Please be careful when you are choosing your words.
Quoting everything to keep record.
These clients on the forum are new, they have no idea who left negative feedback for what reason, their only justification is the negative feedback is there and it's visible, they believe a negative feedback is bad for their business (it make sense when there are others who does not have it, it's the first thing that they see before everything else when they do their home work).
If it is not Poker Player being accused of contacting prospective clients telling them to not use his services and him allegedly losing business, it is now allegedly me causing lost business to him.
I guess the previous times set a precedent. Tags are placed but he wants them revised or removed and he gets them revised or removed therefore he thinks he can go after someone every few months trying to get a tag removed or revised. Narcissist is a word that immediately comes to mind.
There should be no argument that the feedback were left because JollyGood was felt insulted of the response I had when he was trying to show his usual bossiness to me that he shows to other members all the time to destroy their reputation (people who does not go along with him). JollyGood failed to destroy me entirely though but his action is effecting me until this date.
First, if he chooses to revisit the Bitlucy scam then he should do it with complete honesty and not be selective in an attempt to show himself in a much better light considering what
actually took place. As a gesture of goodwill, I will refrain from posting links to comments he made related to the Bitlucy scam.
Second, I am fairly sure he blamed someone else when he said (words to the effect of) previously he was down and out, depressed, suicidal even, before he miraculously recovered and came back to the forum and bombarded every ANN thread he could trying to manage their campaigns. He is now alleging
I tried to destroy him. What a melodrama.
Third, the feedback I left was based purely on the fact he was self-proclaimed Co-Partner of Bitlucy as well as Marketing Director of Bitlucy and added to that he was also campaign manager too (and all the associated issues I will not post here) therefore to allude I left feedback for any reason other than his conduct within various roles at Bitlucy is absurd and is an attempt to misdirect from the facts.
Do you guys (who have him in your trust list) really think a controversial user like JollyGood should be in the DT area?(Q2)
I will be grateful to hear some justified response from you for the both questions left for you.
Cheers,
Putting cap in hand trying to have members add or remove me from trust lists based on a campaign managers whim (while having the lure of signature campaign participation), is quite insulting. Can anybody here imagine any other campaign manager posting such complete and utter nonsense wrapped in a one-sided melodrama laden with deception all for the sake trying to use any means necessary to try to have a negative tag removed or to render it useless by way of trust exclusions? The two campaign managers that I hold in very high regard would never stoop that low.
Maybe sending a PM to discuss what he wanted to achieve would have been a better start than seeing him starting at gutter level with this thread. I could be wrong but it seems he opted for the latter because he is managing several campaigns and probably thinks he can exert influence over the majority of members who trust a member he does not like.
Regardless, if he had any decency he would have sent a PM to start a discussion in order to get an understanding of perspective from both sides but I guess arrogance and over-confidence was always part of his persona and it grew over time as his portfolio of campaigns increased. He contacted another member that left him negative feedback to discuss the issue but did not contact me, instead he jumped straight to creating this thread allowing a group of trolls working in tandem to post their propaganda whenever they get a chance.