is fine and well. WTF???

I read that too. Though he might have covered himself with the first part of his post, it really was sickening to read.

Not mentioning any names specifically but some members will gladly push their grandma under a bus without hesitation if it were to put loose change in their pocket therefore their fake dedications (or commemoration towards deceased forum members via poetic eulogies or claims of appreciating/missing them) are truly vomit-inducing.

Ironically enough, o_e_l_e_o did more than most to help build up new accounts.  Rather than squash them with trust ratings he encouraged them to learn, even when they asked silly questions which they could have easily answered by doing a little research on their own.  He gave more merits to newbies in the technical board than anyone else I can think of.

That might well be true, but if everyone did just as Leo did there would be nobody fighting forum idiots, of which there are thousands.  In other words, we need members doing good deeds in a number of different ways.

That "happy birthday" thread was just straight-up idiotic.  It was not only poorly-written, but the sentiment contained within was generic at best (which might have been a function of the OP's limited English skills, but still).  While I think leaving that guy any sort of feedback for creating it is a bit harsh, a neutral is fine by me.  At least JollyGood has calmed down his raging fury and isn't bombing negatives on people's trust pages anymore.  I give him credit for that and for poking back at these members who do stupid things like merit fishing.  Make no mistake, that's precisely what that thread was all about; if Leo had been so important to Ricardo11, the latter most likely would have at least stated that the former had helped him out somehow instead of the scattered smattering of flattery that got posted instead.

If you look at his post history, (especially the very first post and full first page of his alleged newbie posts) you will not see anything on that account to indicate he was even a newbie to this forum. In all probability it is just another account in a list that are being operated by a puppeteer.

Keeping that aside, you are right. That Happy birthday o_e_l_e_o. thread was created specifically for merits in order to expedite his next level rank from Full Member to Sr Member as he hoped here.

As for the tags I leave, my current feedback first page shows 50 feedbacks (16 negative and 34 neutral) going back to December 2023. In that space of over 14 months, I cannot see a single unnecessary neutral nor negative tag that I have given. The myth about my tags were started when a campaign manager became a business partner of a scam casino and had a one member in particular defending him when several members including myself were not interested in defending him.

Ironically, that same one member allegedly had his account hacked some years ago and used a second account to announce the alleged hack and wanted to claim the original account back. Even though he distrusted me for absolutely no constructive reason at all (but I have suspicions), I supported his claim and he even sent me a PM calling me "brother" but never did take me off his trust exclusion.

After his defending of that campaign manager over the scam casino, he started using every opportunity he got to create threads asking members that trusted me to distrust me. Now he finds himself negative -DT most of the time over an unrelated matter (but because of DT rotation sometimes has +1 as he does now. Next month it might be -4 or -6).

Returning to the myth about the tags I leave as a result of the vindictive conduct of creating threads against me by that member, I stated this on several occasions in the past and will reiterate: when repeated again and again over a period of time some people tend to believe the propaganda.

After I am gone from the forum, if a gutter-level lowest of the low barrel scraping despicable account (newbie or known/suspected farmed) claim to appreciate me or miss me as they race to get as many merits as possible and as fast as possible (in order to enrol on campaigns, cheat bounties, manipulate DT or anything else), every member should free feel to tag the accounts because that is what I want to happen if they use my name or memory as a metaphorical violin playing sad notes to get both sympathy and merits.

I think a neutral tag is necessary to put some sort of a mark on this account, backing this with the number of "boot-licking" threads that have been created by them - on well reputed users or campaign managers - the second one was used to put a neutral tag on them by @pakhitheboss 6m back.

On the forum both "Merit" and "Trust" becoming more decentralized, recently people are looking forward to make up threads with nothing but praise about some event in the forum in the attempt to gain the above two things. This is not the first time I came across such a thread also the reason why I detest from posting in such threads.

He left his feedback for Ricardo11 over 5 months ago over this nonsensical thread Top 9 Campaign Managers of 2024..... but Ricardo11 is still claiming he will improve the quality of his posts.

His feedback is valid and relevant even today: He comes up with delusional topics. Creating a neutral tag to understand that this guy is not suitable for the signature campaigns

I understand he is from the Bengali speaking community and maybe his financial situation is not good therefore he wants as many accounts as possible to enrol on campaigns but he is not only chasing living people (campaign managers) in an attempt to get noticed, it is sickening he is chasing the deceased too  

[Lucius]

I understand that some members don't stop at anything when it comes to merits, but trying to reach them in this way is really inappropriate. That's all I can say on this topic.


However, when it comes to the user @Ricardo11, I noticed something else a few months ago, but besides the fact that I and some members were working on a private investigation, maybe now is the right time to make it public.

A few months ago I noticed a topic in the Speculation board that seemed unusual to me for two reasons - the first is that a beginner asks a question there, and the question has nothing to do with that board - and the second is that @Ricardo11 is the first to answer his question in a relatively short time and with a long post and for that he gets 7 merits from two users.

No concrete evidence has been found that these are alt accounts, but it is more than obvious that something stinks in the whole thing. The topic in question was moved to the B&H board - and @Ricardo11 did not comment on it after the first post. It is not the first time that such things have been detected, faking the discussion and prepared answers to the questions have already become common, especially for members of a large community on the forum.

Which is better, Self-Custody or Non-custodial? Please help me.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Everyone knows that in the WO topic, they often give out merits, and in the same way we see fishermen there for merit who appear there from time to time, unlike the regulars of this topic. And yes, Ricardo was so excited about the topic he created about Leo that the next step was a post in WO.

In the end, let's admit to ourselves that those who loved Leo don't need any topics; they just remember him without any reminders... I saw Leo's name in someone's signature. Modestly and without pathos.
But Ricardo's servility really evokes disgusting feelings.

Furthermore, if JollyGood hadn't promptly responded to the created topic, we would have been able to see everyone on Ricardo's team's sent merit list.
I think that the topic will be a very good flag for similar sycophants.

[NotATether]

On the forum both "Merit" and "Trust" becoming more decentralized, recently people are looking forward to make up threads with nothing but praise about some event in the forum in the attempt to gain the above two things. This is not the first time I came across such a thread also the reason why I detest from posting in such threads.

If you're looking for merit (and you are not a Legendary member), go here.

[Poker Player]

Ironically enough, o_e_l_e_o did more than most to help build up new accounts.  Rather than squash them with trust ratings he encouraged them to learn, even when they asked silly questions which they could have easily answered by doing a little research on their own.  He gave more merits to newbies in the technical board than anyone else I can think of.

I guess I won't need to post more screenshots to show the more than 100 "squashes" (i.e. red tags) he left for newbies. He gave merits to newbies who cared to learn, not to those who seem to want to take the shortcut to earn merits.

[JollyGood]

He gave more merits to newbies in the technical board than anyone else I can think of.

True is probably true, I will not doubt that. Without a doubt he was helpful, patient and generous with merits.

Probably you're right in a fair few cases and some people really are just hunting for merit in unconscionable ways, but there's no real way for you to know when you're right and when you're mistaken.

We are all human beings, I know we cannot get every decision correct every time therefore there is room for error as well as for learning but a brief look at their post history usually provides enough information to fully understand (if not deduce) their intentions.

Having said that, I understand your point your view but in this particular case the account in question cannot be the only one he operates and on top of that he was using a shameless gutter-level attempt at getting merits.

(If I put my forum-dev hat back on, it might be nice if topic-starters could, under "Additional Options", opt out of receiving merit for a given topic. Then, for the kinds of topics you're talking about, it could become taboo for them to be created without that option, instead of it just becoming taboo in general.)

My instincts tell me even if something on those lines were to be implemented, the opportunists with nefarious intent will probably opt-out of certain threads they create because they can use that as justification to claim their misdemeanours should be dismissed on the basis they are overall not fishing for merit even though the flood the Wall Observer thread and have all the signs of being part of a farmed account.

[Sandra_hakeem]

No concrete evidence has been found that these are alt accounts, but it is more than obvious that something stinks in the whole thing. The topic in question was moved to the B&H board - and @Ricardo11 did not comment on it after the first post. It is not the first time that such things have been detected, faking the discussion and prepared answers to the questions have already become common, especially for members of a large community on the forum.

I kinda like see reasons to agree with your observations, but I see a different means right there; that post sounds too good to be made in 20 minutes. Op has a limited knowledge on what the topic was all about so, I guess he did himself some favour to use an aid. looks partly generated with AI and he had to do was copy pasting, or I may be wrong.