I don't know why, but after the last removing JG neg tag appeal, I expected a thread like this 
maybe I would have expected a thread called "Announce your inappropriate JollyGood feedback..."
maybe this could be a common thread for all those who feel that they have been unfairly marked by JG, to reduce the number of opening new topics with the same subject. Of course, OP can't be on their ignore list
Yes, really his feedback is a little sharper, seems to have less than zero tolerance for any hint of abuse. It is also obvious that he has made many mistakes and overreacted through negative tags.
I have actually seen several cases where JG changed the feedback after a suggestion, which in a way is the positive side of the whole thing. (for example, this was not the case for Lauda). now it's more a question for JollyGood himself, why did it happen that he often has to revise his feedback?
maybe he could review all his feedback once more and possibly change it to neutral, purely to prevent any new dramas. but I believe it is too much work.
As for the influence of such tags on participation in signature campaigns, I don't think it's a big minus. most serious managers know how to "read" this kind of feedback.
honestly, you're getting into a personal conflict here. A neutral tag is fine while it is only informative, but you try to turn his every word as a fact against him.
This is a very serious diagnosis you are making, you sound like a psychiatrist.
what is the difference between your conclusion and the one he left on your profile as feedback?
maybe I would have expected a thread called "Announce your inappropriate JollyGood feedback..."maybe this could be a common thread for all those who feel that they have been unfairly marked by JG, to reduce the number of opening new topics with the same subject. Of course, OP can't be on their ignore list
Yes, really his feedback is a little sharper, seems to have less than zero tolerance for any hint of abuse. It is also obvious that he has made many mistakes and overreacted through negative tags.
I have actually seen several cases where JG changed the feedback after a suggestion, which in a way is the positive side of the whole thing. (for example, this was not the case for Lauda). now it's more a question for JollyGood himself, why did it happen that he often has to revise his feedback?
maybe he could review all his feedback once more and possibly change it to neutral, purely to prevent any new dramas. but I believe it is too much work.
As for the influence of such tags on participation in signature campaigns, I don't think it's a big minus. most serious managers know how to "read" this kind of feedback.
Recently I am seeing he is leaving neutral feedback to others for low quality posts and as he is taking it as a matter in his own hand. He could just report the low value posts to the moderator and could have a personal note for himself using a plugin created by TryNinja.
honestly, you're getting into a personal conflict here. A neutral tag is fine while it is only informative, but you try to turn his every word as a fact against him.
Quote
All these concludes me JollyGood may need to seek professional advice for his mental health. He do things out of overzealousness and obsession.
His mental illness is, he always wants to devalue others either it's with a negative feedback or neutral feedback (seems a new strategy for him because others are started to talk against the negatives recently*) or even in a dead conversation.
This is a very serious diagnosis you are making, you sound like a psychiatrist.
what is the difference between your conclusion and the one he left on your profile as feedback?