I don't think negatives are suppose to be used to
- snip -
The system is designed to work like this:
Anyone can leave any feed back (positive, negative, or neutral) for anyone they want, for any reason they want.
If you feel that someone uses good judgement when leaving feedback, then you add them to your trust network and their feedback will effect the rating you see next to the "trust" link on their profile.
If you feel that someone uses bad judgement when leaving feedback, then you remove them from your trust network and their feedback won't effect the rating you see next to the "trust" on their profile.
By adjusting the "trust depth", you can also choose to include in your trust network the users that are trusted by the people that you trust, if you feel they all use good judgement about who they add to their trust network. And if you feel that all of those users also use good judgement about who they add to their trust network, you can choose to include them as well.
There is a "default trust" list that is assigned to new users when they first create an account, since it would be difficult from someone brand new to know who to trust. The intention is for them to update their trust lists as they figure out who they feel is trustworthy, and who isn't. Unfortuantely, very few users ever bother changing their trust list from the default.
If you feel that an individual on the default trust list has been using poor judgement in choosing who they trust, and/or using poor judgement in the feedback that they leave, then you can request that the forum operator removes that individual from the default trust list. The forum operator can consider your concerns and then make whatever decision they prefer.
You can also contact users that have left trust or modified their trust lists and ask them to make changes that you think would be appropriate. They can consider your concerns and then make whatever decision they prefer.
Personally, I feel that purchasing a forum account and representing yourself as having received feedback that was not created for you is an "untrustworthy" behavior. I am entitled to this belief, and I have chosen to act on this by leaving negative feedback for this particular user.
I have explained this reasoning in the feedback that I left. If the user stops representing themselves as having received that positive feedback, then I will no longer consider their actions to be untrustworthy, and I'll remove the feedback.
Anyone else can read the feedback that I've left and decide for themselves if they consider that feedback valid or not. They can then make their own decision about how much to trust the user when engaging in transactions with him.
Well a negative rating can wipe out someone's entire trust score
Yes, it can. So it is important not to engage in untrustworthy behavior. Just like in the real world, a reputation is a slow and fragile thing to build, and a single untrustworthy action can be very difficult to recover from.
and the ?'?? signifies that they might have been a long con.
The acquiring of a longstanding account IS a long con. The account has been represented for a long time by an individual with a particular set of morals and ethics. Then suddenly, unexpectedly, and without any indication the account is represented by an individual with a different set of morals and ethics. Isn't that what happens in a long con?
A single negative rating will wipe out someone's entire positive trust score, while it takes two people to counter one negative trust rating.
Then I suppose it's a good idea to avoid behaviors that would cause someone not to trust you.
A positive rating signifies that you think someone is trustworthy and a negative rating signifies that someone is a scammer.
No.
A positive rating signifies that you think someone is trustworthy, and a negative rating signifies that you think someone is not trustworthy.
Just because someone is not actively trustworthy does not mean they are a scammer.
No, but it does mean that they shouldn't be trusted.
