Bitcoin Forum

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117739.0

Getting financially rewarded for being in DT seems shady to me...  what do others think?

Clearly trying to buy trust.

Obvious.  but what of community reactions to the DT that sell it?

We can no longer count on DT members to be honest...

This is without doubt the case.

There will always be concerns here where you have systems of control that are open to abuse where that abuse can result in financial reward. I guess just for now dt and every member needs to be a diligent as possible. The more DT the more likely you may consider it to catch them or notice it and  it does make it harder to collude successfully, but then you have more persons to watch and higher odds that some may fall into temptation. As I have said i believe an anonymous forum is a difficult one for decentralised control sytems even with very stringent criteria and a mandate (although that would vastly improve the reliability and credibility of the ratings)

Perhaps better to just flash red under all accounts so people are terrified to trade without DDE or something similar. Something like beware this person could well be a scammer.

Have their been any big scams conducted from accounts with LOTS of DT green in the past? if not then perhaps not as worrying as it may seem although certainly something to think about.

I don't know if there is a difference or not, but I feel like they are trying to buy "reputation" as opposed to trust. This is just because they way it is worded, in that it doesn't ask for feedback or that is has to be a positive post about the experience.

Personally I wouldn't tag/remove a DT member for partaking and leaving an honest post of their experience in a thread. I would not trust their judgement if they were to leave positive feedback in the trust system for this interaction though. As soon as they take the payment for providing their opinion as a member of DT that should be off the table. I would aslo hope that these members kept an eye on the program to make sure it wasn't a fancy show at the beginning and an exit scam to follow.


I guess it depends on why they are in DT. If they are one of the people grinding and striving for a position in DT then yeah seems like they want to leverage the position. If they were a member who just so happens to have found themselves on DT by using the system, should they be denied the opportunity. I think everything needs to be looked at case by case and judged accordingly.

Did any DT member actually do it? The DT members who commented in that thread (LoyceV, Coolcryptovator, Jet Cash, ...) seem to share your opinion.

I wouldn't do it. I don't think it's appropriate for a DT member.


They're not asking for it, but I don't think it's a coincidence that of all possible ways to word it ("trusted users", "trusted gamblers", "expert degenerates", etc) they chose to solicit default trust members.

I'm curious how these paid reviews work. If I think the service is God awful and leave a terrible review, do I still get the payment? How about if it results in malware infecting my computer? If I give negative trust to boot, would I still get payment?

It is unethical, and is one more reason why those without trading experience should not be on DT.

It may be what that casino is doing is trying to prevent a bunch of people whose sole purpose is to claim giveaways to claim the rewards. The concern is that these people may be willing to look the other way if the casino starts to act shady, such as what happened here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5097164.0), and here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3139632.0).

LOL, come on, you've answered your own questions right there.

I just realized it's 0.02 ETH not BTC... WTF that's like two bucks. I'd hope even the current diluted DT is not that desperate.



What does that have to do with the topic? Doesn't make sense even if I replace "should" with "shouldn't".

@ quickseller. I assume you forgot the word not in your above comment. I guess my 22 years of experience in both hard and soft collections still renders me clueless when spotting a scammer/deadbeat.  ::) I guess only buying and selling trinkets on the collectibles board would make me qualified to be on DT. Let us not forget the 5 years that I've seen people get screwed over every which way but Sunday (including myself) in this space nor the 51 years that I have been on this planet should count either.

I don't see this user explicitly asking for trust ratings do you? They are asking for a review. This is not uncommon. Perhaps it could have been worded better and people are reading into it too much. Maybe he is actually fishing for positive ratings. Maybe he is an 8 story tall crustacean from the protozoic era. I doubt we will ever know for sure.

This frankly is the kind of thing that demonstrates to me this forum is full of a bunch of busybodies that have nothing better to do than interfere in the lives of others over the most inconsequential things they SUSPECT MIGHT be happening. This is all lots of fun until it is your turn to have the forum crawl up your ass just because some one is bored. Good thing for them there are no penalties for wrongly rating people who have no influence within this system... so win win.

     I thought discussions like this are what you are advocating for. I don't see that any DT member has given a neg rating to the OP or anyone else participating in that thread at this time.

Even if a DT reviews the Gambling service there are two ways of reacting to it.

1. After reviewing, if the DT puts some positive trust on the profile. This is surely a shady activity from both parties.

2. After reviewing, if the DT just vouches for the service and does not use any trust rating. Or reacts to it as LoyceV reacted here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1903546) by giving a feedback from a non DT alt would be a decent way around.

I replied (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117739.msg50063733#msg50063733) on their thread. Actually they are trying to get few positive feedback's and few positive reviews from DT member to build their reputation very quick (IMO). Obviously I think this is a shady attempt. DT doesn't mean that they are all gambling expert or something like this.

If any DT leave positive feedback's for that kind of work then I will consider it a trust abuse.

No... nor did I explicitly accuse him, did I?.  :)

I'm trying to get a feel on the communities stance for when the abuse of positive trust or merit starts becoming sneaky.

It seems everyday someone comes up with a new ponzi idea, eventually their scams will involve something other than crypto currency.

You are right, I do want discussion before rating. Except you will note the distinct lack of a standard of evidence, substituted in its place is mere suspicion. Really even if he was up to what is suspected, how long do you think it would last before the people rating him would figure it out and notify everyone who rated him to remove them? My point is this is kind of a non-issue even if it was true.




No, you didn't explicitly accuse him, you also provided no evidence that he should be subject to suspicion at all either (other than what you imagine may be true). There is a reason most of the legal systems of the industrialized world require a warrant, because fishing expeditions themselves even if no other action is taken are a violation of privacy and can bring other repercussions against entirely innocent people.

    Most of us here are not lawyers. What lawyer is bitcointalk going to hire to write out a detailed explanation of standards of evidence for idiots? (It would probably be preferable to write it in multiple languages too.)After all, I see in another thread you chiming in on negative trust given by someone not even on DT1 or DT2. Therefore, all members would need the standards explained to them. Also, what measure are we going to take for those members that leave inappropriate trust feedback? In my case, I have three comments claiming that I spread doomsday virus, suck ass the best, and am an alt of yogg.

I was just gathering community feedback.  Stop seeing battles everywhere.  :(

Personally I respect them who are in the DT list. In my opinion this service shouldn't be a sale material. Honestly how our society being protected by cops like that bitcointalk community being protected by DT members I think. Its a service which means a lot for us and obviously we respect this position holders.

Selling DT services could rise a lot of questions about giving someone postive or negative feedback. There could be a slogan like that:

DT-------> NOT FOR SALE

I’m not interested in it at all, I don’t think it’s something fellow DT members should be doing but that’s just my opinion.

That was my assumption indeed when I posted this:
I've seen many services ask for reviews or testing something, and I've joined a few too. The ones that don't ask for a higher rank are easily abused by account farmers, so it makes sense to ask for more trusted users too.
I think it's the first time I've seen someone ask for "DT members", hence my warning. It could just be naivety.

I think "vouching" for it is too much already. Being able to withdraw $2.70 is no reason to trust the site with a larger amount.

My alt is put on DT3 now. The ratings are "maturing", and there's no reason to distrust the accounts. If someone puts it on DT2 at some point, I think I'll just leave the existing ratings, but will have to use another alt (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=949024) for new non-DT ratings.

I hope it has a negative effect. If DT members who have a concern for the system "tilderate" the members who do leave trust, then that will reduce the advantage of buying trust ( if that was the intention), and it will lead to the trust sellers losing their ranking.

Asking only DT members to review the service is not the way to do it. Since when does being a DT mean having an expertise in gambling and casino services? I they wanted to do it properly they would have asked for members who are long time gamblers or have experience working or operating casinos or casino games. 

Aren't gambling signatures from DT members an indirect recommendation of a specific gambling website ?

Yes, but there is no any specific campaign or advertising opportunities for DT members only. But OP mentioned about a thread who had asked specifically for DT members only which will consider trust sell. Wear signature and leave positive feedback's or review is not same. They actually tried to buy positive ratings. They aren't asking for signature campaign.

Edited post already. You quoted before complete my edit  ;D

However I was just looking into Google about advertisment,

I don't agree. Whether or not you have done the research, promoting a product in your signature is an endorsement of that product, and your reputation is influenced by the legitimacy of the campaign. Members should realise this, and take responsibility for their signatures, rather than just prostituting themselves.

Wants positive reviews for unknown reason, in my opinion.

---

TV commercials are not endorsed by TV companies and they are advertising various products, but:
...it might negatively reflect on their reputation. I am pretty sure most people here can't even explain what they are advertising (based on PM's I have received).

there is a dealing though.

i have it in mind that when both made some dealings and agreed to make transactions and both are happy with it, it think its reasonable to give + trust rep. but then if the deal includes the +trust as fee, its going to be something.

Technically they are although lets not forget, DT members are also forum users and should be allowed to benefit from wearing a signature. Those campaign didn't reserve a special bonus for been a DT member or leaving reviews, the DT members applied themselves to promote the project therefore they aren't buying the trust of DT members.

It is easily done if a DT member needs money theb O would settle giving a positive trust in return. Telegran is one of the best tool for.the negotiations and for transactions that will going to happen. Now that it has already had been something fishy then there is a high chance that it is happening already.

You don't need to include a fee. There have been cases when members will enter into a number of small transactions to buyild up a trust history, and then go for the big ticket scams. Fortunately the Bitcoin Talk trust system includes a risked amount field, so it is possible to check on this.

I would expect, or hope, that if any DT member would take that deal they would not be swayed by the amount received in order to give an honest review. If there ever comes any point where they (the ones asking for the review) starts talking about receiving trust that would be the big no-no. But just for a review, why not? As long as it is objective I don't see any big issues with it.

IOW quid pro quo!

Paid reviews and paid advertisement are not new or inherently bad.  As you say it's not a problem if it's objective (ie no quid pro quo).  It's obviously really hard to figure out the quid pro quo part so everyone should probably assume (until proven otherwise) that all reviews and the like are paid reviews.  Once a person has proven themselves to provide honest reviews folks can better trust the independence of reviewers by reputation!

This specific case is a bit of a joke just based on .02 ETH and I would be quite surprised if he got any live DT'ers, there are just way to many red flags for any sane DT member to seriously consider hooking up to this train wreck in the making!

Well, I guess I could put up an honest review like this "This site was offering to pay default trust members to review it, which I consider shady AF."

Seriously, there is no reason to want default trust reviewers unless you want something only default trust can provide... likewise, if you want an honest review of a gambling site you'd be looking for known gambling experts, etc.

Imagine if someone put up a sig campaign or an auction allowing only DT members to participate. I think that would be fishy too.

I would argue that it depends. Perhaps they've just been lurking for a few weeks/months and now decided that they wanted to launch a project and get reviews on it. There's a lot of attention towards DT lately, and it's members so naturally they'd want high profile users. If it would be reworded to "Top Users according to Bpip.org", would that be better? I'm just saying I get where they are coming from and it doesn't necessarily have to be shady although I see your point as well.

I am aware, and I don't expect the user base to be lawyers. However these laws didn't just fall out of the sky. They were put into place for a reason. People witnessed the horrible flaws and abuses that happened without these protections and created a system to fix it. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel perhaps we should examine existing functional systems and at least attempt to follow them where it is beneficial to the forum overall. Regardless, even if we don't implement it, it still serves as a template of what we should be striving for if we really want to run a just system here, as well as a map of the common pitfalls.



I enjoy how what I actually said is invisible to you, you reject reality, and substitute your own. Also this is an interesting comment from some one who was only forced to stop stalking me after staff intervention.




Exactly. They are essentially soliciting to pay known trusted people for their time. This is not at all new, but usually they phrase it as "legendary" members or something along those lines. I don't think this user even had any idea the implication of using that language and simply thought it would be a good way to distinguish trustworthy users who would be acceptable for his goals of having trusted users review his service. Nothing happened, he didn't explicitly ask for trust ratings, this is a non-event.

This is a perfect example of the constant struggle around here between people who REALLY want and need to find crimes to justify their existence at the expense of the entire community, and those who are genuinely attempting to stop abuse. You give people enough power suddenly everyone is suspect and subject to summary judgement.

You don't act like you enjoy it, so I'll call bullshit.

I would have thought you'd mature in two years on ignore, but no, you still stand behind more respected people while taking potshots at everyone.

If you hate this forum so much, go away??

lol - you ignorant fool.  Stay on topic (this is NOT ABOUT YOU)  or stop posting :  local rule

We were actually having a nice little productive discussion before you interjected yourself to make this about you as you chastised me for making it about me in the same breath.

There seems to be some what of a consensus among those who were more interested in an actual discussion that this could be explained by perfectly innocent behavior. I am sorry you are having trouble controlling yourself rather than participating in this discussion in a constructive manner.

How different would it be if he was only asking for a different subset of people, e.g. people with > 500 merits?

Meh. Albeit with less stink of implied corruption. I don't really get the whole paid review business, maybe that's my problem.

That could be it. I could see it as a legitimate attempt at getting reviews from a user group where alts are least likely to be present.

I don't either, and it's the "paid" part of it that makes me think it's sketchy.  While I would feel obligated to give an honest review if I were paid to do so, 1) there still be bias in my mind after getting paid, and 2) there's no way for anyone else to know if I was being objective and not just writing a puff review because I was paid.  Those are the reasons why I wouldn't do a paid review, and in this particular case I also am not a gambler and wouldn't even know what I was doing.

I respect your opinion, though I don't agree with it 100%.  I don't personally endorse any of the services I've used my signature space to advertise for, and in fact in all of the sig campaigns I've been in (with the exception of Yobit), I've never used those services myself.  I think of it like a TV station, where they rent advertising spots to businesses but don't necessarily endorse those businesses.  On the other hand, I would not join or continue to be in a sig campaign if the place I'm advertising for has been proven to be a scam.  In that case, it would be wrong to continue renting my sig space for that business because not only might people be sucked into that scam via my advertising, but it could potentially damage my reputation as well.

There has been some argument that people shouldn't be promoting gambling here, but I'm not sure if that's just because some DT members are doing it and it fits nicely into some folks' anti-DT campaign or whether people really think gambling is harmful.  I'm of the opinion that it's potentially harmful, as are many things and that advertising for online casinos isn't immoral.  Anyway.

Pay for reviews happens all the time. As long as it is disclosed it is totally ethical, and he did make a public request... It amazes me some times how determined people are to make a crime out of anything they can. I guess it is just too bad the system we have here incentivizes this behavior rather than taking up the legitimate (and somewhat more difficult task) of finding real con artists. It is much easier to set up and knock down straw men.

I can see that explanation.  It would be one thing if the request was for members with green trust, but specifically asking for member who are part of the DT network seems like an obvious attempt to gain some green trust himself.

I wouldn't suggest making a big deal out of this situation, but if this type of thing gets out hand it could easily be abused.  However, if it's allowed and remains out in the open it may expose some DT members with ulterior motives.

I didn't read all of the thread, but most of it.

Accepting the payment doesn't seem to be binding  regarding your feedback.

So in the end there is absolutely no reason to give a false feedback. The service they are buying is a try out, and an honest feedback.

If you stick to that, it's fine by me.

As it has been said just before, the member is not looking for a Trusted Feedback as in positive trust, just in  review, like some people do for free amazon gifts.
If the amount wasn't so ridiculous, I might consider doing it if paid up front, and with a guarantee of 0 censoring.

If a service a willing to pay for an honest feedback, the service itself should be fairly ok.

However I couldn't be bothered more for 0.02 eth. I would need some time to actually try the service out, which would make the time not worth it at all.

---

Because otherwize nobody would use their service since it is new I guess.

This happens all the time IRL, sometimes it's honest, and sometimes it's BS. I have been a paid tester before, and the payment is simply there because thorough testing takes time. Again someone that is a trusted member of a community will more likely convince more people of the quality of a service if this is what their feedback is saying.

On the other hand, if the service is crap, they also take the risk to destroy their rep at the very start.

I will say that again. As long as everything is public, and the review is honest, where is the issue?

---

in fact it is not.

---

How so?

I have seen numerous times where people where selling techniques or other stuff, where said good was provided for free to a DT to assess it. Can't find the thread again right now.

Some DT's did vouch for the digital good in question. This is no different.

There was also no trust feedback left.

This is exactly why even if this is an issue, it is really a non-issue. If people play that game of pay for ratings it gets obvious pretty quick, and then that account is done.

The most recent one which comes to mind is this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5098397.0), which had vouches from both TMAN and actmyname.

As you say, it is a fairly common occurrence that users who are selling some digital good will offer free "vouch" copies to trusted users. It is also commonplace outside this forum that companies will give away a certain number of their product for free in return for feedback and ratings. Logically, there is not much of a difference between offering something of value for free and offering payment in return for an honest opinion, although the latter certainly feels shadier to me. I also think asking specifically for DT members rather than just trusted members was a mistake.

Provided the review was honest and stated the user was paid for it, then although I don't like it, I can't see it being any different to handing out "vouch" copies.

Having said all that, leaving positive feedback in return for payment is absolutely inappropriate.

Yey this is the exact thread I was referring to. Thanks man.

As always, when extending one's hand toward another, one must exercise caution.

That's why both TMAN and I picked out words carefully as not to guarantee the absolute success of the product, merely its existence.

---

That being said, I believe that the number of positives that you grant should never exceed even half that of the number of negatives you have sent. Selectiveness of trust is very important.

I think most of discussion as well OP revolved in it whether DT should do it or not. I will say as a forum member nobody should review these kind of services (Exchanges, Casino or any other business ) in which some user can risk thousands of dollars.

I am ok in giving a review for .02 ETH or even for free if I am reviewing a apparel site or a restaurant service but I am not ok in giving review to a casino or exchange even for hundreds of dollars payment because the risk factor associated to other users. These kind of services should be recommend by your own experience or if you have proof that it is working fine from past without engaging in any kind of suspicious or scam activity.

PS: Any DT is a forum member first and no forum member should engage in selling the reviews for shady/untrusted business.

Ah, just my skeptical nature getting the getting the better of me, I guess.  I see your point, but I'm not 100% sure "there is no difference."  In one case, a free sample of a product is offered, and in the other a bounty is offered for testing a service.  Again, I see your argument and tend to agree in the big picture they are similar, and in most cased there wouldn't be anything nefarious in the offer. 

However, to play devil's advocate I'll ask; what's an appropriate bounty?  If one were to offer a bounty of 0.5BTC for testing a service, how unbiased will the reviewer be?  At what point does it start to look like something nefarious?

I'd say everything that is close to a decent amount regarding time spent.

After this everyone has to  decide for himself how much his time is worth.
I value my time at around $30..$100/hour depending on the technicality/difficulty of the task.

Of course to follow up on the 0.5 BTC you are mentioning, this kind of amount would raise a huge red flag (unless it involves days long of testing...).

Offering a free copy is no different then offering a bounty as long as the free copy does have a market value, which it has since the editor is managing to sell some.

If the item has a value FOR the tester is another story.

If the bounty is 0.5BTC it is shady from the start. If you are earning $2000 testing a product you could get inclined focusing on the good stuff and intentionally or not, forget to mention the bad. And that what you forget to mention could end up being a problem for you and any future users of the service.

Why is it people are so afraid of leaving a positive for the wrong person, but not afraid of spamming negative ratings? I have left a mere handful of negative ratings, because I almost exclusively rate people whom I have had a direct interaction with. I am of the opinion people should not be so desperate to find crimes and instead address the actual fraud around here. Of course tracking down and proving real fraud is a lot harder than playing Columbo with random hapless noobs...

Because a false positive rating can do a lot more damage than a false negative rating. A false negative may stop a user from doing some trading, or at least force other parties to do a bit more due diligence, until it is resolved. A false positive rating could potentially contribute to a scam by helping to lure in people who don't know any better.

Given the ratio of honest members to would be scammers, I'm not surprised the positive to negative feedback ratio is what it is.

This is a matter of perspective.

The fact that in your opinion it is true, doesn't make it an universal reality.

If someone was to falsely red tag someone who was launching his service, you have no idea how much money is at stake, and how much he might lose because of this rating.

It can be very damageable in both ways.

Edit: also how are you Hero with an activity of 490?

Hero only needs 480 activity and 500 merit.

I was so sure it was 500!!!!
I guess I might become Hero 2 weeks earlier than expected.

Congratz anyway for your new rank o_e_l_e_o :)

That's almost like selling the account or even renting it imho.

I think the merit system is pretty decent against past trust ratings used to merit posts or actions, also I repeat myself I see way more users tagging obvious scams than before which is also nice.

But you have to reach the 480 activity first before reaching the hero rank but that's not an issue you'll probably reach that in a matter of time.

As others have stated this is a matter of perspective, not a universally true statement. There is no way to force resolution around here, and no cost for making false negative ratings generally. If some one has the opinion they don't like what you are doing, that's it. It will remain a permanent impediment to the user with varying levels of detriment. People tend not to do due diligence, and pretending like it is just a matter of them looking more carefully is quite dismissive of the negative results that it would have on ones ability to trade.

Additionally false negatives do more to lure people in to fraud than anything. By propagating false negatives the user base learns they don't always mean something and then genuine negative ratings blend in with the signal noise of frivolous ratings. False positives rely on the reputation of the one giving it. People around here with good reputations are aware that people are trying to game the system and they have direct incentives to not allow that, because their own reputation would suffer.

That's your opinion, and I think it's wrong.  You don't know that members are seeing all these negatives and becoming immune to them any more than I do.  The fact is that this forum is absolutely infested with scammers and dishonest people of all kinds, and the unwitting member needs to be warned about them.  In other words, I think it's much better that one of these scammers or account sellers or what have you has a red tag rather than not having one. 

People can judge for themselves whether they want to trade with that person based on what the negative was given for--and if they disregard someone's trust, that's on them.  Some people have to learn the hard way, and that's just the way it is.  I know I did when I got scammed by a green-trusted member back in 2016. 

Again, the pattern is complete dismissal of the negative impacts that false or frivolous ratings have on users. This is not just about one or two users but a larger pattern of this behavior which has a much bigger detrimental impact on the overall community. Users who are falsely rated with honest intentions will often just leave rather than deal with rebuilding their reputations while frauds are back in seconds with a purchased account. Negative ratings are handed out so flippantly to the point where they have become almost meaningless in spite of your pretense that this is not the case.

This forum IS infested with scammers. The problem isn't new, and shotgunning negatives at them isn't going to stop it, nor has it been. At best it will momentarily delay them. The question then is at what cost? I submit the cost is at the expense of the legitimate user base which has to deal with the constant fear of extortion via the trust system for saying the wrong thing. Some times they even get extorted using their hard earned reputations because they pointed out the wrong scam. Have you ever considered the security flaw of such a system in that context? What is preventing systematic extortion of reputable users here by using their reputations against them to keep them quiet about big scam XYZ if false negative ratings have no penalty or cost?

People can judge for themselves. The problem is the system is largely intended to help new users, and new users don't know any different. Again you point out another flaw in this whole argument. At the end of the day scammers can still hijack trusted accounts, making your shotgunning of negatives totally ineffectual against them in this context. Unfortunately for many people leaving negative ratings has become a game of quantity over quality, and for increasingly frivolous reasons which are indistinguishable from abuse, all done towards the end of increasing their own reputation as a "forum cop."

It used to happen in the mining section all the time, there were reviewers (probably still are) that were paid with crypto or hardware to review new miners.  Some reviewers were paid some were not, iirc one high profile user was paid 3000 BTC to be a full on paid shill for a miner manufacture.  I think it was open from the start he was paid, but it wouldn't have mattered as it was clear as glass where his loyalty was.

Everyone should always assume every review is paid for until you have established a personal comfort level with the reviewer (ie do they meet your personal criteria of providing unbiased reviews).

On eBay, it's virtually impossible for a seller to receive only positive feedback. As a buyer, my experience thought me that sellers with 99.5% positive are better than sellers with "only" 98% positive.
On Bitcointalk, negative ratings are much stronger than positive ratings.
On eBay, 90 positive and 10 negative ratings puts you at 90%. On Bitcointalk, it puts you around -1000.

That's not impossible at all--though I'm a buyer on eBay as well, I have a 100% positive rating as a seller over the course of over 15 years.  If you're talking about eBay members who only sell, I'd probably say you're closer to being correct but it's still possible to have 100% positive.  I've seen it a lot.

It's better than doing nothing to stop them, and aside from helping the forum, tagging them allows me to know who I should or shouldn't trust--and that's true for everyone who leaves feedback. 

I would rather more neutral-trusted individuals than ones with green trust. I would assume that users new to the forum would be more inclined to trust those that have 40: -0 / +4 than 0: 0 / +0.

Raising the standard of trust is something I would prefer, especially since this arbitrary number metric can allow ignorant users to fall prey to someone with even 10 trust (via a 10-month feedback).

Is it entirely obvious that a trust of n * 10 is (at least) n different pieces of positive feedback, which have aged for 10 months?

Since you ask the question, you know very well that it is not obvious for newcomers.

I myself didn't care for trust for a long time when I joined, and it took me quite some time to find this information.

Maybe having a reminder of that on the trust page would be beneficial.

This is because on bitcointalk, the assumption is that a negative rating *is* a sign that someone is a scammer. This unfortunately is not the case, as negatives are routinely given out for criticizing certain people, for engaging in unpopular businesses that don’t hurt anyone and other non-trust related reasons.

In January, someone sent 600 ratings in under a day for no reason other than they wanted to have the most number of ratings sent. It should go without saying that this person clearly didn’t do their research prior to leaving those ratings.

And who said do nothing? I am advocating a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before rating. My entire point is shotgunning negatives IS NOT helping the forum, no matter how much you and others insist it does. I am sure it is just a total coincidence that everyone advocating the shotgun method depends on their reputation as a forum cop to have any reputation at all.