Negative trust everywhere

[whatthesith]

Hello, I see a lot of people here have negative trust. Also many bounty managers recently received negative trust, example: Hua_hui, Smauni, Wapinter, Tokensuite team.
It is not a problem? They are running bounty campaigns and they do not accept negative trust members, but they themselves have negative. And why negative trust are so hated by bounty managers? When you look at the comment under negative you see: Warning: Trade with extreme caution! But it is not said here that he is a bad, untrustworthy person. I understand that if someone cheating bounty campaigns than should not be accepted. But if someone does not pay a loan so why he should not be able to do  signature campaigns?
Thank you for your explanation.

[1714163299]

1714163299

[1714163299]

1714163299

[1714163299]

1714163299

[1714163299]

1714163299

[1714163299]

1714163299

[CoinEraser]

Hello, I see a lot of people here have negative trust. Also many bounty managers recently received negative trust, example: Hua_hui, Smauni, Wapinter, Tokensuite team.
It is not a problem? They are running bounty campaigns and they do not accept negative trust members, but they themselves have negative. And why negative trust are so hated by bounty managers? When you look at the comment under negative you see: Warning: Trade with extreme caution! But it is not said here that he is a bad, untrustworthy person. I understand that if someone cheating bounty campaigns than should not be accepted. But if someone does not pay a loan so why he should not be able to do  signature campaigns?
Thank you for your explanation.

With negative trust you can still do everything here in the forum, so also lead a bounty campaign. People have to decide for themselves if they want to join a bounty campaign led by someone with negative trust. Everyone has to take responsibility for themselves. This decision does not make the forum for you. 

[The Cryptovator]

Negetive trust isn't from forum admin. It's taged by default trust ( DT ) members. If they taged there should be reason on details. Without reason no one will taged you. Regarding taged managers , if any managers continue promote scam ICO than he will get tag if some one report it or make a thread about it. Once managers promote multiple scam ICO and promoters didn't get paid, probably that time managers get taged. Once a managers taged you will join his bounty or not it's depend on you. No one can say which ICO will success. Red taged can't join signeture , actually it's depend on managers. If managers want allow he can. There is no any forum rules. Your red tag for loan or spam there is no meaning. It's totally depend on managers or ICO owner.

[Jet Cash]

You have to differentiate between retaliatory red trust, and a deserved red trust. It's moved on from a simple trading rating, and it has become more of an indication of low moral fibre. Selling or buying merits is an indication of a weak character in my opinion, and so is account trading.

[tuncome]

I am also surprised to see projects having these members as managers. May be they are charging very less fees or accept every campiagn they get.

[speem28]

When you look at the comment under negative you see: Warning: Trade with extreme caution! But it is not said here that he is a bad, untrustworthy person.

That is just a default warning for members who has a red trust.

Members who has red trust are not accepted in most signature campaigns because it will affect the image of ICO they are promoting. Just put yourself in the shoes of a potential investor who is browsing this forum to look for a good campaign. If they see members with red trust that is promoting an ICO, their subconscious will tell them to ignore whatever ICO he is promoting because of that and look for other campaigns that may pique their interest.

[hilariousetc]

Any feedback that is left should be taken on a case by case basis and each person should read feedback left/received and make up their own mind whether they want to participate in that particular bounty run by them. Most of them have negatives after they started running the campaigns for whatever shadiness or incompetence they did. There are a lot of unscrupulous people looking for campaign management jobs for numerous reasons: 1) Extra payment for running them (and for a lot of them it's little to no work: post the thread and then pay the spammers at the end of it). 2) Siphon off money to your alts. 3) Run off with the funds if they ever get trusted with a substantial amount.

People don't like negative trust users because they don't want scammers advertising them. Would a brand want a disgraced athlete or criminal promoting their products? Nope. They usually get fired or lose contracts after even the whiff of a scandal because to be associated with them is potentially bad for business.

[zuevain]

yes op is right. Negative trust shouldnt be considered for applying for signature campaigns. But if the applicant is a bounty abuser, then he should not be allowed. But I think other negative trust participants should be allowed.

[digaran]

There are many campaigns accepting negative trust members, that means default trust holds no value in this forum. if we had a system where people could only tag scammers with real risked amount, we could identify who is really a scammer or who is not.
I have already suggested for a new system "reputation" but that's just me.

[qwertyup23]

There are many campaigns accepting negative trust members, that means default trust holds no value in this forum. if we had a system where people could only tag scammers with real risked amount, we could identify who is really a scammer or who is not.
I have already suggested for a new system "reputation" but that's just me.

With respect to campaigns in general, most bounty campaigns accept members despite having a negative trust. Even if someone is tagged with a negative trust, it is still the prerogative of the company to impose rules regarding the members they should accept. But in order to preserve the integrity of their profile, it is highly advisable that they should not accept any member with a red-trust.

Like what has been mentioned, the purpose of campaign signatures is for advertisement. If you see someone that has a red-trust which promotes the said company by using the signature, it gives this implication about the reputation of the company- which may ultimately affect the decisions of people into investing in their ICOs.

[digaran]

the purpose of campaign signatures is for advertisement. If you see someone that has a red-trust which promotes the said company by using the signature, it gives this implication about the reputation of the company- which may ultimately affect the decisions of people into investing in their ICOs.

And the purpose of negative trust is to identify scammers, when you start tagging everybody who disagrees with you or is against what you are doing the negative trust would lose it's purpose and people would distrust such a system. default trust is in the hands of a few and most of them are either abusing it or are indifferent about the abuse which is going on.

Negative trust doesn't mean somebody is scammer, so I don't see why we should care about letting red trusted member in a campaign? if we could have another system named reputation we could differentiate between real scammers and victims of trust abuse.
For example: am I a scammer if I call you trust abuser and receive a negative trust from you? the answer is no, so if I'm not a scammer but still have red trust score, trust system has lost it's purpose.

[Swenna]

if we could have another system named reputation we could differentiate between real scammers and victims of trust abuse.

I was actually thinking of the same thing such as this. So, mine was like, when giving a red tag, there can be options from which the member who will tag a certain user, can chose from. This way, one can easily identify why a user was tagged, especially bounty managers, without looking at their trust history.

Example: Let's say a forum member 1 was spamming the forum and there was forum member 2 who decided to red tag Forum member 1. The latter can choose from different options as to where Forum Member 1 actions falls into. Like A. Spammer/Trolls B. Scammer C.Alt Account D. Hacked Account etc.
When one of this options where clicked, it will automatically reflect on Forum Member 1's reputation.

This way, bounty managers and other members can easily determine whether an account can be accepted in signature campaigns, in bounties, to transact with, and others. This notion is also because of the fact that members with red tagged are often misunderstood and viewed as all scammers despite having different issues with regards to their tags. This is because red tag has become a stigma, a symbol for scammers.

Anyway, as this was an additional opinion, of course there will be some cons with it. There of course is the abuse of this proposed idea.

[dekabrin]

There are many campaigns accepting negative trust members, that means default trust holds no value in this forum. if we had a system where people could only tag scammers with real risked amount, we could identify who is really a scammer or who is not.
I have already suggested for a new system "reputation" but that's just me.

What do you really want ? Hard to interpret your suggestion as it is contradicting.

[Crypto_Sassy]

Hello, I see a lot of people here have negative trust. Also many bounty managers recently received negative trust, example: Hua_hui, Smauni, Wapinter, Tokensuite team.
It is not a problem? They are running bounty campaigns and they do not accept negative trust members, but they themselves have negative. And why negative trust are so hated by bounty managers? When you look at the comment under negative you see: Warning: Trade with extreme caution! But it is not said here that he is a bad, untrustworthy person. I understand that if someone cheating bounty campaigns than should not be accepted. But if someone does not pay a loan so why he should not be able to do  signature campaigns?
Thank you for your explanation.

This is not the question about someone is able to do the work or not but it is more on the moral ethics.
Let me give you an example. Person A was caught in drunk driving case and he apply for driving position in a company. Do you think Company will accept person A? As far driving skills of person A is considered , they have not changed and "A" will be able to drive.

Since Person "A" already broke trust so it will very hard to give job to person A.

In other words, once you are framed,whatever the reason, it just bring down your credbity.

(Same thing happens in real life too, your background check should be clear before joining any job, nobody cares how good you can be in workplace if you have some criminal proceedings against you.)

[digaran]

There are many campaigns accepting negative trust members, that means default trust holds no value in this forum. if we had a system where people could only tag scammers with real risked amount, we could identify who is really a scammer or who is not.
I have already suggested for a new system "reputation" but that's just me.

What do you really want ? Hard to interpret your suggestion as it is contradicting.

I want to have a system where only scammers receive a red tag not giving freedom to a selected few and let them virtually do as they please. you either get tagged with a risked BTC amount and will have a red trust score or you'd get tagged with no risked BTC amount and receive negative reputation score.
Let the trust system to be used only for scammers and trades with real Bitcoin amounts being involved to determine the trust scores.

We shouldn't put every egg in a single basket and say whoever receives negative trust is scammer or untrustworthy. I suggest for 2 systems driving from trust system, one would be reputation score system and the other would be trust score system.

In this forum it doesn't matter if you are not a scammer, once you receive a red trust people would call you scammer and that is wrong in so many ways.

[TheUltraElite]

Hello, I see a lot of people here have negative trust. Also many bounty managers recently received negative trust, example: Hua_hui, Smauni, Wapinter, Tokensuite team.
It is not a problem? They are running bounty campaigns and they do not accept negative trust members, but they themselves have negative.

They have all been marked red with some "reference" to the tag. If you would read and comprehend the situations posted there then you would not make this thread.

And why negative trust are so hated by bounty managers? When you look at the comment under negative you see: Warning: Trade with extreme caution! But it is not said here that he is a bad, untrustworthy person. I understand that if someone cheating bounty campaigns than should not be accepted.

Negative trust allows bounty managers to segregate the people who have cheated or used alt accounts to abuse campaigns in the past. That "scammer tag" is same as a cheater because technically that person has "scammed" the ICO team and the fellow participants from getting their tokens. Thus they are "Untrustworthy"

But if someone does not pay a loan so why he should not be able to do  signature campaigns?

Because they are a defaulter. Duh

[mobilazy]

It's up to the team and bounty hunters to decide whether they deserved red trust or not. It's not a secret about the "trust war" going on on the forum. Personally, I regret I participated in Jamal's bounty campaign because the reward was too low. So next time I will closely monitor if BM has a red trust. But Hua_hui bounty was managed very well despite the red trust. So it's not 100% working for me.

[samarnaaz]

With negative trust if no one can participate there are many participator who joining many campaign...
is it risky for the participators ?
 

[crypto_girl08]

Yeah red trust and ban also everywhere i have my Full member account but unfortunately i was ban or being  hacked. Well i guess i will be posting or will try to contact the admin later for it.

[mazdafunsun]

Hello, I see a lot of people here have negative trust. Also many bounty managers recently received negative trust, example: Hua_hui, Smauni, Wapinter, Tokensuite team.
It is not a problem? They are running bounty campaigns and they do not accept negative trust members, but they themselves have negative. And why negative trust are so hated by bounty managers? When you look at the comment under negative you see: Warning: Trade with extreme caution! But it is not said here that he is a bad, untrustworthy person. I understand that if someone cheating bounty campaigns than should not be accepted. But if someone does not pay a loan so why he should not be able to do  signature campaigns?
Thank you for your explanation.

I have  to agree, I am seeing that there is more negative trust appearing recently , i suppose that merit abusers are majority.
but in this case the negative trust is because tokensuite team is not doing their research and are promotng scam ICOS.

The negative trust rule in this case is just hypocritical and i suppose nothing will change in their campaigns.