Okay, Do you see both as being necessary? Considering they can be seen to serve a similar purpose or be utilized in similar fashion.  Care to weigh in on if you consider them to be a net positive? Individually and combined.

I'm also curious to hear what people think would benefit the Marketplace most if given the choice of removing one of these features.
For me it is the toggling of a locked thread. Taking this away doesn't make the threads disappear, but it does create more work to keep these scammy threads on or near Page 1.

DHL to Germany available. Or these item only for USA residence.

Haven't see one single valid point.

Seems like no one can argue with results.

I did suggest it, but they insist that the below term applies for everyone (even if you don't enter via forum):

---

On an semi-unrelated note, blenderio now has three positive trust feedbacks from three newbies that all recently woke up, with their last post in 2018.

The requirements were somewhat ambiguous. I am not sure I would support a negative rating, though I agree this could potentially be interpreted as shady behavior. I would make this suggestion for a solution. The terms should first be clarified, then the people who participated but did not meet the post requirement should have their stakes rolled over to the next drawing after meeting the new clarified requirements (assuming the program is still active). This IMO is an equitable solution for all parties and is mutually restorative for all.

In both cases, users sell the goods:
1. MACBOOK PRO 2011 + IPHONE 6S COMBO DEAL
Price is negotiable, and to purchase only one of the two items is also possible;
2. I am selling all these Debit cards with an IBAN.

Both topics are placed in the correct section.

No one denies the fact that capitalism is better for the wealthy.  Its far better and thats not even debatable.  Advocates of socialism are simply considering the quality of life of the typical person as opposed to just those in situations of privilege.  

Once you have the facts (and not just some parroted talking points), neither are debatable.  Perspective and morals are the only things that matter in determining preference.

socialism has to be implemented correct.

The grand standing is appreciated as always. You can waste your time worrying about 1 in a trillion scenarios if you want, but most people are happy to live their lives without worrying that someone from the forum is going to hire someone to come get them or stage some sort of IRS conspiracy.  My response is that you are giving these people power over you. That doesn't excuse their action, I'm just saying you are taking the absolute least effective course of action. The DT bullies you are spending your time fighting, and the hours you are spending trying to reform a system is to fight someone with the authority of a hall monitor. If we aren't willing to give people the benefit of the doubt that they'll read feedback before judging its validity, then its all a moot point anyway. If a negative rating about you being a space alien can effect your business in any way, then this is not a hospitable business environment.

The trust system is indeed a tool for the newest most new and uniformed users to help them wade through the marketplace. I'm not seeing any new uniformed users here. The fact that you have already formulated your own idea of who is trustworthy and not means that you aren't relying on the default trust system. New users will do the same in a couple of months. I don't think it plays a major role here, no. Its a nice handy guideline for new users, not some all powerful list that decides the fate of anything besides a general suggestion for new users. What we are talking about is personal problems between users. I'm against creating a billion sets of rules that restrict users because 10 forum members can't get along. Then we add more rules when someone finds a new way around them. As we've had this discussion before, I don't agree with your rule proposals. We've already established that everyone here has different definitions of untrustworthy behavior, why suppress the feedback from people that are in the wrong? Let individuals judge who is wrong and who is right. If you are saying, yeah but we can't trust the users, they won't make informed decisions! Thats not a problem with the system, thats a problem with individuals once again.

We keep talking about how the trust system needs to be decentralized yet specific rules can be bullied into vote by either Extortion Group or Anti Extortion Group? Both groups are in effect looking to accomplish the same thing. You want accountability and by doing so making the trust system useless. They want to keep abusing trust, but my point is that people abusing trust doesn't break the system, it just makes their flaws more obvious. Let them make their own flaws obvious and trust users to make their own decisions.

Also, I haven't been a moderator for a few months, didn't have time to continue. The ignore button works pretty well when it comes to harassment.

Pretty much, I'd say 99% of newbie sellers using a locked self moderated thread to "sell" stuff are scammers.

And for those defending locked threads in the digital goods section how about posting some here that are not scam threads. I'll be waiting.

Maybe you think or see a ton of threads I miss where legit users are in need of this feature. Feel free to point them out. The point of this topic was not to dismiss the idea, but bring the discussion centered around this point to one place for review and discussion. Who's to say getting whitelisted wouldn't be a painless process, is the unknown of how the system rolls out enough reason to discredit it before it's trialed?

They do remove off-topic. Most are also smart enough to distinguish when someone is only attempting to appear on-topic.
Not going to go to deep into DT as that tends to derail a discussion. The problem there is it's a rotating system, or is designed to become one. In this case you might need to encourage the multiple tags, or continuously seek a new DT to tag an account if the last one is no longer on the list. Again not a solution just a band-aid.


Feel free to point me to any of the threads that had an indepth discussion about this, and reasoning behind the decision to keep it in place. I looked and couldn't find it. I never stated that I recently had the most original thought and simplest of fixes. I don't get the comparison to sidewalks maybe that works for some but I think we can find enough examples within the marketplace to have this discussion like below.
You're right so again for this person who wants to sell their giftcard. Might be helpful if these "cunts" didn't have 500 locked/selfMod topics to compare against for a price cut. That might be more helpful for that person as opposed to lumping them in the same group and forcing them to hide in one of these topics, cutting off open communication with legit buyers to avoid the trolls.

Again I would see this as a case to be made for it being a feature that one could be whitelisted for.

So for anyone opposed to this feel free to bring your ideas to the table. This is a discussion and I welcome all opinions and input, I just don't feel the "That's how it's always been" to be a compelling reason to not try or explore other options.

And given your history and use of the system you would be someone that would look to be whitelisted. I envision a pinned topic where people can post seeking to be whitelisted, might be congested at first but after the initial launch would die down considerably.

Consider for just a second, lets say Lauda or whoever else leaves controversial negative trust. Your options are A) Spend a year fighting it to no recourse, or B) Say, yeah whatever I don't care what this guy thinks. I'm not saying its a good thing that people leaves controversial feedback, I'm saying worrying about it is a waste of your time. Ultimately who is in control of your reputation is you. You've been trading here for years, do you think Lauda's feedback would effect the trust that thousands of people have in you? And in the case that you were a new user, could you not just use escrow and build up your reputation to the point where thousands of people have trust in you? I feel like the argument against my opinion is that every user here is a robot unable to read feedback, detect bias, and the weight for feedback from known shaky characters for being a "liar" or whatever else, is the same as someone claiming that you scammed them.

I've managed to avoid harassment because I don't engage with people's provocation. There is always someone trying to start something, I'll say my peace if I feel so inclined and then I'm done. If someone wants to insult me, have at it, I've got thick enough skin but I wont give you the satisfaction of overreacting and making your day by becoming enraged. From my perspective, you are handing groups of people with 0 authority complete power over you. Its like bullies in elementary school, they can make faces at you all day, but they'll get bored if you don't start crying and screaming every time they do it.

I'm not against you in saying that it sucks people are trying to be internet bullies, I'm saying that everyone is turning a molehill into a mountain. If someone leaves you bad feedback, let them make a jackass out of themselves and discredit themselves. As soon as you fly off the handle and let loose on them, people start to think that maybe the negative feedback is valid.



I'll get back to you on this