Reply for the trust system?

[takagari]

If we are keeping the current rep system, which mostly works... although the default trust list is a bit of a thorn in many peoples sides..

I'd like to see a reply section added, for example if someone left Neg rep simply because you hit them. A way to respond with details/link would be cool.
Rather then having to explain the negatives.

I realize everyone will then respond, even the bullshitters trying to cover their ass, but we all know the system has it's issues, this may be a step to help?

[1715344593]

1715344593

[OmegaStarScream]

If we are keeping the current rep system, which mostly works... although the default trust list is a bit of a thorn in many peoples sides..

I'd like to see a reply section added, for example if someone left Neg rep simply because you hit them. A way to respond with details/link would be cool.
Rather then having to explain the negatives.

I realize everyone will then respond, even the bullshitters trying to cover their ass, but we all know the system has it's issues, this may be a step to help?

I don't see that making a new section is necessary honestly , all what you mentioned should be done within the Scam accusation section (to be more specific , In the thread that the user was accused for scamming or got negative trust for).

[takagari]

If we are keeping the current rep system, which mostly works... although the default trust list is a bit of a thorn in many peoples sides..

I'd like to see a reply section added, for example if someone left Neg rep simply because you hit them. A way to respond with details/link would be cool.
Rather then having to explain the negatives.

I realize everyone will then respond, even the bullshitters trying to cover their ass, but we all know the system has it's issues, this may be a step to help?

I don't see that making a new section is necessary honestly , all what you mentioned should be done within the Scam accusation section (to be more specific , In the thread that the user was accused for scamming or got negative trust for).

Links are seldom given, or not as often anyway so that makes it hard. If the software is being rewritten it wouldn't be hard to add a response to the trust system. maybe so member can reply with it being fake trust, here is link explaining. etc.

[killyou73]

If we are keeping the current rep system, which mostly works... although the default trust list is a bit of a thorn in many peoples sides..

I'd like to see a reply section added, for example if someone left Neg rep simply because you hit them. A way to respond with details/link would be cool.
Rather then having to explain the negatives.

I realize everyone will then respond, even the bullshitters trying to cover their ass, but we all know the system has it's issues, this may be a step to help?

I do not think that the trust system holds any merit per say besides tagging obvious scammers. If you take a look at "quickseller" there trust is deep in the red but I am many others still consider him trustworthy. The trust system does not protect users from being scammed either, look at the master-p scams. The only thing that protects users is a trusted escrow, such as John K. ; OGnasty ; Garr255 ; Ian Knowles ; Rassah ; Ryland Rene Taylor-Almanza (These are all forum treasures holding between 250-1k BTC)

[minifrij]

I do not think that the trust system holds any merit per say besides tagging obvious scammers. If you take a look at "quickseller" there trust is deep in the red but I am many others still consider him trustworthy.

The trust system isn't meant to be used as a definitive 'this person is/isn't a scammer', it is meant to be used as a reference for if someone has done something untrustworthy. If you decide to still trust someone after this, it is your choice.

The trust system does not protect users from being scammed either, look at the master-p scams.

master-p had >100 trust score when he pulled off his scams. To most, master-p was completely trustworthy.

The only thing that protects users is a trusted escrow, such as John K. ; OGnasty ; Garr255 ; Ian Knowles ; Rassah ; Ryland Rene Taylor-Almanza (These are all forum treasures holding between 250-1k BTC)

I'm fairly sure most of those are inactive or do not do escrow, let alone hold any BTC for the forum anymore. Use someone with their personal information known and verified (E.G OgNasty/Blazed) or someone that you personally trust. It also helps if you follow the standard escrow procedure and not be an ass about it.

[Quickseller]

I do not think that the trust system holds any merit per say besides tagging obvious scammers. If you take a look at "quickseller" there trust is deep in the red but I am many others still consider him trustworthy.

The trust system isn't meant to be used as a definitive 'this person is/isn't a scammer', it is meant to be used as a reference for if someone has done something untrustworthy. If you decide to still trust someone after this, it is your choice.

quadriple-facepalm.gif - when triple_facepalm.gif is not enough

IMO this is a good idea, especially considering how quickly some people are to say that a contested rating should be discussed privately and not publicly, and that the trust system is market based, even though this is inaccurate.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

How the hell did I miss this thread?   Yes, this is a very good idea. All of my negs are retaliatory and a good number of them are libelous.  Complete lies.  I'd like to be able to respond, just for my own satisfaction.   Kind of like how eBay does it with their feedback system.

[minifrij]

quadriple-facepalm.gif - when triple_facepalm.gif is not enough

Good meme.

So in this case, would you agree that you are a scammer and that no one should trust you simply on the basis of you have a negative trust rating? Is that how it is meant to work?


Regarding the original idea, I like it. It would be better than having several threads open in the 'Reputation' section to reply to trust ratings that are essentially the same. My only quarrel would be that people could perhaps use these trust responses to spam, however these could simply be dealt the same as any sort of trust spam.