That's how I feel and that's what I like about the current system as it does work well in these situations. If someone has left an unjust or harsh feedback the recipient of it can bring it up and others can comment on it and it'll usually get removed by the person who left it if it is indeed unjust or harsh. As long as we have rational, decent people in the default trust I think it polices itself pretty well. That being said, I am always open to new ideas or system proposals.

Isn't it likely it was this loan that caused you to make the low-quality posts in the first place? Will you not just do the same again? I'm sure Marco will understand with the loan and he's in charge of the signature campaign you're on so I think you'll be ok but I think you'll likely have to just wait out the ban.

I dunno. I commend you for trying to come up with something better but no system is ever going to be perfect and people will always complain whatever happens. This proposal seems much more confusing than the current one and I'm sure it will be much worse for newbs but I'll need to study it a bit more. I think certain people will be biased for and against each. Those currently on the default list will likely want to stay there with the old system and those not or recently removed will likely want this new one. I'd probably need to see it in action to say whether it's better or not, but I think at the moment I'd rather stick with the current version but am open to change my mind or to other completely different systems or suggestions. One suggestion I would make for the current system is to limit the amount of users people can add to their trust list. Maybe 10-20, and I think this will cut down on people adding masses of people just to boost their own rep.

You have a right to sell anything at any cost but people also have a right to comment on the price of something whether you like it or not. You should've just ignored it instead of abusing your position in an attempt to get someone to shut up.

Vod said he will remove the feedback so please do the same and close all relevant threads. I know it's frustrating getting unjust feedback but the better solution is always to remain calm and try work shit out reasonably.

Use the table posted several times above and you can easily work it out for yourself. Next activity period starts tomorrow.

Well some cases will unfortunately go unresolved but I've PMd vod so hopefully this one won't be.

hilariousandco

Thanks.


You need to follow the format in the op with your username on the first line or you likely won't get credited as a bot checks for payouts.

The feedback system isnt perfect but unjust negatives can oftentimes be worked out. Moderation of the trust system would likely cause more problems than it solves especially if proper research isn't put into a case (and mods don't really have time for this).

Incoming Techshare rant in 5...4...

It certainly exists on this forum  .


Techshare knows all about this.

Smart, sure, but it also leads people to be rightfully suspicious. I think he's likely trying to buy/acquire some positive feedback so I'm guessing that's why they were headhunted and I think people often look at this type of behaviour with concern. It's definitely worth making people aware of and keeping an eye on that's for sure.

 

Looks like someone removed their positive (or got demoted?). You had two or three positives before, right? I'll PM vod later if he doesn't remove it before.

Have you tried ringing the Internet Police?


If you keep calling it everyday without fail it is bound to happen eventually.

0.4 is quite low when you think about it but it's seemingly the going rate, but that's for a bog-standard 240 or so activity one and this is going on Hero-level. There's more of Seniors for sale now so that will keep the price down as well but they'll likely be more valuable when a big campaign like PD re-enters the field.

Bump. Must be someone who would like this. Just make me an offer for it as I need it gone before it expires.

Yeah, this negative seems overkill here. A neutral at most but even that seems unnecessary. I'm sure vod will remove it.


So scammers have to successfully scam before they get negative? That's not going to stop anyone from getting scammed, but people need to make sure there's reasonable evidence or behavior of a scam or fraud etc before they leave feedback.

hilariousandco

thanks.

It's not really endorsed. Ponzis and scams are 'allowed' ie not moderated but that doesn't mean the forum endorses them. I also think it's rare that any accounts get recovered by theymos nowadays so there's not much chance of someone doing this or it's certainly not as easy as that, but buyers should be aware of the risks and if something goes wrong the staff aren't here to dig you out of it.


Could or should not?

Who was added, philipma? He was added yesterday. Wern't you on the defaulttrust before but removed for some reason (think I read from you before this happened)? He may have trimmed his trust after being put on or maybe someone requested he removed you, but this is just speculation.

Yes. Same infraction. Think people may have been banned for not doing that as well, though most seem to do it once they're aware of policy.