SebastianJu getting seduced by trust farmers - and he's loving it!

[SebastianJu]

By the way OP, why did you pick me and did not mention the other escrows. Its broadly done the way i did till now. At the end i would like the same rules for all. And these rules should rules the community agreed on.

[dexX7]

Is there any evidence that people blindly start trusting each other, only because there is some green text?

I'd assume one would carefully read the actual trust ratings and follow the references first, before trading with a stranger.

[Quickseller]

By the way OP, why did you pick me and did not mention the other escrows. Its broadly done the way i did till now. At the end i would like the same rules for all. And these rules should rules the community agreed on.

He told me via PM that it was because an account that you left positive trust for was sold yesterday.

feryjhie got sold in an auction today.

[SebastianJu]

By the way OP, why did you pick me and did not mention the other escrows. Its broadly done the way i did till now. At the end i would like the same rules for all. And these rules should rules the community agreed on.

He told me via PM that it was because an account that you left positive trust for was sold yesterday.

feryjhie got sold in an auction today.

So he only found out now about how the trust system was used since practically the beginning of the forum. I mean establishing trust had to be done somehow in the beginning of the forum and successfull trades were the way to handle it from the start. Seems the perception of the trust system changed over time. I have no problem with that, i can adapt. At the end the system is from members for members and it should serve the best results possible..

[koshgel]

Is there any evidence that people blindly start trusting each other, only because there is some green text?

I'd assume one would carefully read the actual trust ratings and follow the references first, before trading with a stranger.

You, as a legendary member, might be savvy in that department but the newbies see "trustful green" and will probably send first.

[dogie]

Is there any evidence that people blindly start trusting each other, only because there is some green text?

I'd assume one would carefully read the actual trust ratings and follow the references first, before trading with a stranger.

You, as a legendary member, might be savvy in that department but the newbies see "trustful green" and will probably send first.

It must mean something. No one has asked me to use escrow in years.

[feryjhie]

By the way I've found interesting thing , our dear and trusted member PistolPete is an alt of Dabs , you can convince yourself by putting  his bitcoin address(which is 1food14NCLas1FssyKnf2MgGZcwUFRKXE) in the search bar .Looking at his sent feedback you can see that he gave green trust to his friends .
Conclusion : Look at your self before judging others!

[Quickseller]

By the way I've found interesting thing , our dear and trusted member PistolPete is an alt of Dabs , you can convince yourself by putting  his bitcoin address(which is 1food14NCLas1FssyKnf2MgGZcwUFRKXE) in the search bar .Looking at his sent feedback you can see that he gave green trust to his friends .
Conclusion : Look at your self before judging others!

PistolPete is an alt of a very trusted person, however that person is not dabs. The address in Pete's profile is the address to donate to dabs's "feed the children" program where he converts the Bitcoin he receives at that address to his local currency and then uses that money to buy meals for needy children. (I bet you feel like an asshole now )

[feryjhie]

By the way I've found interesting thing , our dear and trusted member PistolPete is an alt of Dabs , you can convince yourself by putting  his bitcoin address(which is 1food14NCLas1FssyKnf2MgGZcwUFRKXE) in the search bar .Looking at his sent feedback you can see that he gave green trust to his friends .
Conclusion : Look at your self before judging others!

The address in Pete's profile is the address to donate to dabs's "feed the children" program where he converts the Bitcoin he receives at that address to his local currency and then uses that money to buy meals for needy children. (I bet you feel like an asshole now )

Yes I know that's why I said hes an alt of dabs and there is no need to insult me miss quickseller 

[Quickseller]

By the way I've found interesting thing , our dear and trusted member PistolPete is an alt of Dabs , you can convince yourself by putting  his bitcoin address(which is 1food14NCLas1FssyKnf2MgGZcwUFRKXE) in the search bar .Looking at his sent feedback you can see that he gave green trust to his friends .
Conclusion : Look at your self before judging others!

The address in Pete's profile is the address to donate to dabs's "feed the children" program where he converts the Bitcoin he receives at that address to his local currency and then uses that money to buy meals for needy children. (I bet you feel like an asshole now )

Yes I know that's why I said hes an alt of dabs and there is no need to insult me miss quickseller 

Well I just discredited the evidence that you presented that the OP is dabs, so why don't you post whatever additional evidence you have of this?

Not that it matters anyway because PistolPete is not breaking any rules, and I don't think anyone (reputable at least) is going to think what Pete does is in any way unethical or against what is accepted throughout the community. I am fairly certain that Pete is using that account because he does not want his "main" account to be associated with this kind of criticism.

[feryjhie]

Well I just discredited the evidence that you presented that the OP is dabs, so why don't you post whatever additional evidence you have of this?

Not that it matters anyway because PistolPete is not breaking any rules, and I don't think anyone (reputable at least) is going to think what Pete does is in any way unethical or against what is accepted throughout the community. I am fairly certain that Pete is using that account because he does not want his "main" account to be associated with this kind of criticism.

I will stay on my own opinion because PistolPete's wallet is linked to dabs's thread and I have nothing against number of his accounts ,only against his sent feedbacks.

He stated that Sebastian is tricked by trust farmers pointing at ME , but he DOESN't have any proof.My above post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1142193.msg12049209#msg12049209 shows that he is wrong and i'm the new owner of this account so you guys have no reason to judge Sebastian and me.

[criptix]

Well I just discredited the evidence that you presented that the OP is dabs, so why don't you post whatever additional evidence you have of this?

Not that it matters anyway because PistolPete is not breaking any rules, and I don't think anyone (reputable at least) is going to think what Pete does is in any way unethical or against what is accepted throughout the community. I am fairly certain that Pete is using that account because he does not want his "main" account to be associated with this kind of criticism.

I will stay on my own opinion because PistolPete's wallet is linked to dabs's thread and I have nothing against number of his accounts ,only against his sent feedbacks.

He stated that Sebastian is tricked by trust farmers pointing at ME , but he DOESN't have any proof.My above post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1142193.msg12049209#msg12049209 shows that he is wrong and i'm the new owner of this account so you guys have no reason to judge Sebastian and me.

i doubt it is about judging you guys personally - atleast for me - it is more about finding a general consensus in the community.
it is fact that default trust is special and thus people on it should behave according to a higher standard

[redsn0w]

Is there any evidence that people blindly start trusting each other, only because there is some green text?

I'd assume one would carefully read the actual trust ratings and follow the references first, before trading with a stranger.

Exactly, this is how it should work .. but the users will only see the green trust score and not the 'trust' or comments (in the users trust page).

[Dogedigital]

I don't like the idea of positive trust for escrow transactions at all. Personally, I dismiss any trust I see relating to escrow and add DefaultTrust members that dish it out frequently to the exempt list of my trust. As has been proven by OP, it is easy to farm escrow trades from members.

If you want to keep record of a transaction, use neutral trust.

Edit: The same can be said about microloans -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=329895

positive trust for .02 loans  

I've just seen this now.  I gave him a positive trust for the transaction that took place in which he did in fact pay me back for a loan.  

I'm not on default trust and this wouldn't instantly make him a trustworthy person to deal with, but for possible lenders in the future, they now have a reference to see before deciding on whether or not they think the person will repay.

I believe that successful transactions should be recorded so that anybody who wishes to deal with a user in the future can make a more informed decision. 

Just because someone has a green number does not make them instantly trustworthy.  All it shows is that there is a reason (maybe several) why this person may or may not hold up to their word in their dealings. 

Some of the people who have the highest trust ratings are users who deal out fraudulent codes or gift cards.  Yeah... they might have a huge rating, but I wouldn't trust most of these people with anything over $20.

Final thoughts: If a transaction is successful and a trust issue was overcome, I say it deserves a positive rating but does not mean that you completely trust them.

[SebastianJu]

I believe that successful transactions should be recorded so that anybody who wishes to deal with a user in the future can make a more informed decision.

That is correct generally. I mean how should trust be established on a forum if not by trades? The trust system has been used for trust coming from trades since the beginning and when you check the "positive" trust option then you will see that it explicitly states "successful trades".

[SebastianJu]

Ok guys. I really hope you can value that. I sat down for 3 hours fixing my trust ratings. I deleted all trust ratings i gave out related to account trades. Reason is that i cant tell if the accounts that are sold will be used by the new owner or if he simply will sell it. So i cant tell if i should give trust to the account bought or the buyers account. I cant know if the seller will sell his account shortly.

Next thing is i deleted all trust ratings where i escrowed a total of less than $50. Its simply not worth mentioning.

I had to check all past escrows of each person i gave trust in order to do this.

Anyway. I have a new policy now:

* No trust rating to account sellers, buyers or the account traded. Because i cant tell if the buyer is using the bought account from now on or if he will sell it shortly after. And i cant tell if a seller is selling the seller account shortly after too.
* No trust rating at all to escrowed amounts worth <$50.
* Deals where i was escrow should not get green trust since there is no risk involved to buyer and seller. So i can give a neutral trust (see trust options, neutral is a comment only and doesnt affect the rating) to them when rule 2 does not apply. I will state the escrowed amount as risked btc and mention that it is the escrowed amount.
* Exceptions of the above rules are possible if i trust a person really. Have the impression that he showed he is a honest guy or something like that.
* I will only give one trust rating and try to put all ratings in one rating.

I hope my effort and new policy leads to more trust in my ratings with those members that took me off their trust list again.

If anyone doubts that the trust system is for trades too then please read the comment on the positive checkbox again. The trust system has been driven by trades from the beginning of the forum. And its logical, how should trust happen when not by trades?

While changing all the ratings i found 6 escrows on default trust that, it looks like, handled trust the same way i did, to some extent. My way of handling trust was not very uncommons since like i said, it was used for showing successfull trades since the beginning of the forum. I will send them a pm so they might check their policy to prevent hard feelings.

I hope you appreciate.

[shitaifan2013]

Ok guys. I really hope you can value that. I sat down for 3 hours fixing my trust ratings. I deleted all trust ratings i gave out related to account trades. Reason is that i cant tell if the accounts that are sold will be used by the new owner or if he simply will sell it. So i cant tell if i should give trust to the account bought or the buyers account. I cant know if the seller will sell his account shortly.

Next thing is i deleted all trust ratings where i escrowed a total of less than $50. Its simply not worth mentioning.

I had to check all past escrows of each person i gave trust in order to do this.

Anyway. I have a new policy now:

* No trust rating to account sellers, buyers or the account traded. Because i cant tell if the buyer is using the bought account from now on or if he will sell it shortly after. And i cant tell if a seller is selling the seller account shortly after too.
* No trust rating at all to escrowed amounts worth <$50.
* Deals where i was escrow should not get green trust since there is no risk involved to buyer and seller. So i can give a neutral trust (see trust options, neutral is a comment only and doesnt affect the rating) to them when rule 2 does not apply. I will state the escrowed amount as risked btc and mention that it is the escrowed amount.
* Exceptions of the above rules are possible if i trust a person really. Have the impression that he showed he is a honest guy or something like that.
* I will only give one trust rating and try to put all ratings in one rating.

I hope my effort and new policy leads to more trust in my ratings with those members that took me off their trust list again.

If anyone doubts that the trust system is for trades too then please read the comment on the positive checkbox again. The trust system has been driven by trades from the beginning of the forum. And its logical, how should trust happen when not by trades?

While changing all the ratings i found 6 escrows on default trust that, it looks like, handled trust the same way i did, to some extent. My way of handling trust was not very uncommons since like i said, it was used for showing successfull trades since the beginning of the forum. I will send them a pm so they might check their policy to prevent hard feelings.

I hope you appreciate.

really good and reasonable changes, should be copied/applied by other escrow providers too imo and/or made sticky somewhere

[koshgel]

Ok guys. I really hope you can value that. I sat down for 3 hours fixing my trust ratings. I deleted all trust ratings i gave out related to account trades. Reason is that i cant tell if the accounts that are sold will be used by the new owner or if he simply will sell it. So i cant tell if i should give trust to the account bought or the buyers account. I cant know if the seller will sell his account shortly.

Next thing is i deleted all trust ratings where i escrowed a total of less than $50. Its simply not worth mentioning.

I had to check all past escrows of each person i gave trust in order to do this.

Anyway. I have a new policy now:

* No trust rating to account sellers, buyers or the account traded. Because i cant tell if the buyer is using the bought account from now on or if he will sell it shortly after. And i cant tell if a seller is selling the seller account shortly after too.
* No trust rating at all to escrowed amounts worth <$50.
* Deals where i was escrow should not get green trust since there is no risk involved to buyer and seller. So i can give a neutral trust (see trust options, neutral is a comment only and doesnt affect the rating) to them when rule 2 does not apply. I will state the escrowed amount as risked btc and mention that it is the escrowed amount.
* Exceptions of the above rules are possible if i trust a person really. Have the impression that he showed he is a honest guy or something like that.
* I will only give one trust rating and try to put all ratings in one rating.

I hope my effort and new policy leads to more trust in my ratings with those members that took me off their trust list again.

If anyone doubts that the trust system is for trades too then please read the comment on the positive checkbox again. The trust system has been driven by trades from the beginning of the forum. And its logical, how should trust happen when not by trades?

While changing all the ratings i found 6 escrows on default trust that, it looks like, handled trust the same way i did, to some extent. My way of handling trust was not very uncommons since like i said, it was used for showing successfull trades since the beginning of the forum. I will send them a pm so they might check their policy to prevent hard feelings.

I hope you appreciate.

Thank you for taking the time to do this. Other DT escrowers and microloaners should consider the same.

[dogie]

* I will only give one trust rating and try to put all ratings in one rating.

I wouldn't bother with that, more than one rating doesn't affect anything.

[SebastianJu]

Thank you for the positive review on my new rating policy.

* I will only give one trust rating and try to put all ratings in one rating.

I wouldn't bother with that, more than one rating doesn't affect anything.

I implemented this because A) many forum members consider multiple trust ratings from the same person as trust farming, even though it should be without effect getting more than one rating from the same member. And B) because it simply is cleaner to read. Checking out that someone traded a certain amount in total is enough for knowing what happened. I state when it were multiple trades now.