hilariousandco gave wrong trust

[XinXan]

I still feel that you gave a negative trust just based on "assumptions", cuz it has happened before so it will happen again, and as a "trusted" guy hasn't scammed before, so he wont scam in the future. I just feel the neg trust should have been converted to a neutral one(negative is too harsh cuz u gave it based on ASUMPTIONS), and so because of your assumptions, making an account bleed with red trust, is too harsh! I sincerely feel that it could have been a neutral one. If someone has to get scammed he will even get scammed after seeing a red trust, this is just because people tend to ignore the trust ratings because of the way neg. trust gets distributed by other members. The credibility of neg. trust has been reduced a lot and cases like this are making the red trust loose its importance.

I feel the case was more like : The op felt he is trusted, statistically he's untrusted, he offered escrow, hilarious took the offensive approach to defence the community, hilarious gave him a negative trust.
Could have been neutral imo.

Yes because if it was based on evidence then there would be no point talking about it, right? It's normal practice to give negative trust to people who are potentially going to scam, of course, based on asumptions, is not like we can know the future.

[Vortex20000]

I still feel that you gave a negative trust just based on "assumptions", cuz it has happened before so it will happen again, and as a "trusted" guy hasn't scammed before, so he wont scam in the future. I just feel the neg trust should have been converted to a neutral one(negative is too harsh cuz u gave it based on ASUMPTIONS), and so because of your assumptions, making an account bleed with red trust, is too harsh! I sincerely feel that it could have been a neutral one. If someone has to get scammed he will even get scammed after seeing a red trust, this is just because people tend to ignore the trust ratings because of the way neg. trust gets distributed by other members. The credibility of neg. trust has been reduced a lot and cases like this are making the red trust loose its importance.

I feel the case was more like : The op felt he is trusted, statistically he's untrusted, he offered escrow, hilarious took the offensive approach to defence the community, hilarious gave him a negative trust.
Could have been neutral imo.

Yes because if it was based on evidence then there would be no point talking about it, right? It's normal practice to give negative trust to people who are potentially going to scam, of course, based on asumptions, is not like we can know the future.

Also, negative trust isn't only given to past scammers, but those who are extremely likely to.

[erikalui]

I still feel that you gave a negative trust just based on "assumptions", cuz it has happened before so it will happen again, and as a "trusted" guy hasn't scammed before, so he wont scam in the future. I just feel the neg trust should have been converted to a neutral one(negative is too harsh cuz u gave it based on ASUMPTIONS), and so because of your assumptions, making an account bleed with red trust, is too harsh! I sincerely feel that it could have been a neutral one. If someone has to get scammed he will even get scammed after seeing a red trust, this is just because people tend to ignore the trust ratings because of the way neg. trust gets distributed by other members. The credibility of neg. trust has been reduced a lot and cases like this are making the red trust loose its importance.

I feel the case was more like : The op felt he is trusted, statistically he's untrusted, he offered escrow, hilarious took the offensive approach to defence the community, hilarious gave him a negative trust.
Could have been neutral imo.

@bold: The negative isn't a permanent one. If the OP proves to be trusted in the coming months, hilariousandco being quite responsible while leaving ratings might reconsider this negative one. This negative is more like a precautionary one rather than a scam accusation.

[stingers]

I still feel that you gave a negative trust just based on "assumptions", cuz it has happened before so it will happen again, and as a "trusted" guy hasn't scammed before, so he wont scam in the future. I just feel the neg trust should have been converted to a neutral one(negative is too harsh cuz u gave it based on ASUMPTIONS), and so because of your assumptions, making an account bleed with red trust, is too harsh! I sincerely feel that it could have been a neutral one. If someone has to get scammed he will even get scammed after seeing a red trust, this is just because people tend to ignore the trust ratings because of the way neg. trust gets distributed by other members. The credibility of neg. trust has been reduced a lot and cases like this are making the red trust loose its importance.

I feel the case was more like : The op felt he is trusted, statistically he's untrusted, he offered escrow, hilarious took the offensive approach to defence the community, hilarious gave him a negative trust.
Could have been neutral imo.

Yes because if it was based on evidence then there would be no point talking about it, right? It's normal practice to give negative trust to people who are potentially going to scam, of course, based on asumptions, is not like we can know the future.

Also, negative trust isn't only given to past scammers, but those who are extremely likely to.

Do you really feel in this case that the user was "extremely" likely to be a scammer?

@bold: The negative isn't a permanent one. If the OP proves to be trusted in the coming months, hilariousandco being quite responsible while leaving ratings might reconsider this negative one. This negative is more like a precautionary one rather than a scam accusation.

Yeah that seems to be fine

[XinXan]

I still feel that you gave a negative trust just based on "assumptions", cuz it has happened before so it will happen again, and as a "trusted" guy hasn't scammed before, so he wont scam in the future. I just feel the neg trust should have been converted to a neutral one(negative is too harsh cuz u gave it based on ASUMPTIONS), and so because of your assumptions, making an account bleed with red trust, is too harsh! I sincerely feel that it could have been a neutral one. If someone has to get scammed he will even get scammed after seeing a red trust, this is just because people tend to ignore the trust ratings because of the way neg. trust gets distributed by other members. The credibility of neg. trust has been reduced a lot and cases like this are making the red trust loose its importance.

I feel the case was more like : The op felt he is trusted, statistically he's untrusted, he offered escrow, hilarious took the offensive approach to defence the community, hilarious gave him a negative trust.
Could have been neutral imo.

Yes because if it was based on evidence then there would be no point talking about it, right? It's normal practice to give negative trust to people who are potentially going to scam, of course, based on asumptions, is not like we can know the future.

Also, negative trust isn't only given to past scammers, but those who are extremely likely to.

Do you really feel in this case that the user was "extremely" likely to be a scammer?

@bold: The negative isn't a permanent one. If the OP proves to be trusted in the coming months, hilariousandco being quite responsible while leaving ratings might reconsider this negative one. This negative is more like a precautionary one rather than a scam accusation.

Yeah that seems to be fine

In my opinion i would say yes, he was extremely likely to scam, why? Well anyone who has low rank, has almost nothing to lose if he ends up scamming, so a newbie has more chances to be a scammer than a legendary member.

Second, he had no previous black, green trust and people who have no trust are more likely to scam than people with trust.

Third, he wanted to start an escrow service, known to be something only highly trusted members are able to pull off, so why would he do such thing if its not for scam? He obviously knew that 99.9% of the people wont use him as an escrow but maybe someone somewhere would and that would be his chance to scam.

So for all these reasons, i believe that he is a potential scammer

[TECSHARE]

Yes because if it was based on evidence then there would be no point talking about it, right? It's normal practice to give negative trust to people who are potentially going to scam, of course, based on asumptions, is not like we can know the future.

A lot of things are standard practice around here, that doesn't make it useful, or a good idea. This is exactly what I have a problem with, this idea of people being guilty until proven innocent. Only the worst dictatorial states follow such precedent, and if you think it even slows down scammers you are retarded.

I don't leave much feedback and tend to go for neutral more than straight up negative but me not leaving negative has lead to several users being scammed shortly after. There's two instances in the last month where I've regretted not leaving negative feedback but leaving negative feedback is more hassle than it's worth half of the time especially when you get children whining and everytime you leave it all you do is make yourself another enemy. People like QS and vod likely stopped countless users from being scammed but all the thanks they get is they're doing it for their own personal benefit or people like tecshare twist it for their own personal agenda.

And you think leaving negatives is going to stop people from being scammed? What about when you are wrong? How many good people do you drive away in your whack-a-mole game? If you really believe those scammers go anywhere you are quite naive. They are back in seconds setting up the next scam or buying an account with positive trust.

The fact is NEGATIVE TRUST DOES NOT PREVENT SCAMMING.

It does however drive away decent users when they are accused  simply for being ignorant of how the trust vigilantes operate here. You claim I am serving some personal agenda... what exactly to I get from calling you out about this? Is there a paycheck somewhere I am not collecting? Of course it could not at all be that I object to the enforcement of arbitrary unwritten rules, no, as always with you every complaint I have is about my past, and you will squeeze that one for every last drop you can to try to marginalize anything I say that you don't agree with.

The trust is still valid regardless of whether the account was purchased or not and which I stated it was possibly bought.

Yay more preemptive trust vigilantism... just what the forum needs.

Was wondering how long it'd take you to chime in. Next time you do a deal on here use this guy as an escrow. Also let's not forget you were removed for your own trust abuse vigilantism.

There are lots of people I don't trust that I don't give negative ratings to. Didn't take you very long to make this about me. BTW, I wasn't going around playing scambuster, I left a negative rating for some one actively harassing me, so try again OCD king.

Every time you make these pathetic and futile posts you make it about you. You only make them because you're still butthurt about being removed over your own personal abuse of the system. How do your comments help anything? Do you really think abusing the feedback system for your own personal motives is fine but attempting to stop likely scams is bad? I love how you think attempting to stop people from getting scammed is abuse but of course it suits your agenda to vilify anyone who actually uses the system for how it was intended.

Again, use this guy as an escrow for your next deals if my feedback here isn't justified.

Actually, you made this about me, as your very first response (as you always do). This is just some pathetic attempt to not have to reexamine your protocols for leaving negatives so you can try to be VOD v2 and collect all the positive trust ratings from rubberneckers like he did. I don't get anything for calling you out about this, you however, by continuing will basically just be farming trust from onlookers. Of course there is no way to know for sure if most of the people you mark are really scammers or not. You could just pick a handful of random ignorant newbs a day and mark them and gloat with pride about all the scammers you stopped.

You are trying to protect morons from their own idiocy. Anyone who uses a complete newb for escrow without even reviewing his trust, is GUARANTEED to be robbed, it is just a matter of time. You can't protect people from their own idiocy. By going around patrolling you give these newbs the impression that some one filters out scammers here when in reality you just pick a handful of sacrificial lambs and mark them and pretend it is progress. you aren't stopping anything, you are at most delaying the inevitable. Even worse, there is NO WAY TO KNOW if these people you are simply guessing about had ill intent.

What are you talking about? Have you seen the lending section? Pretty much any newbie or low rank member that asks for loan without collateral is given neg trust by one or various members, this is no different so i don't see why are you so concerned about this specific case when there are hundreds out there.

He did not destroy anyone reputation because the user didn't have any in the first place and im pretty sure if he stops doing what he did and talks to hilarious maybe in the future he will get his trust removed just like vod did.

Exactly, but I think tecshare thinks we should only leave feedback after someone has scammed and after we have taken that person to court and they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers but only then will feedback be justified... well, unless someone says something you don't like or trolls you then it's totally fine to use the feedback system to try get them to shut up.

If you were a newb here trying to build up a reputation, even the small amount of time on your account and post history is that much time lost that has to be rebuilt again if some one neg reps you. Just because he has no trust ratings doesn't mean you haven't wasted their time and energy.

You know who I think does a good job leaving trust ratings? Tomatocage. Of all the years I have been here I have had almost no issues with the methods he used to mark people. You know why? Before he marks people red he requires at lease SOME standard of evidence, and he almost never simply relies on guess work to do so. He has been here a long time and understands these scammers aren't dumb, and they will return instantly with a new account. He also understands if he plays whack-a-mole it is inevitable that he will ruin the reputations of people who are simply confused or ignorant and drive them away from the forum as well as Bitcoin in general. He is very willing to have a non-confrontational discussion with people, and if they can use common sense and reason, he will often remove negative marks.

The other trust vigilantes like to make their victims grovel before them and then usually tell them to get lost anyway after they have been appeased. BTW, if you compare our left ratings I think you will find a stark difference between the number left and the reasons for doing so, but keep up the attempts at marginalization, it might work you never know. Good luck with your quest for authoritah.

[Malin Keshar]

If OP can prove his account is not a bought one, he has the right to require the removal of the part that says his account probably is bought, even if the negative trust remains.

And I understand why hilariousandco left the feedback in the first place, but since the escrow offer is not open anymore I think the trust should be changed to neutral after some time, if OP don't show any potential scammy behavior(just personal opinion).

The fact that your account is really irrelevant to the nature of his trust. The fact of the matter is that you have zero trade history where you were trusted with the month of your trading partner and have zero trading history where any money was actually exchanged. Yet you are still offering a service that would require others to trust you with their money.

Why would it be a good idea for someone to trust someone with their money when you have no prior trading history? Don't you think it would be better if someone were to "roll the dice" with their trading partner and hope they are acting honestly? Don't you think it would be reckless for someone to trust a person with no history of acting honestly with other people's money with their own money?

The question of if your account was sold or not is only distracting from the question of if you should be trusted with other people's money, and if people should trade with caution when considering to deal with you. I would personally think that you should not be trusted with other people's money and that people should proceed with caution when considering to deal with you. The negative rating hat hilariousandco gave you (and the one that I am about to give you) is a warning to others who are considering to trade and/or trust you.

I am somewhat surprised to see a thread about a rating that hilariousandco gave as he is normally very conservative in giving out negative trust. This does not mean that I think he should remove the rating, it is just that it is nice to see a trust related thread in meta that is not about quickseller.

OP is not offering escrow anymore. I understand why hilarious left negative trust for OP, but in my opinion yours is unjustified because OP is not offering escrow at the moment(just my opinion please don't act like I'm insulting you or something)

[Quickseller]

OP is not offering escrow anymore. I understand why hilarious left negative trust for OP, but in my opinion yours is unjustified because OP is not offering escrow at the moment(just my opinion please don't act like I'm insulting you or something)

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I went ahead and updated my rating to a neutral.

[Panthers52]

You are trying to protect morons from their own idiocy. Anyone who uses a complete newb for escrow without even reviewing his trust, is GUARANTEED to be robbed, it is just a matter of time. You can't protect people from their own idiocy. By going around patrolling you give these newbs the impression that some one filters out scammers here when in reality you just pick a handful of sacrificial lambs and mark them and pretend it is progress. you aren't stopping anything, you are at most delaying the inevitable. Even worse, there is NO WAY TO KNOW if these people you are simply guessing about had ill intent.

Of course people should be warned about a scammer or a potential scammer. If someone thinks that someone is a scammer then others should be warned and if they are not a scammer they can build up a good trading reputation over time and possible get the negative rating removed or downgraded to a neural.

It is obviously impossible to know without a reasonable doubt that someone is a scammer, and if this burden of proof is required in order to leave a negative warning to warn others then a scammer is going to have no problems scamming multiple people multiple times.

To say that you should wait until someone actually scams to leave a negative rating is like telling the National Weather Service to wait until after a tornado a tornado hits to say there is a high risk of tornados. Instead the NWS warns people about when there are high chances of severe weather in a particular area so people in that area can take precautions to protect their lives and their property. They sometimes get it wrong, however the overall affect is that people are additionally safe.

If someone is warned about a potential scam they would not otherwise know about, they might realize how naive they are and decide to do additional research regarding what precautions should be taken when dealing with others.

[hilariousandco]

I still feel that you gave a negative trust just based on "assumptions", cuz it has happened before so it will happen again, and as a "trusted" guy hasn't scammed before, so he wont scam in the future. I just feel the neg trust should have been converted to a neutral one(negative is too harsh cuz u gave it based on ASUMPTIONS), and so because of your assumptions, making an account bleed with red trust, is too harsh! I sincerely feel that it could have been a neutral one. If someone has to get scammed he will even get scammed after seeing a red trust, this is just because people tend to ignore the trust ratings because of the way neg. trust gets distributed by other members. The credibility of neg. trust has been reduced a lot and cases like this are making the red trust loose its importance.

I feel the case was more like : The op felt he is trusted, statistically he's untrusted, he offered escrow, hilarious took the offensive approach to defence the community, hilarious gave him a negative trust.
Could have been neutral imo.

What did I assume? I didn't assume anything. He's not qualified nor do I trust him to do escrow and my feedback reflects that.

And you think leaving negatives is going to stop people from being scammed? What about when you are wrong? How many good people do you drive away in your whack-a-mole game? If you really believe those scammers go anywhere you are quite naive. They are back in seconds setting up the next scam or buying an account with positive trust.

And you think leaving negative is going to stop people from harassing you? No, but you hoped it did, hence why you abused your position. Sometimes people may get it wrong, but that's why you take all the evidence into consideration before making judgment and only leave it for very probable cases as I do. I already explained I don't leave much feedback and would rather not, but in my opinion it's justified when I do whether you like it or not. What could I have actually got wrong here? Op may not intend to ever be a scammer but like it or not he shouldn't be trusted to hold onto others money, therefore feedback is appropriate. He's naive at best, a scammer at worst, but he is certainly not to be trusted as escrow and the feedback is representative of that. What's the worst that has happened here? He's had his Jnr member account ruined because of his naive/untrustworthy behavior. He can create a new account and now he knows what not to do, or if he creates a new account with the same behavior that will likely receive negative too. I've also stated I'm not adverse to removing it so it's not the end of the road for him.

The fact is NEGATIVE TRUST DOES NOT PREVENT SCAMMING.

Arguable. Negative trust will likely stop them scamming on that account, though nothing is going to stop scamming 100%. Sure they can create a new account but that doesn't mean we should just not bother. And again, negative trust doesn't stop people from harassing you, just the opposite, so why did you leave it? I know why you left it. You wanted to get your own way and get someone to shut up. It would be like me leaving you negative now just because you're annoying and can't resist posting in any thread about me or vod. Funny how some abuses are ok and how you had no beef with the trust system before your incident. 

It does however drive away decent users when they are accused  simply for being ignorant of how the trust vigilantes operate here. You claim I am serving some personal agenda... what exactly to I get from calling you out about this? Is there a paycheck somewhere I am not collecting? Of course it could not at all be that I object to the enforcement of arbitrary unwritten rules, no, as always with you every complaint I have is about my past, and you will squeeze that one for every last drop you can to try to marginalize anything I say that you don't agree with.

Since when do you care about driving away decent users? Leaving negative just because someone says something you don't like will drive them away too. But that's ok? Maybe newbs getting scammed constantly drives people away also? I'm sure users being scammed drives much more away than people just getting neg-bombed for suspicious/untrustworthy behaviour. And you might not have anything to gain financially but neither do I. Your motive here is one of a scorned child who hasn't got his own way and now looks to continue his temper tantrum anytime the situation arises.

Actually, you made this about me, as your very first response (as you always do). This is just some pathetic attempt to not have to reexamine your protocols for leaving negatives so you can try to be VOD v2 and collect all the positive trust ratings from rubberneckers like he did. I don't get anything for calling you out about this, you however, by continuing will basically just be farming trust from onlookers. Of course there is no way to know for sure if most of the people you mark are really scammers or not. You could just pick a handful of random ignorant newbs a day and mark them and gloat with pride about all the scammers you stopped.

No, you make it about you because every time you post in these sorts of threads it's fulled by your own anger and frustration of how you were removed from the trust list and that's the only reason you do it and it's pathetic. Trust was never an issue until you were removed, now you make it out that anyone who leaves feedback is a 'vigilante' or is doing it for alternative means and farming trust (lol) because it suits your petty argument. Let me tell you, the only trust you'll farm by outing scammers is negative after they leave it in retaliation. It's honestly not worth the hassle, especially when people like you get involved. I really don't care about how much feedback or green trust I have so I find your accusations laughable and my name or rep is worth much more to me than a few numbers on a feedback system. 

You are trying to protect morons from their own idiocy. Anyone who uses a complete newb for escrow without even reviewing his trust, is GUARANTEED to be robbed, it is just a matter of time. You can't protect people from their own idiocy. By going around patrolling you give these newbs the impression that some one filters out scammers here when in reality you just pick a handful of sacrificial lambs and mark them and pretend it is progress. you aren't stopping anything, you are at most delaying the inevitable. Even worse, there is NO WAY TO KNOW if these people you are simply guessing about had ill intent.

So wait a minute, isn't newbs, or "morons" as you call them getting scammed going to drive them away? If it's ok for naive newbs to get scammed then why is it not fair to mark naive newbs who appear to be scammers? Some people are just trying to help, as opposed to others just whinging whilst offering no help themselves. If someone offers to hold on to your money with no good reason then they are untrustworthy which you yourself admit, so feedback is appropriate regardless of their true intention. If a newb asks for a loan without collateral then 9/10 they wont pay it back, and that's why it's untrustworthy behavior even if they were just being naive but by your logic we should just be fine with it and tolerate the behavior just because newbs are going to newb therefore they deserve to be scammed.

You know who I think does a good job leaving trust ratings? Tomatocage. Of all the years I have been here I have had almost no issues with the methods he used to mark people. You know why? Before he marks people red he requires at lease SOME standard of evidence, and he almost never simply relies on guess work to do so. He has been here a long time and understands these scammers aren't dumb, and they will return instantly with a new account. He also understands if he plays whack-a-mole it is inevitable that he will ruin the reputations of people who are simply confused or ignorant and drive them away from the forum as well as Bitcoin in general. He is very willing to have a non-confrontational discussion with people, and if they can use common sense and reason, he will often remove negative marks.

That's funny. I don't really see much difference between tomato and vod at all, but have you actually read tomatocage's trust? I think you're wrong on everything you've claimed he doesn't do. He leaves more negatives than me often based on assumption so you just seem to be making things up to suit your agenda. Few examples:

Use ESCROW when conducting business with this user. Never accept any forms of reversible payment either (ie. PayPal, Google Wallet, Amazon Payments, QuickPay, SurePay, etc).

Oh noez, what if he was just an innocent user looking to buy bitcoins? Why negative and not neutral?

Money launderer who will only send payment via stolen credit card info. Will not do cash deposit.

No proof at all that he's using stolen cards or laundering money, just likely that he is, but that's not good enough for you.

PayPal scammer. Wants you to send first and will not use escrow.

Well that's unfair, maybe he just doesn't trust escrows or anyone else?

New account + loan request. These are almost always scammers.

Always? Not according to tecshare. Sad to see another innocent newb blasted by a trust farmer. 

I could go on. And please do not think I'm throwing shade on tomato because I'm not and I do think most if not all of those are actually justified, though you don't. Funny how it's only me and vod who are trying to farm trust but tomato with his 201: -0 / +25 is apparently ok (most of it just received for him doing a good job busting scammers ironically (bloody trust farming vigilante! *shakes fist*)). The only reason you have issue with me is I didn't defend you when you abused the system and especially because I made my arguments several times why you were wrong (I would have never actually commented on it until you PMd me to 'help you out'). Had I have not got involved you very likely wouldn't be here whinging now. You can continue to attempt to mock or demonize me or others for leaving warranted and appropriate feedback but each time you do all it does it make you look more pathetic each and every time and we all know the only reason you do it is because you don't like what happened to you via mistakes that were your own fault.

[TECSHARE]

Yes, of course more about me. Who knew that was coming. Hilariousandco, you are a child with no self control. Every criticism of you is an attack. You are incapable of having a non-confrontational conversation with people, especially when some one dares to tell you that you are wrong. Make up all the shit you like and tell yourself I am everything you say I am. It doesn't change the fact that you act like a huge asshole to people constantly, and eventually everyone will witness your behavior. You are little more than a troll with authority.  You even said in the rating for the guy it was likely he was just naive.

Quickseller has even backed off and changed his to a neutral. The fact that Quickseller thinks it is appropriate to do so, yet you still resist, is quite telling. So is the fact that you insist on continuing to mark everyone you don't trust. I don't trust you, should I mark you red? Why shouldn't I mark everyone I don't trust red? It will save noobs from themselves!

[Quickseller]

Quickseller has even backed off and changed his to a neutral. The fact that Quickseller thinks it is appropriate to do so, yet you still resist, is quite telling.

I changed my negative to a neutral because he is no longer offering escrow services. From my viewpoint, the OP probably saw that people are charging for their escrow services and wanted to earn some money in a similar way.

Once he was explained why this is a sign of him being a scammer, he quickly corrected his actions and closed his escrow thread. I think he most likely didn't know the "rules" regarding when it would be appropriate to offer escrow (and yes they are unfortunately unwritten and they do change from time to time based on the community).

[TECSHARE]

Quickseller has even backed off and changed his to a neutral. The fact that Quickseller thinks it is appropriate to do so, yet you still resist, is quite telling.

I changed my negative to a neutral because he is no longer offering escrow services. From my viewpoint, the OP probably saw that people are charging for their escrow services and wanted to earn some money in a similar way.

Once he was explained why this is a sign of him being a scammer, he quickly corrected his actions and closed his escrow thread. I think he most likely didn't know the "rules" regarding when it would be appropriate to offer escrow (and yes they are unfortunately unwritten and they do change from time to time based on the community).

I think your actions are appropriate. This is the difference between going around spraying and praying with ratings and actually critically examining your ratings such as people like Tomatocage. This war mentality against people who likely just don't have a clue how things work here needs to change. It doesn't serve anyone (except the trust vigilantes).

I only mentioned you Quickseller because you are some one who regularly gets accused of going too far with your ratings, and even you are reconsidering, putting Hilariousandco below your standard, which is the telling part to me. You don't always make the right call but you (usually) will reconsider ratings if some logic can be presented.  The rate at which Hilariousandco has been leaving negative ratings has accelerated lately. It seems to me Hilariousandco wants to be Vod v2 and just do it shotgun style and not worry about where they stray shots go.

[stingers]

I still feel that you gave a negative trust just based on "assumptions", cuz it has happened before so it will happen again, and as a "trusted" guy hasn't scammed before, so he wont scam in the future. I just feel the neg trust should have been converted to a neutral one(negative is too harsh cuz u gave it based on ASUMPTIONS), and so because of your assumptions, making an account bleed with red trust, is too harsh! I sincerely feel that it could have been a neutral one. If someone has to get scammed he will even get scammed after seeing a red trust, this is just because people tend to ignore the trust ratings because of the way neg. trust gets distributed by other members. The credibility of neg. trust has been reduced a lot and cases like this are making the red trust loose its importance.

I feel the case was more like : The op felt he is trusted, statistically he's untrusted, he offered escrow, hilarious took the offensive approach to defence the community, hilarious gave him a negative trust.
Could have been neutral imo.

Yes because if it was based on evidence then there would be no point talking about it, right? It's normal practice to give negative trust to people who are potentially going to scam, of course, based on asumptions, is not like we can know the future.

Also, negative trust isn't only given to past scammers, but those who are extremely likely to.

Do you really feel in this case that the user was "extremely" likely to be a scammer?

@bold: The negative isn't a permanent one. If the OP proves to be trusted in the coming months, hilariousandco being quite responsible while leaving ratings might reconsider this negative one. This negative is more like a precautionary one rather than a scam accusation.

Yeah that seems to be fine

In my opinion i would say yes, he was extremely likely to scam, why? Well anyone who has low rank, has almost nothing to lose if he ends up scamming, so a newbie has more chances to be a scammer than a legendary member.

Second, he had no previous black, green trust and people who have no trust are more likely to scam than people with trust.

Third, he wanted to start an escrow service, known to be something only highly trusted members are able to pull off, so why would he do such thing if its not for scam? He obviously knew that 99.9% of the people wont use him as an escrow but maybe someone somewhere would and that would be his chance to scam.

So for all these reasons, i believe that he is a potential scammer

Well if you feel in that way then giving out a negative trust is justified.
But along with it, this also reflects the conservative mindset of the community and dis confidence on each other.
There is something very wrong with the community(particularly with a few members, hilarious excluded).

Quickseller has even backed off and changed his to a neutral. The fact that Quickseller thinks it is appropriate to do so, yet you still resist, is quite telling.

I changed my negative to a neutral because he is no longer offering escrow services. From my viewpoint, the OP probably saw that people are charging for their escrow services and wanted to earn some money in a similar way.

Once he was explained why this is a sign of him being a scammer, he quickly corrected his actions and closed his escrow thread. I think he most likely didn't know the "rules" regarding when it would be appropriate to offer escrow (and yes they are unfortunately unwritten and they do change from time to time based on the community).

Agreed! Thanks for letting this forum remain a fine place to post in.

[nutildah]

Funny to watch criminals arguing over who is the greater criminal.

[hilariousandco]

Yes, of course more about me. Who knew that was coming. Hilariousandco, you are a child with no self control. Every criticism of you is an attack. You are incapable of having a non-confrontational conversation with people, especially when some one dares to tell you that you are wrong. Make up all the shit you like and tell yourself I am everything you say I am. It doesn't change the fact that you act like a huge asshole to people constantly, and eventually everyone will witness your behavior. You are little more than a troll with authority.  

So you didn't actually refute any of my points there and instead just essentially used some ad homonyms which is a petty way to actually avoid making a relevant argument. All you've really said is you think I'm an asshole. Well the feeling is mutual, but you only think I'm an asshole because when you requested I defend you I didn't and I continued to make my arguments why you were wrong for some time, and you didn't like this. You also can't really call me a child with no self-control when you cannot control yourself from posting in every thread about someone leaving justified feedback, which you only started doing after you fell foul of the system. It's funny how you only started to distrust me and my ratings were suddenly inaccurate after your incident, and that's why this is all about you. You only messaged me in the first place to help defend you because we'd previously worked together to do some 'scambusting' which you now apparently hate. Whether it's me, vod, QS or someone else all you contribute is snarky and pointless remarks and I only react to criticism against me when it isn't valid and provide reasons why it isn't. Your only invalid arguments here are fueled by your distaste of the trust system after you were removed and your only point of attack is that you somehow think calling me an asshole and vod 2.0 is an insult or is going to get at me. It isn't, I'll take it as a complement from you if anything.

You even said in the rating for the guy it was likely he was just naive.

No I didn't. I said at the very least he's naive, but it's that naivety that makes him untrustworthy regardless of whether his intention was to scam or not and that's why the feedback is justified (and I said I may remove it anyway but I'm not going to remove it just because you say so). You yourself said he was untrustworthy so there isn't really a problem here but you're making it out to be one because it suites your hypocritical anti-trust crusade. A random user coming here and asking for a 1btc loan to put in a ponzi because they think they can double their money is also either scammy or naive, but regardless if he genuinely believes he can double his money and would send you your share back he deserves negative feedback and I'm sure you'll agree, but you likely don't want to leave feedback for this sort of stuff because you can't be arsed dealing with the fallout so you're likely just a coward and/or doesn't want the hassle of threads like these, but you'll denigrate others like me and vod for trying to do the right thing whilst abusing the feedback system yourself for your own petty personal matters.

Quickseller has even backed off and changed his to a neutral. The fact that Quickseller thinks it is appropriate to do so, yet you still resist, is quite telling. So is the fact that you insist on continuing to mark everyone you don't trust. I don't trust you, should I mark you red? Why shouldn't I mark everyone I don't trust red? It will save noobs from themselves!

I don't mark everyone I don't trust. As stated numerous times I rarely leave feedback, but I've either left neutral or no feedback at all then gone on to regret it when that person then went on to scam. I only started leaving negative for no-namers who offer escrow recently after much deliberation because I didn't before and then that person scammed, and many more people will get scammed in the future if we accept them with open arms and just have a giggle at their naivety, but care to actually go through my feedback and tell me which ones of them are inaccurate or out of order (create a new thread if you like but I'd also like you to go through tomatocage's and tell me why they're all justified too)? And you might not trust me but you've got no reason to believe I was going to scam anyone so why would you leave me negative? Amis didn't scam you either but that didn't stop you from marking him with red and that's why you are a massive hypocrite because apparently leaving negative feedback when you're being trolled is ok, but leaving feedback for someone who is a scammer or having strong scammy behavior is over-stepping the mark.

I think your actions are appropriate. This is the difference between going around spraying and praying with ratings and actually critically examining your ratings such as people like Tomatocage. This war mentality against people who likely just don't have a clue how things work here needs to change. It doesn't serve anyone (except the trust vigilantes).

I only mentioned you Quickseller because you are some one who regularly gets accused of going too far with your ratings, and even you are reconsidering, putting Hilariousandco below your standard, which is the telling part to me. You don't always make the right call but you (usually) will reconsider ratings if some logic can be presented.  The rate at which Hilariousandco has been leaving negative ratings has accelerated lately. It seems to me Hilariousandco wants to be Vod v2 and just do it shotgun style and not worry about where they stray shots go.

Did you even read anything I said above? I'm sure you did but you've chosen to ignore it all because it's the truth and you don't have an argument to make other than sticking to the hur dur he's vod 2.0 schtick because that's all you've seemingly got at the moment. I've just explained why you're completely wrong about tomatocage so why are you acting like he's a beacon of shining light for leaving trust? You're only holding him up as an example because he hasn't done anything to annoy you. You can't just ignore the fact that tomatocage leaves ratings which fall under the very things you are accusing me and vod of and in far greater volume than me and there's little to no difference between vod and tomato. It's also worth mentioning that by his own admission tomatocage was an account created to scambust to avoid drawing heat to his main account from scammers crying about it so it's funny that apparently I'm a trust vigilante scambuster but he isn't. He's only not that because he didn't get involved in your spat.

Anyway, I doubt you'll actually respond with anything of merit and just stick to the you're an asshole and vod 2.0 lines and continue being a hypocrite about everything but feel free to create a thread where we can discuss why mine or tomotacage's feedbacks are appropriate or not or why they're somehow any better than mine, or, you should just get over yourself and what happened when you abused the feedback system you're now constantly rallying against because it was old months ago and it's only getting more pathetic as time goes on.

Well if you feel in that way then giving out a negative trust is justified.
But along with it, this also reflects the conservative mindset of the community and dis confidence on each other.
There is something very wrong with the community(particularly with a few members, hilarious excluded).

This forum is not a beautiful hippie libertarian utopia. It has lots of trustworthy and noble people but it also has many more people who would steal a dollar off you if they had the chance. Some people might steal a dollar off you as soon as they can or they might steal a thousand later when they've built up enough confidence from you and that's why people shouldn't have confidence in random no-rep people on the internet, and that's why we use escrows, but those escrows need to be highly trusted. Their reputation should be their bond and their name should mean more to them than a few bitcoins. A lot of these no-namers who offer escrow come in and act like they should just be given a chance and build up their rep as they go along and if they don't scam on their first go they'll say "Hey look at me, I'm trustworthy", but that's now how things work and for good reason. Whether they're simply naive and have good intentions or have the intention to scam at some point they're not to be trusted as escrows and leaving negative on them as harsh as you may think it is is helping to protect the community, but sometimes life is harsh and people need to know what should and shouldn't be accepted here and offering to hold onto others money when you've got no good reason to isn't acceptable in my opinion regardless of being naive or not. People can continue to be hypocrites and cowards like tecshare but people definitely shouldn't be vilified for leaving these sorts of feedback especially when they do nothing themselves but whinge and try to take the moral high ground but continually contradicting themselves in the process.

[TECSHARE]

I didn't refute any of your argument because I knew ^ that wall of text would ensue, and I have already made my point already anyway. Furthermore your attempts to constantly make any comment I make about me is probably just a lame ploy to attempt to get me to post off topic so you can report it and have me banned anyway. So have fun arguing with yourself.

[hilariousandco]

I didn't refute any of your argument because I knew ^ that wall of text would ensue, and I have already made my point already anyway. Furthermore your attempts to constantly make any comment I make about me is probably just a lame ploy to attempt to get me to post off topic so you can report it and have me banned anyway. So have fun arguing with yourself.

. You make me laugh. You need not have respond at all if you're not going to actually say anything of relevance but this was expected from you. Every time you just try detract with nonsense like vod 2.0 or 'wall of text' and  it's just irrelevance in an attempt to not actually have to defend yourself of make a valid point or argument. You haven't refuted anything because it's all just lies based on your own agenda and when questioned you just ignore it and attempt to mock the person instead and now you've started with the lame conspiracy theories again just like everyone does when they'd rather not accept the truth.

Have fun continually whinging at the system that you feel betrayed you (it didn't, you abused it and that's all this has ever been from the start), but maybe stop commenting on such issues with half-assed snarky responses and kicking the hornets nest if you're not actually willing to have a discussion about them or can't handle it when someone actually makes some valid points and takes the time to express themselves. Sorry I can't make a constructive argument in a few sentences. Hope that was more digestible for you.

[TECSHARE]

I didn't refute any of your argument because I knew ^ that wall of text would ensue, and I have already made my point already anyway. Furthermore your attempts to constantly make any comment I make about me is probably just a lame ploy to attempt to get me to post off topic so you can report it and have me banned anyway. So have fun arguing with yourself.

. You make me laugh. You need not have respond at all if you're not going to actually say anything of relevance but this was expected from you. Every time you just try detract with nonsense like vod 2.0 or 'wall of text' and  it's just irrelevance in an attempt to not actually have to defend yourself of make a valid point or argument. You haven't refuted anything because it's all just lies based on your own agenda and when questioned you just ignore it and attempt to mock the person instead and now you've started with the lame conspiracy theories again just like everyone does when they'd rather not accept the truth.

Have fun continually whinging at the system that you feel betrayed you (it didn't, you abused it and that's all this has ever been from the start), but maybe stop commenting on such issues with half-assed snarky responses and kicking the hornets nest if you're not actually willing to have a discussion about them or can't handle it when someone actually makes some valid points and takes the time to express themselves. Sorry I can't make a constructive argument in a few sentences. Hope that was more digestible for you.

I don't need to respond to that wall of text because it is always the same thing with you. You claim I can't let that shit go but you are constantly talking about it.  I made my points, and others agree. You are totally OCD and out of control and as a result you will shit all over people and never think twice about it to get your OCD/drama fix. This is how you and VOD are alike, and how Tomatocage is different. His life is fulfilling enough he doesn't need to patrol the forums to provide himself with a sense of self worth or to fulfill his OCD drama fix. Stick to moderating threads so you can channel that OCD in a positive way, scam busting is not for you. You go right on ahead with thinking you are right and see where it takes you.

[XinXan]

I didn't refute any of your argument because I knew ^ that wall of text would ensue, and I have already made my point already anyway. Furthermore your attempts to constantly make any comment I make about me is probably just a lame ploy to attempt to get me to post off topic so you can report it and have me banned anyway. So have fun arguing with yourself.

. You make me laugh. You need not have respond at all if you're not going to actually say anything of relevance but this was expected from you. Every time you just try detract with nonsense like vod 2.0 or 'wall of text' and  it's just irrelevance in an attempt to not actually have to defend yourself of make a valid point or argument. You haven't refuted anything because it's all just lies based on your own agenda and when questioned you just ignore it and attempt to mock the person instead and now you've started with the lame conspiracy theories again just like everyone does when they'd rather not accept the truth.

Have fun continually whinging at the system that you feel betrayed you (it didn't, you abused it and that's all this has ever been from the start), but maybe stop commenting on such issues with half-assed snarky responses and kicking the hornets nest if you're not actually willing to have a discussion about them or can't handle it when someone actually makes some valid points and takes the time to express themselves. Sorry I can't make a constructive argument in a few sentences. Hope that was more digestible for you.

I don't need to respond to that wall of text because it is always the same thing with you. You claim I can't let that shit go but you are constantly talking about it.  I made my points, and others agree. You are totally OCD and out of control and as a result you will shit all over people and never think twice about it to get your OCD/drama fix. This is how you and VOD are alike, and how Tomatocage is different. His life is fulfilling enough he doesn't need to patrol the forums to provide himself with a sense of self worth or to fulfill his OCD drama fix. Stick to moderating threads so you can channel that OCD in a positive way, scam busting is not for you. You go right on ahead with thinking you are right and see where it takes you.

Can you stop derailing the thread, this was about whether hilarious gave wrong trust or not, everyone agrees that the feedback itself is not wrong but maybe would be better to change it to neutral, now stop fighting and spamming the hell out of this thread with your bullshit nonsense, we all know how you like to attack anyone who is in power as soon as you can.