How do you guys feel about trust farming?

[TheButterZone]

Here we go again with the fucktarded debate about trust because people just look at useless colored/formatted numbers & are too lazy or stupid to click a hyperlink called Trust:, then read text and the numbers that actually matter:

What is the purpose with entering "Risked BTC amount"? To weight the rating, whether positive, negative, or neutral. What "Risked BTC amount"/weight did I place on the "or had a successful trade" positives for email forwarding? That's right, zero, zilch, zip, nil, nought, nothing, nix, diddly-squat, BECAUSE THEY SENT FIRST - no BTC or theft of services was risked on my end, because their contracts only came into force as soon as they paid & I saw at least 1 confirm.

When I do fill the "Risked BTC amount" involving a contract, it's because it was already in force, and the person either deserved the weight of +/- trust for breaking or not breaking contract, or a neutral if the trade was successful in less than every sense of the word.

Would you prefer dishonesty; not categorizing successful trades as successful trades, as the feedback page instructs us all to do?

[1713862099]

1713862099

[1713862099]

1713862099

[1713862099]

1713862099

[VW50b2xk]

Here we go again with the fucktarded debate about trust because people just look at useless colored/formatted numbers & are too lazy or stupid to click a hyperlink called Trust:, then read text and the numbers that actually matter:

What is the purpose with entering "Risked BTC amount"? To weight the rating, whether positive, negative, or neutral. What "Risked BTC amount"/weight did I place on the "or had a successful trade" positives for email forwarding? That's right, zero, zilch, zip, nil, nought, nothing, nix, diddly-squat, BECAUSE THEY SENT FIRST - no BTC or theft of services was risked on my end, because their contracts only came into force as soon as they paid & I saw at least 1 confirm.

When I do fill the "Risked BTC amount" involving a contract, it's because it was already in force, and the person either deserved the weight of +/- trust for breaking or not breaking contract, or a neutral if the trade was successful in less than every sense of the word.

Would you prefer dishonesty; not categorizing successful trades as successful trades, as the feedback page instructs us all to do?

Nope. My problem is when someone does a trade, just for that number. That number holds a disgusting amount of weight around here. And it just ends up with people looking for others who can give it to them easily.

Basically people looking for another CanaryInTheMine.

[Crankautist]

Here we go again with the fucktarded debate about trust because people just look at useless colored/formatted numbers & are too lazy or stupid to click a hyperlink called Trust:, then read text and the numbers that actually matter:

What is the purpose with entering "Risked BTC amount"? To weight the rating, whether positive, negative, or neutral. What "Risked BTC amount"/weight did I place on the "or had a successful trade" positives for email forwarding? That's right, zero, zilch, zip, nil, nought, nothing, nix, diddly-squat, BECAUSE THEY SENT FIRST - no BTC or theft of services was risked on my end, because their contracts only came into force as soon as they paid & I saw at least 1 confirm.

When I do fill the "Risked BTC amount" involving a contract, it's because it was already in force, and the person either deserved the weight of +/- trust for breaking or not breaking contract, or a neutral if the trade was successful in less than every sense of the word.

Would you prefer dishonesty; not categorizing successful trades as successful trades, as the feedback page instructs us all to do?

Date Registered:   June 22, 2012, 07:06:12 AM

You should definitely know that people only look at colors and usually dont check the trustpage.

It is fine to report a successful trade whatever the size/value but you could just give neutral trust in case of i.e. email and sms forwarding.

You should know how much DT is worth for scams because people always fall for it. Since 2009.

[TheButterZone]

Nope. My problem is when someone does a trade, just for that number. That number holds a disgusting amount of weight around here. And it just ends up with people looking for others who can give it to them easily.

Basically people looking for another CanaryInTheMine.

I've either forgotten or wasn't fully briefed on CITM. Are the feedback instructions the same now as they were back then? Was CITM putting down risked BTC to add undeserved weight to those who sent first/before contracts were in force?

Here we go again with the fucktarded debate about trust because people just look at useless colored/formatted numbers & are too lazy or stupid to click a hyperlink called Trust:, then read text and the numbers that actually matter:

What is the purpose with entering "Risked BTC amount"? To weight the rating, whether positive, negative, or neutral. What "Risked BTC amount"/weight did I place on the "or had a successful trade" positives for email forwarding? That's right, zero, zilch, zip, nil, nought, nothing, nix, diddly-squat, BECAUSE THEY SENT FIRST - no BTC or theft of services was risked on my end, because their contracts only came into force as soon as they paid & I saw at least 1 confirm.

When I do fill the "Risked BTC amount" involving a contract, it's because it was already in force, and the person either deserved the weight of +/- trust for breaking or not breaking contract, or a neutral if the trade was successful in less than every sense of the word.

Would you prefer dishonesty; not categorizing successful trades as successful trades, as the feedback page instructs us all to do?

Date Registered:   June 22, 2012, 07:06:12 AM

You should definitely know that people only look at colors and usually dont check the trustpage.

Hence my first sentence/paragraph. Do you even read, bro?

It is fine to report a successful trade whatever the size/value but you could just give neutral trust in case of i.e. email and sms forwarding.

I could, but then I would be dishonest and not following the forum's instruction to categorize successful trades as Positive, as bolded in my second paragraph and reiterated in my last. Do I need to take a screenshot of /index.php?action=trust;u=xxxx so you can NOT read that, as well? Again: Do you even read, bro?

You should know how much DT is worth for scams because people always fall for it. Since 2009.

If people not being caveat emptor is your problem, then join the rest of us wailing at a brick wall about how the feedback functionality is poorly coded in this forum...

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines

[hilariousetc]

Here we go again with the fucktarded debate about trust because people just look at useless colored/formatted numbers & are too lazy or stupid to click a hyperlink called Trust:, then read text and the numbers that actually matter:

What is the purpose with entering "Risked BTC amount"? To weight the rating, whether positive, negative, or neutral. What "Risked BTC amount"/weight did I place on the "or had a successful trade" positives for email forwarding? That's right, zero, zilch, zip, nil, nought, nothing, nix, diddly-squat, BECAUSE THEY SENT FIRST - no BTC or theft of services was risked on my end, because their contracts only came into force as soon as they paid & I saw at least 1 confirm.

When I do fill the "Risked BTC amount" involving a contract, it's because it was already in force, and the person either deserved the weight of +/- trust for breaking or not breaking contract, or a neutral if the trade was successful in less than every sense of the word.

Would you prefer dishonesty; not categorizing successful trades as successful trades, as the feedback page instructs us all to do?

You're using the feedback system as intended, but this isn't really an issue with anything you are doing, but (arguably) others just buying things merely for the default trust feedback (which like it or not people obviously want  to help make them look more trusted/established) for whatever reason, hence why some people are likely just buying things they very probably don't need, want or use.

Nope. My problem is when someone does a trade, just for that number. That number holds a disgusting amount of weight around here. And it just ends up with people looking for others who can give it to them easily.

Basically people looking for another CanaryInTheMine.

I've either forgotten or wasn't fully briefed on CITM. Are the feedback instructions the same now as they were back then? Was CITM putting down risked BTC to add undeserved weight to those who sent first/before contracts were in force?

If I recall correctly CITM was leaving feedback for anyone who did a trade with him then adding them to his trust list so he was artificially inflating his own score and people would then be only trading with him for the inevitable feedback and the inclusion onto default trust (thus essentially just buying their way onto it).

[TheButterZone]

You're using the feedback system as intended, but this isn't really an issue with anything you are doing, but (arguably) others just buying things merely for the default trust feedback (which like it or not people obviously want  to help make them look more trusted/established) for whatever reason, hence why some people are likely just buying things they very probably don't need, want or use.

On that front, save 1 person, the preference has been for my 3letter1number.com domain over my 13letter.com - which makes sense, as I'm not sure how many 3letter.com (did I forget about any 2letters?) email services are still alive other than Cox & AOL. ICQ, MSN (now Live.com, spammer/scammer central)?

Nope. My problem is when someone does a trade, just for that number. That number holds a disgusting amount of weight around here. And it just ends up with people looking for others who can give it to them easily.

Basically people looking for another CanaryInTheMine.

I've either forgotten or wasn't fully briefed on CITM. Are the feedback instructions the same now as they were back then? Was CITM putting down risked BTC to add undeserved weight to those who sent first/before contracts were in force?

If I recall correctly CITM was leaving feedback for anyone who did a trade with him then adding them to his trust list so he was artificially inflating his own score and people would then be only trading with him for the inevitable feedback and the inclusion onto default trust (thus essentially just buying their way onto it).

Ok, well for what it's worth, my depth is 2 & this is my list:

Code:

~theymos
~Luke-Jr
dooglus
~grue
gmaxwell
~piuk
Tomatocage
~BadBear
~GlooBoy
~Bicknellski
~Wardrick
~Xialla
Mitchell
~cornfeedhobo
~yogg
~BitWhale
~bitcoinlitcoinbtcltc
~Bobsurplus
~fruito
~n3rvi0zz0
~Quickseller
~Graven
~BitcoinDistributor
~adzino
~GiovanniDiCosimo
~bitswapp
~valduz10

[Crankautist]

You're using the feedback system as intended, but this isn't really an issue with anything you are doing, but (arguably) others just buying things merely for the default trust feedback (which like it or not people obviously want  to help make them look more trusted/established) for whatever reason, hence why some people are likely just buying things they very probably don't need, want or use.

On that front, save 1 person, the preference has been for my 3letter1number.com domain over my 13letter.com - which makes sense, as I'm not sure how many 3letter.com (did I forget about any 2letters?) email services are still alive other than Cox & AOL. ICQ, MSN (now Live.com, spammer/scammer central)?

Nope. My problem is when someone does a trade, just for that number. That number holds a disgusting amount of weight around here. And it just ends up with people looking for others who can give it to them easily.

Basically people looking for another CanaryInTheMine.

I've either forgotten or wasn't fully briefed on CITM. Are the feedback instructions the same now as they were back then? Was CITM putting down risked BTC to add undeserved weight to those who sent first/before contracts were in force?

If I recall correctly CITM was leaving feedback for anyone who did a trade with him then adding them to his trust list so he was artificially inflating his own score and people would then be only trading with him for the inevitable feedback and the inclusion onto default trust (thus essentially just buying their way onto it).

Ok, well for what it's worth, my depth is 2 & this is my list:

Code:

~theymos
~Luke-Jr
dooglus
~grue
gmaxwell
~piuk
Tomatocage
~BadBear
~GlooBoy
~Bicknellski
~Wardrick
~Xialla
Mitchell
~cornfeedhobo
~yogg
~BitWhale
~bitcoinlitcoinbtcltc
~Bobsurplus
~fruito
~n3rvi0zz0
~Quickseller
~Graven
~BitcoinDistributor
~adzino
~GiovanniDiCosimo
~bitswapp
~valduz10

You take it a bit too offensive - that was not my intention.
I just believe that DT members have the responsibility to act as an example in view of how the trust system is actually used and working in reality.

And the reality is that shady people and scammers are farming not only accounts but also trust and people like you (even though you just follow the rules correctly) make it way easier for them to obtain just that.

It might be the case here that i'm wrong because i didnt check your trust list - i will do that by time - so i will of course apologize if i'm wrong.

But for example Quickseller (escrowing to himself with alts) and Bobsurplus (known for altcoin pump&dumps with several connections to scams/scammer) are quite questionable/shady members on your trust list.

[TheButterZone]

But for example Quickseller (escrowing to himself with alts) and Bobsurplus (known for altcoin pump&dumps with several connections to scams/scammer) are quite questionable/shady members on your trust list.

...

"Fuck's sake, man, you're amateur." -Christian Bale

Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network.

[Crankautist]

But for example Quickseller (escrowing to himself with alts) and Bobsurplus (known for altcoin pump&dumps with several connections to scams/scammer) are quite questionable/shady members on your trust list.

...

"Fuck's sake, man, you're amateur." -Christian Bale

Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network.

I'm sorry, i didnt sleep at all tonight because of trading.
I didnt see the ~ at all.
Mea culpae.

[hilariousetc]

Hmm. This is worth noting and something that I think should be discussed and addressed from the users included in TheButterZone's recent left feedback:





To be honest, I think it's highly likely that these users who have purchased TheButterZone's Email forwarding contracts (and MysteryBox in the case of jamalaezaz) have done so purely for the feedback (again, not an issue with TheButterZone here).

These users have all recently started offering various services here (specifically Campaign Management) and I'm sure they've just gone about acquiring the feedback to give themselves a bit of a leg up there:

aTriz: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2232934.msg22498713#msg22498713
Decoded: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2327425.msg23654977#msg23654977
jamalaezaz: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2007525.0
Blockeye: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2060581
Aventhe: Can't find the thread but he's offering services as evidenced by his personal Text: 💰 Need a Campaign Manager? 💰

Both aTriz and Decoded were also offering a fee for people to recommend them which is bit desperate and slightly unethical in my opinion but aTriz removed this offer after Lauda commented on the problems it causes here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2232934.msg22542003#msg22542003

Lauda also brought it up with Decoded but he still seems to think it's ok: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2327425.msg24328628#msg24328628

Also, I obviously recently did a deal with aTriz on this account for my Avatar and Personal text which should be noted, but I was also contacted yesterday by BlockEye and a user named Woshib almost immediately after each other trying to rent my personal text:



I'm guessing they'd both seen this as another way to get a cheap +1 trust. Woshib isn't involved with The ButterZone's feedback (yet) but BlockEye is. It's also worth noting that both BlockEye and Woshib recently took out a collateral free loan filled by Taras here which is obviously another +1: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2381324.msg24321597#msg24321597

As did Aventhe and aTriz which have already been mentioned in the thread.

subSTRATA, bL4nkcode & Roboabhishek have also possibly purchased TheButterZone's services for the same reasons:



bL4nkcode also offers escrow services here and it's the only 'trusted' feedback he currently has: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2062906.msg20591089#msg20591089

Roboabhishek has tried to offer escrow previously and ran a campaign at one point: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1855353.msg18455414#msg18455414 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1693393.msg16989600#msg16989600

Can't really find anything on subSTRATA and in his profile he states: Other contact info: I will never ask you for a trust rating and he does actually seem to be using the email address at least: email contact: sub@tbz1.com

Anyway, let's be realistic here guys, I think it is almost certain that the five users listed at the top have only gone about these purchases because they know a couple of green feedbacks will go a long way into giving themselves the extra credibility and more chance of them securing contracts for work etc. There obviously isn't anything wrong with doing trades here or leaving feedback for them and I agree with TheButterZone that people put too much emphasis on 'green' trust, but the real question we need to discuss here is is this type of behaviour by seeking out trust just for the sake of it acceptable? It's not exactly directly scammy and I'm guessing (or hoping) most of you aren't doing it for nefarious reasons but I think it's a bit suspect/shady at best to be honest. People who take out loans when then they don't really need them or seek out feedback just to become trusted are usually seen as the opposite and are usually tagged with negative and this isn't really any different to be honest. I mean, did you guys really need to take out those loans? I very much doubt it. I get that people want to establish themselves here and earn a bit of extra money but this really isn't the way to gain reputation and is yet another reason why your name and reputation should be built and earned over time, not just quickly bought by doing a couple of trades to make yourself appear 'trusted' to get yourself a little extra paycheck a month (or at worst take advantage of it further down the line and run off with someone's money).

So what does every one else think? Is this practice shady? Should negative or neutral trust be left on people suspected of doing trades just to build up trust? It's a very grey area in my opinion and I'm on the fence about it but it's really not looking good to me. If people really care about becoming trusted amongst the community then they should really be putting their time and effort into their reputation on the forum by building their name in in other ways and not just trying to instantly purchase it by doing a few trades with the 'right' sort of people.

[aTriz]

I'm guessing they'd both seen this as another way to get a cheap +1 trust. Woshib isn't involved with The ButterZone's feedback (yet) but BlockEye is. It's also worth noting that both BlockEye and Woshib recently took out a collateral free loan filled by Taras here which is obviously another +1: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2381324.msg24321597#msg24321597

I actually never thought that buying your avatar/personal message would inherit a positive trust, maybe on your main, but not on your alt. To be honest, I kinda lowballed you and was surprised you took the offer.  

For the loan I have a valid reason for it, I used the funds. Would rather not say this in public as I can already see a couple of butthurt thread popping up about my reason.

I get that people want to establish themselves here and earn a bit of extra money but this really isn't the way to gain reputation and is yet another reason why your name and reputation should be built and earned over time

I guess this is valid. I'll send a PM to Thebutterzone and Taras to get the 2 positives removed, not sure if I should get the one from BAC removed. You can also feel free to remove the positive you've given me for renting your avatar + personal message.

Not just quickly bought by doing a couple of trades to make yourself appear 'trusted' to get yourself a little extra paycheck a month (or at worst take advantage of it further down the line and run off with someone's money).

I'm not sure about the other people, but i've already given out my address to a couple of people on the forum so I can't really run if I wanted to.

I apologize for this sort of shady behavior I've recently displayed. This is not the sort of person I would like you guys to see.

Thanks,
aTriz.

EDIT- PM's were sent to Taras and Thebutterzone.

[Aventhe]

I too would like to apologize for this, as aTriz said for himself, it is not how I would like to be portrayed.

I have asked both TBZ and Taras to change the trust rating to a neutral one or remove it if they wish to. The loan from Taras was also for a private reason, though it got repaid as soon as I got paid by my employers.

I would have to agree that it sounds shady in this case, yet it was never my intention to do so. As for the scamming as you said, a user already knows my address.

Once more I apologize for this, and I hope to be on this forum for years to come, with or without trust.

Regards, - Aventhe

[KWH]

Padding Trust, ( at the very least), will skew others on the same Web Of Trust (WOT). Perhaps a Neutral should be used in many cases of personal opinion on a user. Examples: "I like what he said." , "I trust this person", "Sold a widget for 0.00001 BTC", "Great guy", and so on.
I have excluded several because a 1 trade, 2 post Newbie showed up as Trusted on my WOT.
Also, maybe the community should adopt a minimum buy/sell/trade value before actually handing out a Positive. I think this has been brought up before, IIR.

[Taras]

Today I have gotten several requests in PM to remove positive feedback from borrowers who I entrusted with bitcoins. One of these loans equated to a month's worth of expenses to me. Every person I've given positive feedback to I genuinely trust and would like to deal with again, and I do not leave feedback for just anyone I deal with. Am I not supposed to leave positive feedback for people that I trusted with what is, for me, a pretty significant amount of money? Should I just leave neutral feedback from now on? I never got DT etiquette classes.

I didn't even know that I was DT2 until a few months ago, or what DT even was. I'm not complaining about being on this list, but I must have been there for years without realizing it. Now all of a sudden I'm giving too much feedback, because I became more active as a lender? I almost didn't remove the feedback ratings that I was asked to, since I stand by what I said about those people. But, it's their accounts, and I decided to respect their wishes.

I did think to myself, that's a little absurd that I could just go buy an "email forwarding contract" and get green trust if I wanted to. No offense. But that isn't the same as borrowing $750 with zero collateral. I can't cancel a no-collateral loan due to non-payment. I hope everyone understands why I gave the feedback that I did last week.

I won't be giving any more positive feedback for the time being. It was never my intention to make aTriz and Aventhe et al look bad.

[TheButterZone]

I won't be giving any more positive feedback for the time being.

Not being able to honestly follow the forum feedback page's instruction for "or had a successful trade" because the rating system is shit & includes "Risked BTC amount" for apparently no fucking reason (not even weighting, as I explained my thoughts on above), makes me want to ragequit.

Instead, since I don't understand how DT works & probably never will, here are the newest additions to my trust list that I appended & got mixed in after I hit Update (or maybe I should just replace my entire trust list with "~DefaultTrust" or whatever will fuck the entire membership out, because you assholes can't or won't properly manage & read feedback):

Code:

~Chevas Regal
~Lone Shark
~LuanX3
~betudontbet
~bL4nkcode
~subSTRATA
~Roboabhishek
~zupdawg
~SM23031997
~CoolWave
~aTriz
~Decoded
~Aventhe
~BlockEye
~jamalaezaz

These now-excluded users (except aTriz & jamalaezaz) picked my 3letter1number.com domain. Why are you so certain nobody would want a short uncommon email domain anymore, hilariousetc? I personally am sick of seeing @gmail.com all the time, both aesthetically & because it makes everyone an easier target for having their emails hacked or legally/illegally viewed by totalitarians. You seem to have ignored where I said this:

On that front, save 1 person, the preference has been for my 3letter1number.com domain over my 13letter.com - which makes sense, as I'm not sure how many 3letter.com (did I forget about any 2letters?) email services are still alive other than Cox & AOL. ICQ, MSN (now Live.com, spammer/scammer central)?

ETA:
Send everyone (except jamalaezaz the mystery box customer, obviously) in the code box above, a PM with this paragraph quoted:
If you want to prove that you're actively using my email forwarding service, sign this message inside the quotes with the BTC address in your contract & PM it only to TheButterZone: "I waive the right to privacy specifically limited to TheButterZone publicly posting only the dates from my email forwarding traffic log."

[yahoo62278]

Padding Trust, ( at the very least), will skew others on the same Web Of Trust (WOT). Perhaps a Neutral should be used in many cases of personal opinion on a user. Examples: "I like what he said." , "I trust this person", "Sold a widget for 0.00001 BTC", "Great guy", and so on.
I have excluded several because a 1 trade, 2 post Newbie showed up as Trusted on my WOT.
Also, maybe the community should adopt a minimum buy/sell/trade value before actually handing out a Positive. I think this has been brought up before, IIR.

I'm in agreement with this right here. Doesn't feel right that a person can spend 8$ and get them a pretty green mark.


I cannot say 1 way or the other if these users were buying the email deal just for the green mark but I can say I find it strangely odd that Atriz, Decoded, and Jamal all purchased this. I would like the Atriz=decoded discussion reopened myself just because I feel that could be possible.

I know that jamal has a skype group in which decoded is a member and either decoded created an account and joined it with Atriz or Atriz joined it by referral. I also remember when I tagged Cazkys account from a thread in which only Atriz had replied in, I strangely got an add on skype from Decoded thanking me for tagging the guy. Coincidence? Maybe.

Regardless I do agree that positives and neutrals should be handed out more sparingly.

[aTriz]

I would like the Atriz=decoded discussion reopened myself just because I feel that could be possible.

Is there any other reasons that may make me an alt of decoded?

I also remember when I tagged Cazkys account from a thread in which only Atriz had replied in, I strangely got an add on skype from Decoded thanking me for tagging the guy. Coincidence? Maybe.

Cazkys was in decoded's campaign so I'm pretty sure he would have seen it.

[Lauda]

Instead, since I don't understand how DT works & probably never will, here are the newest additions to my trust list that I appended & got mixed in after I hit Update (or maybe I should just replace my entire trust list with "~DefaultTrust" or whatever will fuck the entire membership out, because you assholes can't or won't properly manage & read feedback):
-snip-

Excluding them doesn't do what you think it does IMO. Adding ~ to someone's name, as a DT2 member has the following effects:
1) It makes their ratings worthless from your perspective. This does nothing if they are not DT1, DT2 and you don't use any lower tiers (whichever they may be on). It does not affect what others see.
2) It may discredit their own ratings.
3) Your rating still has an effect on their total trust score and will be seen by others by default.

I would like the Atriz=decoded discussion reopened myself just because I feel that could be possible.

I would disagree, but you never know.

[yahoo62278]

I would like the Atriz=decoded discussion reopened myself just because I feel that could be possible.

I would disagree, but you never know.

Yes I could be 100% wrong but the thread did pose some interesting thoughts before it turned into xxxx=xxxxx=xxxxx=xxxxx and went way off topic.

I don't wanna hijack this thread any longer with my offtopic bs, so i'll stick to the topic on hand from here on out.

[TheButterZone]

Instead, since I don't understand how DT works & probably never will, here are the newest additions to my trust list that I appended & got mixed in after I hit Update (or maybe I should just replace my entire trust list with "~DefaultTrust" or whatever will fuck the entire membership out, because you assholes can't or won't properly manage & read feedback):
-snip-

Excluding them doesn't do what you think it does IMO. Adding ~ to someone's name, as a DT2 member has the following effects:
1) It makes their ratings worthless from your perspective. This does nothing if they are not DT1, DT2 and you don't use any lower tiers (whichever they may be on). It does not affect what others see.
2) It may discredit their own ratings.
3) Your rating still has an effect on their total trust score and will be seen by others by default.

WTF!? So that, plus "Risked BTC amount", plus "or had a successful trade"...

Can Bitcointalk's feedback system have just a single aspect that isn't a steaming pile of useless shit?