After the introduction of the flag system, red feedback can serve for other "overconfident things (c)".
Who decides that?
but everyone forgets that the feedback system was created for the community and works only thanks to it
That is the issue, it works for some and doesn't for others, it certainly does not work for the person who has to trade his freedom of expression to avoid the feedback from 1miau, if I were to be selfish and look at my own status and stop there, well great, the trust system works perfectly, but when I get PMs from people telling me they are afraid to even talk about 1miau or else they would lose their signature campaign income or ability to trade -- it sure doesn't work.
We are all human, and most of us, if not all, are quite selfish about other people's problems, so I take this situation as a "catalyst" for getting involved in this matter. And given that you mentioned that the feedback was correct, then I think there is nothing more to discuss here.
Just for the record, I did not mention that the feedback was correct, in fact, I highly agree with nutildah take on this issue.
I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't be negged today for 5-year-old offenses, especially if they already have a negative (or more than one) for the offense.
1miau also admitted that he gave him a pass before, but only decided to tag him right after his political opinion was made public, had digaran not expressed his political opinion 1miau's would have not given him that feedback.
Since you are a campaign manager, let me ask you something (a question to all campaign managers), if someone had negative feedback from 1miau for being pro-Russian or a Pro-puerto Rican for that matter, applied to a campaign you run, would you even consider looking at his post quality with that negative feedback?
I am asking because I strongly believe that the signature campaign is the backbone of all this, the vast majority of forum members don't trade, but almost everyone wants to be in a signature campaign.
I think we could spare the forum at least 90% of the trust system drama if ALL campaign managers start evaluating participants only based on post quality with no consideration for feedback, this way nobody will be afraid of expressing their opinion on any subject, because the current system is directly tied to money, people have to keep their mouth shut to earn some
BTC, otherwise, I am sure many people would not bother having negative feedback from 1maiu for example as long as they can still participate in signature campaigns, and ya 1miau (for instance) gets to satisfy his ego by painting every profile he dislikes and probably nobody would complain about it.
But until that happens, being a DT member means you have a lot of power, enough power to dictate who gets to make money and who does not, and as long as someone has that much power -- it's no longer a matter of " it's up to me to exclude, or tag people for things that I personally see fit".