Quote from: Poker Player on December 27, 2022, 04:54:38 AM

Quote from: JollyGood on December 24, 2022, 07:54:52 AM

The timing of this has coincided with a particular signature campaign being managed by a particular campaign manager who was vouching for a neutral trust to be removed from a participant but I will not claim that is the only reason I am receiving PMs,

Yes, well, a manager who himself has 6 neutral tags changed from negative and who seems to care so much about neutral tags that he disregards them when accepting people into his campaign:

Quote

Both joker_josue and NdaMk had a neutral tag on their profiles before signing up for your campaign. If you doubt the quality of their "product", then why did you accept them in the campaign in the first place?

For me it is more a question of ego, of someone who is overflowing with ego and runs $100 a week signature campaigns now, so his ego is even more boosted. I'm curious to see if he wins the antihero award, as you have to think that people who get paid from his campaigns or think they might do so in the future are unlikely to nominate him for that "award".

At the moment he has quite a few votes.

Ego has always been one of her weaknesses as well as anger management issues but I think there are some underhanded tactics going on when she is asking members to send PMs to try to have neutral tags removed, I think it is very strange to employ members first then ask them to try to have feedback removed later.

Those neutral tags you referred to that she received that were revised from red (because of the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam) should never have been changed in my opinion but each to their own, we are all entitled to our views.

Quote from: Ludmilla_rose1995 on December 27, 2022, 07:42:00 AM

I'm guessing it's related to the conditions to be accepted in the signature campaign that is handled by @Royse777, he decided not to continue work with members who received neutral feedback especially if the neutral feedback was related to shitposting.

Surely in that case a campaign manager would only take on a campaign participant if they met the desired criteria beforehand rather than employ them and then ask them to contact the ones that left neutral or negative tags.

Quote from: Mpamaegbu on December 27, 2022, 12:30:36 PM

I know I've read on Service sub-board where a manager was asking selected members to get their neutral tag issues resolved or get removed from a campaign they already were on. I don't know why a manager would do that or consider a neutral tag to be anything sinister because that's not the way the community saw it a few years ago. I don't know if things have changed now.

Nothing has changed. At this moment, neutral tags are seen as they were years ago and can be left for a whole variety of reasons.

Quote from: joker_josue on December 27, 2022, 03:36:13 PM

Quote from: Mpamaegbu on December 27, 2022, 12:30:36 PM

So, would such a campaign manager then base their conclusion on all neutral tags being for a wrongdoing? But of course, no. Screening hunters out based on neutral tag is a wrong call.

If the same neutral tag says that the user makes a low-quality post just to meet objectives, it can influence the campaign managers' choices.

Now the campaign manager must evaluate this in advance.
As well as the user will be able to question this tag in a sincere and honest way.

I think we can all make snap judgments, and things should be handled openly and logically.
And I think that despite this moment, of greater requests, JollyGood is able to manage and evaluate who should or should not get a response.

In general, I just think that each of us should avoid involving others in their disagreements among other users. This is an open forum, with thousands of people from different cultures, interests and backgrounds, who are entitled to different opinions.

You are right on multiple fronts. We are all from differing backgrounds and have different takes on matters within the forum. About your neutral tag it was rightfully removed after reviewing but campaign managers taking on participants first and then asking participants to try to have their feedback removed/revised as a condition of staying within the campaign is (to my knowledge) unheard of.

Quote from: Mpamaegbu on December 27, 2022, 04:34:12 PM

Quote from: joker_josue on December 27, 2022, 03:36:13 PM

If the same neutral tag says that the user makes a low-quality post just to meet objectives, it can influence the campaign managers' choices.

Fine and good.

However, what beggars explanation is why would a campaign manager accept a user who already had a neutral tag into their campaign but thereafter ask the user to find a way to get it removed? Why not reject the user in the first place? That's the supposed case with OP or that which I alluded to. If from the outset a user is rejected based on a tag, I don't think it will be much of an issue like what is being discussed now.

Thank you. The point you made sums up the basis of the thread. It does beggar belief that a situation like this could arise and the one causing the commotion is a campaign manager who has already taken on participants based on what their feedback states yet afterwards has issue.

Quote from: joker_josue on December 27, 2022, 06:07:39 PM

Quote from: Mpamaegbu on December 27, 2022, 04:34:12 PM

However, what beggars explanation is why would a campaign manager accept a user who already had a neutral tag into their campaign but thereafter ask the user to find a way to get it removed? Why not reject the user in the first place? That's the supposed case with OP or that which I alluded to. If from the outset a user is rejected based on a tag, I don't think it will be much of an issue like what is being discussed now.

That has to be a campaign manager to answer.
I don't even want to be here to individualize the situation, because even the OP didn't do that.

What I just meant is that a neutral tag, even if it's neutral, can contain information that compromises a user. Then comes the question of whether or not this comment is fair, but that is already another question, which was not even called into question here.

Without a doubt you are right. Any feedback that is left regardless of it being positive, neutral or negative should be detailed as well as have a reference link.

Quote from: taguig on December 27, 2022, 09:55:55 PM

It's a case of I made a mistake it should have been this rule and the participant is the victim here, the managers should just let the campaign finish, and implement it on the manager's next campaign unless the campaign will last for years like the campaigns Hhampuz is managing but is it on the campaign rules that those with tagged need not apply because they will not get accepted in the campaign.
There are campaigns that specify that there should be this number of merits before you apply, some still apply and leave at the discretion of the manager because they believe they are qualified on the other requirements and let the manager decide if they are qualified or not, and most of the time they get accepted.

This makes complete sense if applied by campaign managers during the campaign itself but if members already have neutral or negative feedback before they have been selected to join then campaign managers should not be telling participants they can be removed from the campaign unless they try to have the feedback removed.

Quote from: joker_josue on Today at 07:56:35 AM

I don't think it's worth getting into personal wars. It's totally unnecessary.

I think we should all act with common sense, even when things don't go the way we'd like.

Even when you think a user hasn't been fair to us. I believe the best way to overcome this is to deal with it and try to work things out as best we can. If there is openness to dialogue, sincerity, honesty, things can be clarified.

These kind of personal wars are not good for the community. And it may affect third parties who have done nothing for this type of situation.

We don't have to like everyone or agree with everyone. But this forum grows based on the differences and freedoms of each one of us. And so, if it continues like this, Bitcointalk will continue to thrive.

So guys, exchange ideas and opinions, but never take these things personally and into a sawn-off war.

Remember there is one point we all have in common: Bitcoin!
If we do not agree on other points, remember that we agree on this one. Wink

What a brilliant post to end the thread with, thank you for such an enlightening positive post.

I will lock this thread now and will probably only unlock it if a particular situation arises.