I think JollyGood is a bit too trigger happy on the negative feedback. I thought the same about Lauda back in the days. In both cases, many of their feedbacks are justified, but not all.
I try to be very conservative with feedback:
theymos' take on the Trust system
But that doesn't mean his feedback can't damage users and the Bitcointalk ecosystem.
I'd say stop searching for scammers, that must give the impression almost everyone is a scammer. I don't mind tagging obvious scammers when I see them, but I don't actively search for them.
If a Newbie asks for a $10 loan, he gets tagged. But if a newbie wants to sell 500,000 Bitcoin, his account stays clean. Something doesn't add up!
I really like eddie13's take on this: if someone is willing to risk their own money to a Newbie: let them! I don't tag Newbies for asking a loan, I don't tag campaigns for not using an escrow. It's a free market, and anyone should be free to risk their own money and time as they please.
The internet isn't safe, Bitcointalk isn't safe. Magic internet money is a magnet for scammers, and people should realize that instead of being naive and trusting anonymous strangers.
I never left theymos positive feedback, but I wouldn't be here if I wouldn't trust him. That doesn't mean I'm going to hand him my money, part of my trust in him is the fact that he doesn't need my money.
I try to be very conservative with feedback:
It's also wise to ask yourself before leaving feedback: "Does my feedback make Bitcointalk a better place? And if it's negative: is it worth destroying someone's account and reputation over this?". Consider using Neutral feedback if neither Positive nor Negative is justified.
So no, I don't think he should be on DT unless he starts abiding by the community standards (and Theymos's suggestions) with regard to what behavior deserves a negative trust and what doesn't.
For what it's worth:theymos' take on the Trust system
The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.
LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system (in 17 languages)I think JG's heart is in the right place
I think so too But that doesn't mean his feedback can't damage users and the Bitcointalk ecosystem.I'd say stop searching for scammers, that must give the impression almost everyone is a scammer. I don't mind tagging obvious scammers when I see them, but I don't actively search for them.
All i know is that he is doing a very good job in helping the the community safe from 1xbit scammers and promoters.
Do you think the community is safe? I don't! 1xbit is still scamming, bounty spammers are still spamming, and people still lose money. This post is something to think about:Should never have put the temporary illusion of safety above personal liberty..
ie tagging and chasing away “likely scammers” and crushing the unique economic dynamic of account sales..
This forum started acting like protecting idiots is more important than letting users express their free wills..
How many countless good and intelligent users have been chased away because they “might” scam..
A new startup can’t come here and start a signature campaign for example without completely being bullied into “trusting” some escrow they have probably never heard of, so heaven forbid they couldn’t possibly scam some users willing to take the risk..
A new user can hardly post anything for sale here without being bullied into some 3rd party “idiot protection” scheme because OMG they might try to scam you..
A new user here can’t start lending on any sort of collateral because holy shot they might scam the collateral..
All new economics here CRUSHED by regulatory bullying in the name of “protecting idiots”...
~
Oh right, the morons probably just threw their (saved from scam) money at one of the great 2017 ICOs instead..
I’m sure their filthy rich now thanks to all that saving grace..
“Campaign/bounty managers”, oh those valiant pillars of our community, surely made their cuts off the countless ICO scams and casinos designed from the start to suck up every Satoshi they can..
What heroes..
So trustworthy..
~
“Look at meeee!!! I busted 20 alt accounts getting paid to spam this advertisement!! Aren’t I amazing!!!??!!”
~
Just bully all newbs instead of battling the sources..
Pays in plenty of merits now too.. Keep catching them alts!! Fast track to DT1 being the heaviest handed regulatory fist against the little guy you can.. Go get that status!
I see more positive trust left for the destruction of economics than I do for the participation in it..
“Such a great alt buster! So many tag!+++”
You didn’t really accomplish shit.. 1,000 more spring up for every 100 you slap down, with unknown collateral damage of good users, while the sources of the problems asses are kissed clean..
While "we" tag the small scammers here, the big scammers took off with billions upon billions of dollars in ICO-scams, currently being replaced by the no doubt scams called "DeFi" and "NFT".ie tagging and chasing away “likely scammers” and crushing the unique economic dynamic of account sales..
This forum started acting like protecting idiots is more important than letting users express their free wills..
How many countless good and intelligent users have been chased away because they “might” scam..
A new startup can’t come here and start a signature campaign for example without completely being bullied into “trusting” some escrow they have probably never heard of, so heaven forbid they couldn’t possibly scam some users willing to take the risk..
A new user can hardly post anything for sale here without being bullied into some 3rd party “idiot protection” scheme because OMG they might try to scam you..
A new user here can’t start lending on any sort of collateral because holy shot they might scam the collateral..
All new economics here CRUSHED by regulatory bullying in the name of “protecting idiots”...
~
Oh right, the morons probably just threw their (saved from scam) money at one of the great 2017 ICOs instead..
I’m sure their filthy rich now thanks to all that saving grace..
“Campaign/bounty managers”, oh those valiant pillars of our community, surely made their cuts off the countless ICO scams and casinos designed from the start to suck up every Satoshi they can..
What heroes..
So trustworthy..
~
“Look at meeee!!! I busted 20 alt accounts getting paid to spam this advertisement!! Aren’t I amazing!!!??!!”
~
Just bully all newbs instead of battling the sources..
Pays in plenty of merits now too.. Keep catching them alts!! Fast track to DT1 being the heaviest handed regulatory fist against the little guy you can.. Go get that status!
I see more positive trust left for the destruction of economics than I do for the participation in it..
“Such a great alt buster! So many tag!+++”
You didn’t really accomplish shit.. 1,000 more spring up for every 100 you slap down, with unknown collateral damage of good users, while the sources of the problems asses are kissed clean..
If a Newbie asks for a $10 loan, he gets tagged. But if a newbie wants to sell 500,000 Bitcoin, his account stays clean. Something doesn't add up!
I really like eddie13's take on this: if someone is willing to risk their own money to a Newbie: let them! I don't tag Newbies for asking a loan, I don't tag campaigns for not using an escrow. It's a free market, and anyone should be free to risk their own money and time as they please.
The internet isn't safe, Bitcointalk isn't safe. Magic internet money is a magnet for scammers, and people should realize that instead of being naive and trusting anonymous strangers.
You think that everyone who gave theymos positive trust feedback all traded with him?
That's not necessary to leave positive feedback:35 times out of 41, JollyGood distrusted the user on the same week or later. I trust those occared at the same week*, happened after the other user distrused JG, at least it's safe to say after looking at the habit.
How often you distrust someone after they distrust you for some reason?
I would like to hear the experience of some of those users if they can remember their reasoning of distrusting JollyGood first.
I would also like to know why JollyGood seems updating his trust list as a basis of retaliation?
I think this explains the mutual exclusions: JollyGood usually excludes users from his Trust list at the same time he tags them. I don't think it's retaliatory. The tagged user most likely disagrees with the rating, and some of them exclude JollyGood from their Trust list. The result is they exclude each other in the same week. Only a small percentage of the users excluded by JollyGood excluded him too.How often you distrust someone after they distrust you for some reason?
I would like to hear the experience of some of those users if they can remember their reasoning of distrusting JollyGood first.
I would also like to know why JollyGood seems updating his trust list as a basis of retaliation?
*BPIP used to be good at this page https://bpip.org/TrustLog
Now it seems you can not get everything in one page filtered by a user. It was better before and was surving the purpose. WTF BPIP team! 😘
Been there, asked that:Now it seems you can not get everything in one page filtered by a user. It was better before and was surving the purpose. WTF BPIP team! 😘
Is there a reason the Search box disappeared from that page?
It's been replaced by these filter options and now it works across the whole history, not just the last 1000 records or whatever the limit used to be: