neg trust with 0 risked BTC shouldn't change color of trust rating

[Kluge]

I actually thought this is how the ratings worked, but it appears this is no longer (or was never) the case.

While I think it's good for trusted people to be able to leave non-definite feedback (a warning based on unsavory activities, instead of only allowing negative trust ratings where someone was actually scammed), I think there should be ability to leave a kind of "non-definite" cautionary warning without changing the color of the user's "forum" trust rating (the info panel displayed when on a trust-displaying subforum - rather than on their trust profile).

Maybe instead, if a trusted user gives a user a negative rating with 0 risked BTC, the forum trust rating panel could display with the negative numbers, but not the big red warning display. In cases where the user is, say, trying to distribute malware, and it's proven malware, then a risked amount of a Satoshi could turn the forum rating of the malware-spreading user red. Maybe this is a complicated check to implement?

[tysat]

Something to allow for a warning or neutral type feedback would be great.  It'd definitely be something that I would use a lot.

[Raize]

While I would agree with this, can you go look at my sent feedback and ask what I should be doing for the BitSynCom and wongRAP ratings I gave out?

I'm primarily interested in making sure that I have given them an accurate rating to forewarn people (especially on wongRAP)

For BitSyncom, I have lost both BTC and my Icarus devices, which, if you read my signature, I estimate to be ~18 BTC. Should I put 18 BTC even though I cannot *prove* that was an actual loss? It was, after all estimated in valuations of shipping costs denominated in BTC as well as lost mining revenue as well as lost trade-in value.

For wongRAP, I have extensive evidence in captured screenshots and web links that definitively identify wongRAP as being the account held by someone intentionally scamming and bragging about pretending to be a female as well as a second line of identification that pits that same person as holding the accounts he claims are someone else's but does not realize I also can confirm are actually him. I did not donate to wongRAP because I knew it was a scam, but shouldn't folks be warned about this? Especially since there is evidence that funds were acquired from unsuspecting Bitcoiners duped by him and sent to his donation address?

So I guess I should ask, what should we do if we cannot accurately state how much BTC was lost, and if we weren't scammed but we know beyond a shadow of doubt that someone is scamming?

[BobMarley]

sounds like a great idea  I support it!

[Welsh]

Neutral ratings would be good. However, if someone has linked to a virus etc, I normally put down risked btc to "0". Because, I myself didn't lose anything. A Neutral rating could be good, if you just want to tell someone to be careful.

[b!z]

If someone is sending malware and you put risked x satoshis, it wouldn't be a completely accurate trust rating then, since you did not risk any money.

[TheButterZone]

At the risk of filling up the left column with any more stuff, I wonder if the ratings should be split. Trust ratings only for risked BTC, and a separate category of ratings for sending malware/other scumbag behavior, more obvious than just the subtle Ignore highlight level. Or have the Ignore button ask for a reason/reference URL, and put those reasons on the user's "Ignored Why?" page, linked to the right of Ignore.

Personally, if someone's trust rating just has a negative in it, and it hasn't changed color, it will not catch my eye as much, unless I specifically want to look into them. If there can be only one rating section per forum, I would say yellow should be the color for all 0-risked BTC ratings.

[trevos]

I agree that there should be a yellow trust rating for other stuff (0 btc risked, but bad behavior).


However, I also think that it is unfair that some people like TradeFortress or John can leave a (fake?) trust ratings to anyone that they do not like and immediately put the guy in red, and in trouble.

Yes, they are trusted.
Yes, they did good things.


But it gave them too much power....

[Kluge]

I agree that there should be a yellow trust rating for other stuff (0 btc risked, but bad behavior).


However, I also think that it is unfair that some people like TradeFortress or John can leave a (fake?) trust ratings to anyone that they do not like and immediately put the guy in red, and in trouble.

Yes, they are trusted.
Yes, they did good things.


But it gave them too much power....

This is why I made this thread. Someone came to me and asked I remove positive trust from a person because they left unjustified negative feedback. I thought it was fine because the person who neg-repped did not enter an amount risked amount, which I didn't think caused the "on-forum" trust rating to change to that. He pointed out I was wrong.

In many ways, trust gives people all the power of a moderator in commerce (except to literally censor the person), but with none of the responsibility. I mean - with someone like TF or John who've accumulated so much trust, there's around a 0% chance of revoking their positive trust rating in the default list. I don't dislike the system, though - I just think it'd be nice if they could "moderate" without having to give that big red might-as-well-be-a-scammer tag - basically just give people more options in moderating. Alternately, something like a "tag" system for negative feedback could be interesting. When leaving feedback, there could be a box for up to x short tags. If the person leaving feedback is trusted by the person browsing the forum, those tags would appear in the on-forum trust panel.

[naphto]

This is why I made this thread. Someone came to me and asked I remove positive trust from a person because they left unjustified negative feedback. I thought it was fine because the person who neg-repped did not enter an amount risked amount, which I didn't think caused the "on-forum" trust rating to change to that. He pointed out I was wrong.

In many ways, trust gives people all the power of a moderator in commerce (except to literally censor the person), but with none of the responsibility. I mean - with someone like TF or John who've accumulated so much trust, there's around a 0% chance of revoking their positive trust rating in the default list. I don't dislike the system, though - I just think it'd be nice if they could "moderate" without having to give that big red might-as-well-be-a-scammer tag - basically just give people more options in moderating. Alternately, something like a "tag" system for negative feedback could be interesting. When leaving feedback, there could be a box for up to x short tags. If the person leaving feedback is trusted by the person browsing the forum, those tags would appear in the on-forum trust panel.

I think that trust ratings should at least be moderated, and it would be possible to get removed obviously abusive ratings

[DiamondCardz]

Or maybe create trust categories? Such as, when you rate someone, you have the categories:

• Trade - positive trust
• Warning - neutral trust
• Malware - negative trust
• Scam - negative trust

Regardless of risked amount, although of course a high risked amount positive trust is worth more than a 0-risk positive trust, like before.