Quote from: joker_josue on Today at 08:16:47 PM

@Satofan44
Don't try to act on impulse, maintain a good balance in your analysis, which you have shown to have to date. Keep it up. Don't let someone who was bothered by your neutral tag make you act on impulse and anger, that's not good. Sometimes neutrality is enough to keep you alert, even for you to do a future analysis. Having patience is also good. I trust your judgment, so do it well so you don't disappoint. Wink

I concede, cooperation with you on other topics is very valuable compared to chasing down a single spammer. There are countless around here. Negative retracted, neutral stays. Sorry to have wasted your time, your can get back to more important matters.

I am actually quite surprised that it is not the norm to tag spammers with a negative rating if you are part of DefaultTrust. That is not a good incentive and it shows in most sections.

I'd still like clarification for some seniors on several previously posted questions when they have time.

Quote from: Satofan44 on Today at 05:43:40 PM

How so? I do not trust anyone who is spamming and would never engage with such a person in any monetary transaction. They are cheating both the reader's time and in this case also the campaign finances. Does this mean that there has to be a monetary transaction before the negative tag is given? If a campaign manager is willingly employing spammers he is thereby cheating the sponsor of the campaign and that has relation to money. If it were how you said, then tagging the manager is more appropriate than the user who is writing the spamming Huh

I don't understand how campaign managers hiring spammers is trustworthy behavior and how you not allowed to evaluate someone's trustworthiness on this matter. Has this been the status quo for a long time here so that people want it to stay that way? Can you at least give them neutral ratings or is that considered wrong too?