Well, I don't usually visit this forum section. I have a lot of things to do and little time for drama. But, I came here because I was mentioned by the OP.
Let's take it one step at a time.
First of all, I don't understand why my trust list was questioned on this matter. The trust list should have a comprehensive view of what you understand about a user's mindset, based on your own interest in that user (or the way they interact with others). You don't have to be aware of every drama involving a given user in order to add them to the trust list or not.
If I went into detail about all the dramas that may involve the users on my list, I would do nothing more than read post after post (on subjects that I had the slightest interest in). In the end, I would either remove or add many to my list (or maybe I wouldn't even have a list). Either way, things need to be balanced and everyone has their own criteria for adding/removing people from their list.
In turn, I don't think it was the fact that the mentioned user was on my trusted list that made him special. Just as someone can be in, they can also be out.
So, honestly, I don't understand why I was "called" to this case. I hate to see confusion here on the forum, I think that despite being a large community, we end up being few in comparison to the "outside world". We should try to get along as much as possible.
But, coming, I will try to give my opinion, with the greatest impartiality possible, and with the objective that in the end everything will be fine.
It seems the confusion started here:
The story began on June 11th. According to @Bitcoin Smith, he explained himself poorly in the post he made and because of this poor explanation, he generated a complaint (July 13th) found in link 2.
Well, if someone expresses themselves poorly, especially if English is not their main language, and they use translation tools, this can clearly happen. This is something that can even happen to me, my specialty is not English, and sometimes I can explain myself badly (translation tools sometimes don't help with this). I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if something I may be saying here is misinterpreted.
I don't know what @Bitcoin Smith and @Satofan44 said during those two days, nor the debate that was held on the subject from the beginning of the confusion until today. I don't know if this was an isolated case or a set of cases, in the eyes of @Satofan44 on the part of the OP. These things only both of them can say.
It was on the 14th that the neutral tag came into being, which, as many have said, has a very moderate weight. My recommendation regarding neutral tags is to ignore them or try to clarify things further in private (always avoid going public). Negative tags are different, first try to resolve them in private, and then eventually in public.
In turn, the negative label only appeared after this topic. These are different things. I don't know if there was a private attempt to resolve the issue, but regardless of that the point is that it has now become public.
That said, I think both sides are overreacting. Perhaps a calm, thoughtful and cordial conversation in private might help to minimize this.
So he left these final words for both parties involved:
@Bitcoin Smith
I understand your drama. I was also once accused of spamming. It happens when we are misinterpreted. You initially only received a neutral label, I immediately received a negative one. Anyway, I don't want to bring up dramas here, it's a resolved issue that has already passed. People show what they really are through their attitude, even when faced with these challenges. If you are not what the tag says you are, keep working here on the forum and showing that you are different. Maybe when things calm down, I'll talk about the matter again with the user in question. Talking in the heat of the moment doesn't solve anything.
@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.
Less drama, as I have work to do, it was 1 less hour dedicated to projects, which I believe will soon be useful for the entire community.
Let's take it one step at a time.
User Satofan44 gave me a neutral feedback stating spammer a while back over a post[1] who is now currently included into DT2 by @joker_josue[DT1], ...
First of all, I don't understand why my trust list was questioned on this matter. The trust list should have a comprehensive view of what you understand about a user's mindset, based on your own interest in that user (or the way they interact with others). You don't have to be aware of every drama involving a given user in order to add them to the trust list or not.
If I went into detail about all the dramas that may involve the users on my list, I would do nothing more than read post after post (on subjects that I had the slightest interest in). In the end, I would either remove or add many to my list (or maybe I wouldn't even have a list). Either way, things need to be balanced and everyone has their own criteria for adding/removing people from their list.
In turn, I don't think it was the fact that the mentioned user was on my trusted list that made him special. Just as someone can be in, they can also be out.
So, honestly, I don't understand why I was "called" to this case. I hate to see confusion here on the forum, I think that despite being a large community, we end up being few in comparison to the "outside world". We should try to get along as much as possible.
But, coming, I will try to give my opinion, with the greatest impartiality possible, and with the objective that in the end everything will be fine.
It seems the confusion started here:
1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546439.msg65473997#msg65473997
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.msg65482294#msg65482294
3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546439.msg65486191#msg65486191
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.msg65482294#msg65482294
3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546439.msg65486191#msg65486191
The story began on June 11th. According to @Bitcoin Smith, he explained himself poorly in the post he made and because of this poor explanation, he generated a complaint (July 13th) found in link 2.
Well, if someone expresses themselves poorly, especially if English is not their main language, and they use translation tools, this can clearly happen. This is something that can even happen to me, my specialty is not English, and sometimes I can explain myself badly (translation tools sometimes don't help with this). I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if something I may be saying here is misinterpreted.
I don't know what @Bitcoin Smith and @Satofan44 said during those two days, nor the debate that was held on the subject from the beginning of the confusion until today. I don't know if this was an isolated case or a set of cases, in the eyes of @Satofan44 on the part of the OP. These things only both of them can say.
It was on the 14th that the neutral tag came into being, which, as many have said, has a very moderate weight. My recommendation regarding neutral tags is to ignore them or try to clarify things further in private (always avoid going public). Negative tags are different, first try to resolve them in private, and then eventually in public.
In turn, the negative label only appeared after this topic. These are different things. I don't know if there was a private attempt to resolve the issue, but regardless of that the point is that it has now become public.
That said, I think both sides are overreacting. Perhaps a calm, thoughtful and cordial conversation in private might help to minimize this.
So he left these final words for both parties involved:
@Bitcoin Smith
I understand your drama. I was also once accused of spamming. It happens when we are misinterpreted. You initially only received a neutral label, I immediately received a negative one. Anyway, I don't want to bring up dramas here, it's a resolved issue that has already passed. People show what they really are through their attitude, even when faced with these challenges. If you are not what the tag says you are, keep working here on the forum and showing that you are different. Maybe when things calm down, I'll talk about the matter again with the user in question. Talking in the heat of the moment doesn't solve anything.
@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.
Less drama, as I have work to do, it was 1 less hour dedicated to projects, which I believe will soon be useful for the entire community.