Incorrect Feedback?

[Perfectbaby]

it would be better he removed the tag and learn more about how to DT systems. In my opinion, before adding anyone on our trust-list it would be better such person(s) understand how the system are being used before adding them

That's the responsibility of the DT1-user who added Satofan44 to DT2. I assume he wanted to see this feedback by default, but that shouldn't be a reason to remove said feedback.

Well, does that mean that op deserved the given feedback from your own judgement?
If yes! then do you know if they tried exchanging pm to resolved it internally, and they both didn't aligned?
To me, I don't see any reason to be given such feedback as I believe that op can be corrected. I could remembered then, during my little beginning over here there where some things I was feel so right on my own view, but after sometimes someone had to correct me and that was how I changed and stops making arguments on things I had no or little knowledge on, instead I would read people comments to kwon what they are saying before even giving my contribution or opinion.

[LoyceV]

Well, does that mean that op deserved the given feedback from your own judgement?

Like I said, he was claiming LN-transactions happen offline. That's not true, which makes the feedback factually correct.

To me, I don't see any reason to be given such feedback as I believe that op can be corrected.

OP hasn't even bothered to correct his post, even after he realized it was wrong.

[Solosanz]

To me, I don't see any reason to be given such feedback as I believe that op can be corrected. I could remembered then, during my little beginning over here there where some things I was feel so right on my own view, but after sometimes someone had to correct me and that was how I changed and stops making arguments on things I had no or little knowledge on, instead I would read people comments to kwon what they are saying before even giving my contribution or opinion.

Everything is simple.

If you think @OP gave incorrect feedback, put him on your distrust list.
If you think @OP gave correct feedback, do nothing/put him on your trust list.

Since I see you include an user in your distrust list, so you already know how to do it.

[Perfectbaby]

Well, does that mean that op deserved the given feedback from your own judgement?

Like I said, he was claiming LN-transactions happen offline. That's not true, which makes the feedback factually correct.

To me, I don't see any reason to be given such feedback as I believe that op can be corrected.

OP hasn't even bothered to correct his post, even after he realized it was wrong.

Good!
Like I know, nobody is above correction and anyone who has refused to take correction is not also willing to learn or increase their knowledge bank.
Very bad of him or her, and nobody is an island of knowledge so if claiming to be too right on his knowledge then is entirely wrong.
Thank you sir.

[Satofan44]

If we want to split hairs and pick apart everything people say, then satofan44 could also be given neutral or possibly even negative feedback for defending shady scam exchange ChangeNOW.

ChangeNOW isn’t just over complying with regulations, they outright scam people by selectively enforcing KYC and then ghosting users who actually provide their personal information in hopes of recovering their funds. It’s just one of various fronts used by Evercode Lab to scam people.

Resorting to immediately tagging people over an opinion that we feel is misleading or incorrect isn’t the best approach. It’s better to counter with facts and hope that people will become better informed.

Yet another lie posted without reading the topic. Take a hint from the topic title "Users who spread false/fake/unhelpful information on technical board".  I am not defending anyone in particular, I am discussing the topic and trying to understand what is going on. Being emotional and making logically fallacious statements does not advance your position. If you have been scammed by someone, that does not change the fact that I was not scammed by the same someone. If on the other hand someone thinks that LN is centralized, that does not change the fact that it is not centralized and that their statement is a lie.

Well, does that mean that op deserved the given feedback from your own judgement?

Like I said, he was claiming LN-transactions happen offline. That's not true, which makes the feedback factually correct.

For me that is strong proof that he is just a spammer. I've seen many posts that try to come off genuine but the details don't make any sense. Sometimes it is the sentence structure other times it is the content.   In my view someone who isn't a spammer will try to stay away from any board or topic where they can't contribute. For example, I only read a few boards that are interesting to me or that have topics in which I have knowledge in. I try to ignore the remaining parts of the forum.

Well, does that mean that op deserved the given feedback from your own judgement?
If yes! then do you know if they tried exchanging pm to resolved it internally, and they both didn't aligned?

Neither did he sent me a message, respond to the report in the thread where it was made, nor did he correct his post. He didn't even accept responsibility at all and has instead shifted the blame for his actions onto me. Does this not tell you enough?  

[Smartvirus]

No I didn't, with the few interactions I had he seems to be dismissive of what I am trying to say. Maybe I will try doing that if he didn't respond here.

It's probably safe to assume you didn't send Sato a pm regarding this thread then either, so I sent a pm to the user and asked them to have a look at this thread.

You did the next good thing which is what the OP ought to have done before going ahead to create this thread. This is one way to escalate a situation which could have been handled easily and quietly with a pm.. I don’t know where OP tend to have had a conversation with the user and found that, a pm would have been up to no good but then, users might be a lot more understanding and you can spill some details in the pm that you wouldn’t want to let out in the open. That’s why it’s a pm, except when it’s needed for some evidence to an escalated situation.

[Bitcoin Smith]

Well, does that mean that op deserved the given feedback from your own judgement?

Like I said, he was claiming LN-transactions happen offline. That's not true, which makes the feedback factually correct.

That's new low, now community don't see the difference between terminology mixup and in what context it's been told but I think that's not the reason why he tagged, it is because I said the trail breaks with LN and he said NO, it doesn't but he is someone who explain things in detailed didn't gave me anything much other than this.

No, this is not true. The link is not broken and there are many ways you can be tracked. Please don't give incorrect information here.

To me, I don't see any reason to be given such feedback as I believe that op can be corrected.

OP hasn't even bothered to correct his post, even after he realized it was wrong.

I didn't edit the post but in the following replies on the same thread I explained why I think it is untraceable.

~
My knowledge about bitcoin and it's technical knowledge is limited to bitcointalk only not go to an extent of making my research paper, so every time if I have a query I simply refer The Lightning Network FAQ and in this case I used

Are Lightning Network payments more anonymous than on-chain transactions?

Yes, Lightning Network payments are more anonymous. They use onion routing. In short, when a payment is being routed, an intermediary node knows only the previous and the next node in the path. It is impossible to tell who initiated the payment and what the final destination is.

If what I said is false information then the guide which received hundreds of merit have wrong information too or I am reading things differently? Well anyways to prove it technically I only used "almost impossible" ≠ "impossible" which is not anything but agreeing with Sato's opinion of there are ways it can be done but I don't want to hide under that, I even responded to him that I am happy to learn if you say how it's done and change what I have told.

Well, does that mean that op deserved the given feedback from your own judgement?
If yes! then do you know if they tried exchanging pm to resolved it internally, and they both didn't aligned?

Neither did he sent me a message, respond to the report in the thread where it was made, nor did he correct his post. He didn't even accept responsibility at all and has instead shifted the blame for his actions onto me. Does this not tell you enough?  

So now you even started to tell lies? I responded in the reported thread itself [1],[2]

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.msg65482294#msg65482294
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.msg65483077#msg65483077

In both replies I explicitly asked why I am wrong and I am happy to learn if I wrong here.

I am happy to learn though cause that's what this place is about.

~ I am not dismissing that as long as it's valid with clear explanation.

I didn't send a PM regarding this because I thought we can't come into any mutual agreement. I am not sure what I can discuss further, do you think the tag isn't necessary if I edit the post?

[Zoomic]

Well, does that mean that op deserved the given feedback from your own judgement?

Like I said, he was claiming LN-transactions happen offline. That's not true, which makes the feedback factually correct.

It could be that he wanted to say off-chain and not offline.
Or does he mean that there are offline LN wallets?

To me, I don't see any reason to be given such feedback as I believe that op can be corrected.

OP hasn't even bothered to correct his post, even after he realized it was wrong.

Some people have this ego that makes them not to easily admit that they are wrong.

[Satofan44]

Well, does that mean that op deserved the given feedback from your own judgement?
If yes! then do you know if they tried exchanging pm to resolved it internally, and they both didn't aligned?

Neither did he sent me a message, respond to the report in the thread where it was made, nor did he correct his post. He didn't even accept responsibility at all and has instead shifted the blame for his actions onto me. Does this not tell you enough?  

So now you even started to tell lies? I responded in the reported thread itself [1],[2]

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.msg65482294#msg65482294
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.msg65483077#msg65483077

In both replies I explicitly asked why I am wrong and I am happy to learn if I wrong here.

Whoops, my bad. I don't remember that post. I retract that part of my statement in the previous post as it is wrong.

That's new low, now community don't see the difference between terminology mixup and in what context it's been told but I think that's not the reason why he tagged, it is because I said the trail breaks with LN and he said NO, it doesn't but he is someone who explain things in detailed didn't gave me anything much other than this.

No, this is not true. The link is not broken and there are many ways you can be tracked. Please don't give incorrect information here.

The answer is in the same post that you quoted and cut off.

Reading a paper such as this one could be interesting to you: https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.12470.

Worse, there is also a summarized and less technical answer in a previous post which you did not read before writing your useless spam post.

Generally a lot of the below applies directly to Bitcoin and using Lightning Network, you just have to translate the things. Are you using a custodial wallet, are you using your own node or SPV, and so on.

There are some quick notes what you need to consider and how you can be tracked, loosely ordered on the easiness of tracking you:

You are just a very lazy spammer.

Please stop wasting everyone's time, you are clearly wrong and are not interested in learning much or taking responsibility.

[Bitcoin Smith]

^So you now decided to retaliate with a negative? For pointing out I responded to you!

Others suggested not to give any suggestion unless I am 100% sure if it's technical query so I crossed out the post now.

[Satofan44]

^So you now decided to retaliate with a negative? For pointing out I responded to you!

Others suggested not to give any suggestion unless I am 100% sure if it's technical query so I crossed out the post now.

Do most people behave like this around here, a question perhaps to some seniors like LoyceV and nutildah?

I'll watch whether some of the seniors have time to provide more historical context on member behavior but other than that I am now completely done with you. I have proven my point that you are just a low effort spammer that does not read anything at all and refuses to accept any responsibility. This level of discourse is for people who go to high school or even younger than that, stop wasting my time.

[Bitcoin Smith]

~ low effort spammer that does not read anything at all and refuses to accept any responsibility. This level of discourse is for people who go to high school or even younger than that, stop wasting my time.

You are the one who don't want to accept any explanation, you act like if you post something wrong then I will call you spammer and dismiss everything further and using red for calling out spam isn't even right way of using the trust system. You may want to learn more about trust system since you are on DT

LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system

[yahoo62278]

^So you now decided to retaliate with a negative? For pointing out I responded to you!

Others suggested not to give any suggestion unless I am 100% sure if it's technical query so I crossed out the post now.

The red tag is trust abuse and should be removed immediately. You should not be painted for being ignorant on a subject.

@satofan44 please use the trust system correctly. The neutral was fine, but the red tag is not.

[Shishir99]

^So you now decided to retaliate with a negative? For pointing out I responded to you!

Others suggested not to give any suggestion unless I am 100% sure if it's technical query so I crossed out the post now.

Let him do whatever he wants.
Everyone has the freedom. Now it is up to the community if they will promote him to the DT network. The feedback on your profile was neutral, and you shouldn't bother too much about it. The user Satofan44 joined the forum less than 60 days ago. I don't think he understands how the feedback system works. He has already left five feedback, and three of them are negative. In my opinion, all three are incorrect uses of the feedback system. Moreover, the user has not built his custom trust list yet. While I agree that his technical knowledge is good, I think it's too early to bring someone on the DT network. If he continues like this, it would backfire, and he would get kicked out of the DT network. Just my two cents!

[Satofan44]

^So you now decided to retaliate with a negative? For pointing out I responded to you!

Others suggested not to give any suggestion unless I am 100% sure if it's technical query so I crossed out the post now.

The red tag is trust abuse and should be removed immediately. You should not be painted for being ignorant on a subject.

@satofan44 please use the trust system correctly. The neutral was fine, but the red tag is not.

Is this a centralized or decentralized system? I am not allowed to give a negative tag to people who I don't trust? Who do I tag instead because of this spammer, the manager that enables this user to defraud the company that is funding the signature campaign? What will happen to me if I don't remove it? These are very weird structures for a forum that is dedicated to Bitcoin and decentralization..

[Shishir99]

Is this a centralized or decentralized system? I am not allowed to give a negative tag to people who I don't trust? Who do I tag instead because of this spammer, the manager that enables this user to defraud the company that is funding the signature campaign?

If you do not trust someone,
Go to your profile, and then click on trust >> Trust settings >> Put a ~ and their username. In this case, it would be ~Bitcoin Smith and update it. If you trust someone, do the same process, but without a ~. That's how you do it.

There are a lot more things to consider. However, some people utilize their Trust list and their DT power as a weapon. Don't be like them. Use the system correctly.

You should read the beginner's guide, which was mentioned by Bitcoin Smith earlier.

LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system

[Satofan44]

Is this a centralized or decentralized system? I am not allowed to give a negative tag to people who I don't trust? Who do I tag instead because of this spammer, the manager that enables this user to defraud the company that is funding the signature campaign?

If you do not trust someone,
Go to your profile, and then click on trust >> Trust settings >> Put a ~ and their username. In this case, it would be ~Bitcoin Smith and update it. If you trust some, do the same process, but without a ~. That's how you do it.

You should read the beginner's guide, which was mentioned by Bitcoin Smith earlier.

LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system

That thread does not help, these statements are contradictory.

Trust feedback
Trust feedback (Positive/Neutral/Negative) can be used to express your opinion about someone's trustworthiness. In other words: would you trust or have you trusted this user with your money?

Of course I would not trust the author of this thread with anything. This part of the thread indicates that negative trust is appropriate, other parts of that thread and statements by other members here indicate the contrary. So which one is it? Is a person able to decide what constitutes trustworthiness themselves or do they have to obey a preset list of trustworthiness rules that are imposed by others? If I am not allowed to tag him, explain why and help also with the following question if possible.

Who do I tag instead because of this spammer, the manager that enables this user to defraud the company that is funding the signature campaign?

[Jawhead999]

Is this a centralized or decentralized system? I am not allowed to give a negative tag to people who I don't trust? Who do I tag instead because of this spammer, the manager that enables this user to defraud the company that is funding the signature campaign?

Less decentralized, of course anyone is allowed to give a negative tag, just like what you do. But, if people think you're leaving an incorrect tag, other users are allowed to distrust you too. So, be wise with your action.

If you do not trust someone,
Go to your profile, and then click on trust >> Trust settings >> Put a ~ and their username. In this case, it would be ~Bitcoin Smith and update it. If you trust some, do the same process, but without a ~. That's how you do it.

It's a different context.

Putting someone on distrust is either the user include/exclude an user you don't agree or the user leave inappropriate tag.

Neutral feedback is enough, if he really don't trust the user, he can consider to ignore the account.

Of course I would not trust the author of this thread with anything. This part of the thread indicates that negative trust is appropriate, other parts of that thread and statements by other members here indicate the contrary. So which one is it? Is a person able to decide what constitutes trustworthiness themselves or do they have to obey a preset list of trustworthiness rules that are imposed by others? If I am not allowed to tag him, explain why and help also with the following question if possible.

To make it simple, trustworthiness in this case are mostly talking about money. When someone spread incorrect information, it has no relation with money, hence it doesn't deserve to get red tag.

[Satofan44]

Less decentralized, of course anyone is allowed to give a negative tag, just like what you do. But, if people think you're leaving an incorrect tag, other users are allowed to distrust you too. So, be wise with your action.

yahoo62278 used the word "abuse", thereby this does not indicate to me that it is allowed. It is not clear to me who does the allowing and how could it then possibly be decentralized at all? Where can I see a list of "allowed tags"?

Of course I would not trust the author of this thread with anything. This part of the thread indicates that negative trust is appropriate, other parts of that thread and statements by other members here indicate the contrary. So which one is it? Is a person able to decide what constitutes trustworthiness themselves or do they have to obey a preset list of trustworthiness rules that are imposed by others? If I am not allowed to tag him, explain why and help also with the following question if possible.

To make it simple, trustworthiness in this case are mostly talking about money. When someone spread incorrect information, it has no relation with money, hence it doesn't deserve to get red tag.

How so? I do not trust anyone who is spamming and would never engage with such a person in any monetary transaction. They are cheating both the reader's time and in this case also the campaign finances. Does this mean that there has to be a monetary transaction before the negative tag is given? If a campaign manager is willingly employing spammers he is thereby cheating the sponsor of the campaign and that has relation to money. If it were how you said, then tagging the manager is more appropriate than the user who is writing the spamming 

[joker_josue]

Well, I don't usually visit this forum section. I have a lot of things to do and little time for drama. But, I came here because I was mentioned by the OP.
Let's take it one step at a time.

User Satofan44 gave me a neutral feedback stating spammer a while back over a post^[1] who is now currently included into DT2 by @joker_josue[DT1], ...

First of all, I don't understand why my trust list was questioned on this matter. The trust list should have a comprehensive view of what you understand about a user's mindset, based on your own interest in that user (or the way they interact with others). You don't have to be aware of every drama involving a given user in order to add them to the trust list or not.

If I went into detail about all the dramas that may involve the users on my list, I would do nothing more than read post after post (on subjects that I had the slightest interest in). In the end, I would either remove or add many to my list (or maybe I wouldn't even have a list). Either way, things need to be balanced and everyone has their own criteria for adding/removing people from their list.

In turn, I don't think it was the fact that the mentioned user was on my trusted list that made him special. Just as someone can be in, they can also be out.

So, honestly, I don't understand why I was "called" to this case. I hate to see confusion here on the forum, I think that despite being a large community, we end up being few in comparison to the "outside world". We should try to get along as much as possible.



But, coming, I will try to give my opinion, with the greatest impartiality possible, and with the objective that in the end everything will be fine.

It seems the confusion started here:

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546439.msg65473997#msg65473997
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.msg65482294#msg65482294
3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546439.msg65486191#msg65486191

The story began on June 11th. According to @Bitcoin Smith, he explained himself poorly in the post he made and because of this poor explanation, he generated a complaint (July 13th) found in link 2.

Well, if someone expresses themselves poorly, especially if English is not their main language, and they use translation tools, this can clearly happen. This is something that can even happen to me, my specialty is not English, and sometimes I can explain myself badly (translation tools sometimes don't help with this). I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if something I may be saying here is misinterpreted.

I don't know what @Bitcoin Smith and @Satofan44 said during those two days, nor the debate that was held on the subject from the beginning of the confusion until today. I don't know if this was an isolated case or a set of cases, in the eyes of @Satofan44 on the part of the OP. These things only both of them can say.

It was on the 14th that the neutral tag came into being, which, as many have said, has a very moderate weight. My recommendation regarding neutral tags is to ignore them or try to clarify things further in private (always avoid going public). Negative tags are different, first try to resolve them in private, and then eventually in public.

In turn, the negative label only appeared after this topic. These are different things. I don't know if there was a private attempt to resolve the issue, but regardless of that the point is that it has now become public.

That said, I think both sides are overreacting. Perhaps a calm, thoughtful and cordial conversation in private might help to minimize this.


So he left these final words for both parties involved:

@Bitcoin Smith
I understand your drama. I was also once accused of spamming. It happens when we are misinterpreted. You initially only received a neutral label, I immediately received a negative one. Anyway, I don't want to bring up dramas here, it's a resolved issue that has already passed. People show what they really are through their attitude, even when faced with these challenges. If you are not what the tag says you are, keep working here on the forum and showing that you are different. Maybe when things calm down, talk about the matter again with the user in question. Talking in the heat of the moment doesn't solve anything.  

@Satofan44
Don't try to act on impulse, maintain a good balance in your analysis, which you have shown to have to date. Keep it up. Don't let someone who was bothered by your neutral tag make you act on impulse and anger, that's not good. Sometimes neutrality is enough to keep you alert, even for you to do a future analysis. Having patience is also good. I trust your judgment, so do it well so you don't disappoint.  


_{Less drama, as I have work to do, it was 1 less hour dedicated to projects, which I believe will soon be useful for the entire community.}