Quote from: nutildah on Today at 02:39:12 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on September 05, 2023, 10:22:20 PM

I didn't know about WW becoming a scam. I saw red flags, which grew over time, there is a huge difference. Put short, jollygood's accusation is that I have been concealing evidence and facts, the reality is that I was quietly under growing suspicion.

I don't always agree with JG's trust ratings, and I wish he'd use the trust system a bit more sparingly than he does. But in your particular case, its just a neutral that doesn't really have any effect on your standing. Having said that, its also a case of "using trust feedback as your personal journal" mentality that we should all try to avoid.

Quote from: BenCodie on September 05, 2023, 10:22:20 PM

If someone misconstrues, lies, gives negative labels, etc. Their trade risk is higher than that of a person without these trusts.

Not necessarily. The proper maneuver would have been to leave him a "retaliatory" neutral feedback rather than upping the stakes to negative. Everyone is entitled to have bad takes that have nothing to do with their trustworthiness when it comes to executing trades on-forum

For pretext of what I will say following; I know that the use of the trust system seems to be something widely agreed on, however I am someone who looks at things as they are, excluding the politics and general consensus, and making my own judgements

TLDR: Does finance really need to be involved before giving someone who is showing potentially threatening characteristics and behaviors a negative feedback? I don't think so. If I believe someone is dangerous, twists the truth, lies, etc. based on a negative interaction where these characteristics are clearly provable/visible and where it's clear that the same could happen to a worse extent or is already happening to others to a lesser extent, I think a negative feedback is warranted. This is my rationals for the negative feedback.

A debate or heated interaction which involves some name calling or any bs outside of messing with reality and factual information - I'd say that's a neutral at best. Messing with factual information is the line for me, hence negative for Jolly.

I'm not asking anyone to join me in my opinion and to do anything to JollyGood. I just think that my rationale for leaving a negative feedback is well justified. I only elaborated as I was prompted to. I was happy to put the situation to rest otherwise..

TLDR /off
My opinion is that if the way you've interacted with someone shows cause for concern for other users and their future interactions, people should definitely know about it.

A negative interaction which shows no reasonable concern for others in the event of a transaction in the future, might warrant a neutral feedback if absolutely necessary and if the sender of the feedback thinks it's something people should at least be notified of. If the consensus disagrees and believes that even the neutral feedback is completely unreasonable, I'm sure it will be made known. Are neutral feedbacks necessary? Probably not...like you said, the trust system shouldn't be a personal journal, it should be used to help protect other users from potentially threatening users.

On the other hand a negative feedback should reflect when someone does pose somewhat of a threat to other users in the event of a transaction taking place, or where the user holds power to effect negatively effect users or the community if they suddenly chose to.

A side note: I am really watering down my words to-date in terms of what JollyGood actually is, for the sake of avoiding drama. Though even after more thinking, I think that there is absolutely no doubt that JollyGood can pose a threat to the community in the future. That comment isn't just based on my experience with him, but from what I've seen before I interacted with him. It also doesn't mean that JollyGood will, it's saying that if he did, he could cause a lot of destruction before he is stopped.

Let's get hypothetical...

Say JollyGood gets into a transaction with a new user. The terms are negotiated and the new user sends some bitcoin to JollyGood. JollyGood delivers a bad service, product, or something entirely subjective to a third party. Though it's factual that JollyGood has done wrong by the user.

Of course, the new user gets infuriated with what is going on. JollyGood then uses this to invalidate any publication of the situation and that user eventually gives up.

This is a completely realistic scenario, whether or not people think so or not. It is clear that he/she is not only capable of this but has actually committed it on numerous occasions in non-financial situations around the forum, with myself included.

From my experience, it has been shown that JollyGood is entirely capable of making that new user look like he is the wrong doer...and get away with it. Heck, he and another two users got several members on the bandwagon of labelling me as a hypocrite, narcissist, etc. mostly because I said he had a stick up his a** (which is a very common saying, which JollyGood definitely fits into when you look at how he carries on here). He even has LoyceV up in here saying that I knew about the WW scam before it happened and was wrong for not saying anything about it...freaking LoyceV! If you can convince LoyceV of some BS like that, anything is possible.

Touching on the Whirlwind crap for (hopefully) the last time - Growing suspicion and red flags while avoiding drama and effort in justifying unprovable red flags does not = me knowing about a scam before it happened. The fact is if I knew about a scam before it happened with concrete evidence, I'd post about it in an instant. Check my thread history for proof. I've done it before. I'm not posting updates about my growing red flags ESPECIALLY if there is a herd of people who are arguably powerful AND being paid up to $150 by the service I am posting about. That's temporary suicide until actual scam occurs. Or at least, A LOT of posts just like this long-ass one...and for what? For people to keep using it anyway, for my posts to get invalidated, for JollyGood to and people like him to turn me into a villain for speaking against the current forum darling....etc.

Quote from: nutildah on Today at 02:39:12 AM

Quote from: Timelord2067 on September 05, 2023, 01:48:42 PM

BitcoinGirl.Club's DT trust of BenCodie in the last 24 or so hours is more to do with their mutual distrust of JG than the *cough* quality of BenCodie's trust feed-backs given BenCodie has slapped JG with negative trust feedback...

Definitely an improper use of the trust system.

To address it, I agree. Giving positive feedback over "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a bit too much. I understand it, and understand why someone would be prompted to do that. Obviously if BitcoinGirl.Club had negative interactions with JollyGood and he/she is a like-minded person to myself, then seeing the situation and my opinion on JollyGood would bring a sense of trust for a short period of time until that feeling passes and some rationale is restored. I think that's just human nature/psychology for most. Me included. Clearly it didn't take long for BitcoinGirl.Club to restore rationale and remove the positive feedback, because I didn't see it happen.