Incorrect Feedback?

[Satofan44]

@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.  

I concede, cooperation with you on other topics is very valuable compared to chasing down a single spammer. There are countless around here. Negative retracted, neutral stays. Sorry to have wasted your time, your can get back to more important matters.   I am actually quite surprised that it is not the norm to tag spammers with a negative rating if you are part of DefaultTrust. That is not a good incentive and it shows in most sections.

I'd still like clarification for some seniors on several previously posted questions when they have time.

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  

I don't understand how campaign managers hiring spammers is trustworthy behavior and how you not allowed to evaluate someone's trustworthiness on this matter. Has this been the status quo for a long time here so that people want it to stay that way? Can you at least give them neutral ratings or is that considered wrong too?

[joker_josue]

I am actually quite surprised that it is not the norm to tag spammers with a negative rating if you are part of DefaultTrust. That is not a good incentive and it shows in most sections.

Over time you will see that it is more effective to report spam posts to the moderator than to tag them.

[Zoomic]

^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.

If someone is giving a negative tag and reversing themselves often, they might not be fit to be on the DT for long.
Feedback is for trade as trade is for feedback. Every other reasons are secondary and dismisable.

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.

If people begins to receive negative tags for being ignorant on a subject or for disagreeing in a subject, the forum will be filled with negative tags and this waters down the effect of the negative tag.

[nutildah]

I am actually quite surprised that it is not the norm to tag spammers with a negative rating if you are part of DefaultTrust. That is not a good incentive and it shows in most sections.

The thinking behind why you shouldn't do this is that matters which can be solved with moderation shouldn't be part of the trust system. So if you see comments that are clearly spam, you should just report them to moderators. Enough positive reports for spamming will lead to an account being permanently or at least temporarily banned. Also, just because somebody is a spammer, it doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't be trustworthy as far as trading with them is concerned, so trust ratings for this should be neutral at worst.

I don't understand how campaign managers hiring spammers is trustworthy behavior and how you not allowed to evaluate someone's trustworthiness on this matter. Has this been the status quo for a long time here so that people want it to stay that way? Can you at least give them neutral ratings or is that considered wrong too?

I'm not sure I follow the logic on why hiring spammers would make a campaign manager untrustworthy. If spammers are resulting in positive results for a campaign, that means the manager is doing their job, as far as the client is concerned. Some campaigns do concentrate on quantity over quality, and as a forum participant, I can't help but feel that enabling spammers leads to an overall reduction in quality of the forum, which could end up driving web traffic away from the site, so yes the two dynamics are constantly at odds with each other.

[LoyceV]

^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'm not sure what you're asking. I see no negative feedback (anymore?), and until I was mentioned again (several times), I had given up on this thread. As I said in post #3:

Neutral feedback isn't that important

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.

This is NOT how you're supposed to use the Trust list:

Don't confuse your Trust list with feedback
Trust feedback: leave feedback to people you trust or don't trust. Or leave neutral comments.
Trust list: a list of people who's judgement on others you trust (username) or don't trust (~username).

You should read the beginner's guide

You too

Of course I would not trust the author of this thread with anything. This part of the thread indicates that negative trust is appropriate

I wouldn't trust 99.99% of the users here with money. But that doesn't mean I'll leave all of them negative feedback.
Maybe this helps:

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

So, honestly, I don't understand why I was "called" to this case.

That's kinda part of being on DT1, although in this case it's a waste of time over neutral feedback.

I am actually quite surprised that it is not the norm to tag spammers with a negative rating if you are part of DefaultTrust.

That's what The Pharmacist was doing years ago, and it's (probably) part of the reason theymos introduced the Merit system. Spam should be reported to Mods to be deleted. If negative feedback is abused, it loses it's meaning for the real scammers.

@Satofan44: a bit of unsolicited advice: don't get sucked into The Bitcointalk Drama. Something tells me you enjoy the technical side of the forum much more.

[Shishir99]

Not everyone creates a thread to complain about the feedback they receive. Since Bitcoin Smith created this thread, I would like to ask, what about the other feedback that is left by Satofan44? He removed the latest feedback because everyone says that is abuse. What about the other two negative feedback he left?

BADecker

2025-06-22

Reference

This user spread false/fake/unhelpful information on non-technical board

sharenet914

2025-06-16

Reference

AI spam.

I think the color of the feedback should be changed to neutral. The wordings are probably correct, but they do not deserve a negative feedback for it.

[Solosanz]

I think the color of the feedback should be changed to neutral. The wordings are probably correct, but they do not deserve a negative feedback for it.

It's more appropriate to change the color, but I don't see the point/effect after that.

BADecker would still have 3 red tags, while sharenet914 has no value given to the forum and likely won't back to this forum.

So I don't take his other tags seriously, in other words it's still fine.

[Shishir99]

I think the color of the feedback should be changed to neutral. The wordings are probably correct, but they do not deserve a negative feedback for it.

It's more appropriate to change the color, but I don't see the point/effect after that.

BADecker would still have 3 red tags, while sharenet914 has no value given to the forum and likely won't back to this forum.

So I don't take his other tags seriously, in other words it's still fine.

So what, mate?
You shouldn't tag someone incorrectly just because they already have some tags or they are not active anymore. Your logic is like, a dozen people throw their trash bag in the pond, and if I refrain from throwing my trash bag, it doesn't change much. Because some people have already thrown the trash bag, and there are no fish in the pond. How does that sound, mate?

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what others did. Listen to your heart and do what you think is good. If you know that it is not good, please don't do it. If I know I am doing something wrong, why would I do it?

[Satofan44]

So what, mate?
You shouldn't tag someone incorrectly just because they already have some tags or they are not active anymore. Your logic is like, a dozen people throw their trash bag in the pond, and if I refrain from throwing my trash bag, it doesn't change much. Because some people have already thrown the trash bag, and there are no fish in the pond. How does that sound, mate?

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what others did. Listen to your heart and do what you think is good. If you know that it is not good, please don't do it. If I know I am doing something wrong, why would I do it?

Perhaps it would be wiser to first focus on getting senior members to remove such ratings than to ask a DT newbie to behave better than them since day 0?   For the remaining posts, I gave merit as I agree and thank them for their responses. I don't want to waste any more time of other people by continuing those discussions in this topic.

[Bitcoin Smith]

~
@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.  
~

I don't usually participate in drama too, Sorry for calling you out in the middle of something, I had to only when things went out of control. Your balanced response helped to shift the tone on this matter. Just like you said we all are here to learn and contribute to the community in any way possible which is my only intention though. But the spammer tag will definitely affect the credibility of my posts whether it is in mild dark or red which is why I wanted this to be addressed and this over for one post where I said transactions on LN can't be tracked while the reality is there are way to track even via LN. That can be corrected instead of giving a tag.

Just like you said, l will just keep doing what I am intended to do and let's see if Sato decides to change it after a while. Thanks again for stepping in!


I don't want to stir things any further but if Sato wants to look for the spammers then I suggest him to visit threads like Push-up, Buy-HODL and few others where most of the users just keep repeating the same thing again and again and again that is literally pointless to say after hundreds of pages but with the hope of getting some merits and ranking up.

But seriously don't.

[_act_]

I don't usually participate in drama too, Sorry for calling you out in the middle of something, I had to only when things went out of control.

When I saw the way Satofan44 was handling his trust feedback, I saw him as a good poster that is doing the opposite of good posting if it trust feedback and he is not worthy to be a DT member. As this thread builds up, he continued to let us know that. He is no more a DT member which is good.

[Zoomic]

When I saw the way Satofan44 was handling his trust feedback, I saw him as a good poster that is doing the opposite of good posting if it trust feedback and he is not worthy to be a DT member. As this thread builds up, he continued to let us know that. He is no more a DT member which is good.

I saw it coming and I said it above. If Satofan44 will follow LoyceV advice and focus on the technical side of the forum until he learns how the trust system works, he will be more beneficial to the community.

The red tag is trust abuse and should be removed immediately.

If someone is giving a negative tag and reversing themselves often, they might not be fit to be on the DT for long.
Feedback is for trade as trade is for feedback. Every other reasons are secondary and dismisable.

[_act_]

I saw it coming and I said it above. If Satofan44 will follow LoyceV advice and focus on the technical side of the forum until he learns how the trust system works, he will be more beneficial to the community.

Until he learns? Are you thinking he is a newbie? A newbie can easily be known on this forum. AlthoughI have noticed on this forum that people do not mind if someone is an alt so far the person is exceptionally posting good.

I also noticed people will post that it is just a neutral feedback but not saying that it is a neutral feedback but heavy like a negative feedback. There are some neutral feedbacks that are absolutely negative feedbacks if read.

[Shishir99]

Perhaps it would be wiser to first focus on getting senior members to remove such ratings than to ask a DT newbie to behave better than them since day 0?   For the remaining posts, I gave merit as I agree and thank them for their responses. I don't want to waste any more time of other people by continuing those discussions in this topic.

Good decision. Your ignorance just kicked you off the DT network. That escalated too quickly. The wisest would be to hear what the community says. Probably you are too experienced with technical things, but you have a lot to learn about the forum. As I said before, don't look at what some random people do. You should focus on what most people do. If some people say you are bad, don't count on that. But if most people say you are bad, I think you should work on that. Most people in this thread opposed your tagging behaviour, and you got some DT exclusions quickly, which kicked you out of the DT network. I strongly believe you have a lot of potential to grow. Just be humble instead of being aggressive.

[Satofan44]

When I saw the way Satofan44 was handling his trust feedback, I saw him as a good poster that is doing the opposite of good posting if it trust feedback and he is not worthy to be a DT member. As this thread builds up, he continued to let us know that. He is no more a DT member which is good.

Defending spam is good, I got it already. You don't have to make it so obvious.

Perhaps it would be wiser to first focus on getting senior members to remove such ratings than to ask a DT newbie to behave better than them since day 0?   For the remaining posts, I gave merit as I agree and thank them for their responses. I don't want to waste any more time of other people by continuing those discussions in this topic.

Good decision. Your ignorance just kicked you off the DT network. That escalated too quickly. The wisest would be to hear what the community says. Probably you are too experienced with technical things, but you have a lot to learn about the forum. As I said before, don't look at what some random people do. You should focus on what most people do. If some people say you are bad, don't count on that. But if most people say you are bad, I think you should work on that. Most people in this thread opposed your tagging behaviour, and you got some DT exclusions quickly, which kicked you out of the DT network. I strongly believe you have a lot of potential to grow. Just be humble instead of being aggressive.

I don't care about your useless trust system I have previously indicated this, stop posting spam. Let the centralized system be handled by people who like centralized systems. I left a new feedback to see what would happen, and those that reacted made the error by showing themselves. A pattern of entrenched and corrupt interests makes itself quickly visible.

Perhaps it is time to lock this thread to avoid further signature spam, your case is resolved.

[nigerianprince420]

Your assumptions weren’t even completely wrong, you just used the wrong terminology. Many of the ways in which your privacy can get leaked on lightning can be mitigated through the use of Taproot channels, wrapped invoices and blinded paths. These privacy improvements hadn’t been adopted when the research paper cited by satofan was written. Tagging someone and calling them a spammer is really blowing things out of proportion.

[babo]

This image comes to mind:

(source)

I feel like I'm somewhere on the green line where I realize the amount of things I don't know only keeps increasing.

It's like that for me too
when I see the things I can do and learn, I'm always amazed and the further I go, the deeper I go, the bigger the list of things to learn becomes
I never reached a point where I was like, okay I know everything

In any case, I hope this gets resolved amicably.

[Shishir99]

I don't care about your useless trust system I have previously indicated this, stop posting spam. Let the centralized system be handled by people who like centralized systems. I left a new feedback to see what would happen, and those that reacted made the error by showing themselves. A pattern of entrenched and corrupt interests makes itself quickly visible.

I don't care about your feedback either. Ironically, you claim not to care about the useless trust system, yet you are using it to tag people. LOL. You should be ashamed of yourself and delete all the feedback you left, and participate in the forum where you like most. As for your new feedback, nothing will happen. Because you are out of the DT network, your feedback on their profile won't show by default. So, let your arrogance keep you satisfied, you little boy. I see you consider criticism as spam. If you cannot take criticism, you should not write in the reputation board. Good luck!

[memehunter]

I don't care about your useless trust system

Thanks for confirming this. Since you don't care about it, I don't like to see your trust feedback by default.  I would rather see someone else's feedback who cares about this, or at least give a better alternative.