DefaultTrust changes

[marlboroza]

blockchain proof

You...you...racist!

However it's even less likely that theymos would blacklist the dipshit so there's that too.

I wonder, what's that blacklist button supposed to do, and when? Theymos said this:

However, I reserve the right to remove you and blacklist you from future selection if you engage in egregious and obvious abuse, or if multiple known alt accounts could be selected.

So what is keeping him from using that button, I mean, how many proofs theymos really need to open his eyes?

[1714610727]

1714610727

[1714610727]

1714610727

[1714610727]

1714610727

[1714610727]

1714610727

[1714610727]

1714610727

[bonesjonesreturns]

blockchain proof

You...you...racist!

However it's even less likely that theymos would blacklist the dipshit so there's that too.

I wonder, what's that blacklist button supposed to do, and when? Theymos said this:

However, I reserve the right to remove you and blacklist you from future selection if you engage in egregious and obvious abuse, or if multiple known alt accounts could be selected.

So what is keeping him from using that button, I mean, how many proofs theymos really need to open his eyes?

Yes I agree about the blacklist button requiring work.

1. It only blacklists proven scammers from DT1 and not default trust entirely. This is not effective.
2. It hasn't been used against proven scammers and their supporters and protectors like you. So perhaps you are right he needs to open his eyes.

I mean you requested to be kicked out of DT and yet there you are still there abusing the trust system? Against your will no less lol

Theymos does need to open his eyes and engage in debate publicly  regarding scammers.
He tends to just say they seem okay, and vanish before allowing himself to work publicly through the independently verifiable evidence.

Seems other high ranking members have had no issue seeing the evidence and accepting what it demonstrates.

The more people are pushing theymos to be extra attentive to certain members near or on DT they are certainly  forcing him to look at all scammy members that are on or nearly on DT1.

1 simple rule for DT1 membership or default trust at all, must be: if there is undeniable evidence of scamming then you must be blacklisted.

That is just fucking obvious.  I mean denying this is insanity.
Yes the decentralized experiment may be fun but there should be no proven scammers on DT.

It should be a responsibility of DT1 if they are presented with conclusive evidence of scamming they must create a warning.
We have DT that refuse to act against others that have scammed just because they are on Dt.

We have DT1 defending scammers?

When will it be sorted out?

Be specific if you wish to refute any part of this post.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Today, when viewing the entire list of DT members, I saw that one of the hacked accounts is currently DT2. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=18021

    40. 18021: JusticeForYou (Trust: +0 / =2 / -4) (21 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

TECSHARE has him included in his custom trust list. TECSHARE has some shitty people in his trust list, he’s always on some weird one man crusade to mould DT how he wants it so he adds scummy posters to his trust list.

[bonesjonesreturns]

Today, when viewing the entire list of DT members, I saw that one of the hacked accounts is currently DT2.  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=18021

   40. 18021: JusticeForYou (Trust: +0 / =2 / -4) (21 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

There is no conclusive proof that is a hacked account. Theymos was 70 or 80%%?  inclined to believe it was under new  control.
That is very different to conclusive proof that for instance there are those on default trust that are scammers or willing scam facilitators.

There is also the possibility that even if it were under new control it could have been sold. According to many DT that should not preclude you from even DT1 if they are your pals.

Thanks for mentioning it now can you put the same effort into pointing out proven scammers and willing scam facilitators that are on DT1that also control accounts that have been up for sale.

I dont buy into the there should be a warning on his account because he may have acquired the account if not all those having acquired accounts or possibly acquired accounts dont have warnings. I dont believe being VIP gives you more leverage than DT1 merit cycler to the novice user.

Thanks rat.

I would also be very wary of lfc bitcoins opinion on who should be on DT. That pathetic weasel was caught out excluding those he didnt want to exclude on the orders of lauda because he is scared of them as he admitted.
You are basically hearing the opinions of lauda the scammer who orders lfc bitcoin around .

Lfc adds scammers and willing scam facilitators that are controlling accounts that have been up for sale or sold so his bogus criticism of TS is kind of silly considering his own observable record here dealing with trust inclusions / exclusions

The reader should be fully aware of the full picture before making any decisions.

Hope my post was helpful. If you find something incorrect please let me know immediately.  

[Lauda]

Today, when viewing the entire list of DT members, I saw that one of the hacked accounts is currently DT2. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=18021

    40. 18021: JusticeForYou (Trust: +0 / =2 / -4) (21 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Exclude the members including the account.

[marlboroza]

TECSHARE has him included in his custom trust list. TECSHARE has some shitty people in his trust list, he’s always on some weird one man crusade to mould DT how he wants it so he adds scummy posters to his trust list.

That's really funny, TECSHARE you say? No way!

I started topic a year ago about TECSHARE's trust network and mentioned account JusticeForYou in few posts and some other accounts as well. He was off DT few times but somehow he always get back in.

Exclude the members including the account.

Agreed. Users who are not able to use system properly and/or are using system to troll shouldn't be in system in first place.

[bonesjonesreturns]

I was weighing up who to exclude when I finally get around to updating my trust list..
Theymos assessment of justiceforyou suggests the account could have or even most probably has switched hands ...hmmm okay so let's compare to


So we have the suggestion of lfc bitcoin (lauda puppet) I will research him

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5136759.0

Oh that doesn't look good



Then perhaps I should listen to lauda?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231720.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0

Err perhaps not one I will take trust inclusion tips from



Then what of moronbozo aka malboroza

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5246908.0

Oh dear that looks terrible



Edit I see another trust abuser and colluder has come to bestow advise


I wonder what jollygood would say

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5229023.0

Hmm obviously corrupt, and a weasel


Imagine if those 4 scumbags included each other on DT? Or have done very recently ??


Then I looked at tecshare and for nearly 10 yrs no evidence of financially motivated wrongdoing and impeccable trading history

Perhaps he could be one to listen to

Always conduct thorough research yourself before listening to others trust include suggestions or demands.

When 4 confirmed dirtbags are pushing you one way best to strongly resist and do your own research.

When you consider they are crying about a possible change of account control and screaming that should preclude them from DT and even.warrant a tag but then are supporting or have supported proven scammers probable extortionists and willful scam facilitators who have traded or attempted to trade accounts you see they are full of shit.

Sorry to bring inconvenient truths and some real context to their double standards and obvious colluding bullshit.


Their logic does not work. They claim this possible or probable account control switch possibly increases the chance he will leverage his VIP status to scam or try to scam or facilitate a scam.  A possibility of a possibility. But they willingly support members who have already proven they will scam or proven they will willingly facilitate scamming ? That's not right is it?

Is that right?

This is not an endorsement to add anyone only some fair and true context to consider.

[JollyGood]

I guess he still be extremely hurt that his so-called guild unsurprisingly never took off, after all it was designed as mechanism for him to attention seek his way in to every post in that thread for as long as possible.

I think it might even be possible for TECSHARE to be an average-level poster in the forum (a step up from being mediocre) if he just left behind his association with known merit abuse and fake trust circle members along with improving his general conduct.

TECSHARE has him included in his custom trust list. TECSHARE has some shitty people in his trust list, he’s always on some weird one man crusade to mould DT how he wants it so he adds scummy posters to his trust list.

That's really funny, TECSHARE you say? No way!

I started topic a year ago about TECSHARE's trust network and mentioned account JusticeForYou in few posts and some other accounts as well. He was off DT few times but somehow he always get back in.

Exclude the members including the account.

Agreed. Users who are not able to use system properly and/or are using system to troll shouldn't be in system in first place.

[DaveF]

I keep posting variations of this and guess I am going to have to keep doing it till you all tell me to shut up or there are some more useful changes.

I really keep wishing that they would kill the entire feedback / trust system and do something entirely different. And make sure people understand that merit has nothing to do with the 1st to.

I would like to think that people TRUST me for dealing with stuff in terms of buying & selling I and *feel* that I have earned it.
I would also like to think that I should have earned some nice feedback for helping users / supporting projects / etc.
I would also like to think that the merit I have earned for good / useful posts is justified.

But those 3 things are entirely different. The 1st 2 are merged here (trust / feedback) and some people think the 3rd matters with the other 2 for some reason.

Using the default trust settings there are people on here who have a 10+ rating that have NEVER as far as I can tell had a trade.
SO PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT YES I TRUST THEIR *JUDGEMENT* BUT WE HAVE NO PROOF THAT YOU CAN TRUST THEM WITH BTC OR $ OR WHATEVER.

Let's pick 3 non random people and look at their TRUST # as a default new person. This is to prove a point so the data is specific. I could go out and find others but it's a nice day outside and want to go for a ride so I am cutting corners.

I pick:
suchmoon https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771
bittawm: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=144811
rxalts: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2514450

Picked them because I REALLY trust the judgment from suchmoon (except for one thing a while ago) and I have done many and seen many successful trades with the other 2.

Coming in as a new user looking at their trust using the default trust settings that many users do you see in order above as of now a +14 , +15 , +19
So bittawm who has done thousands and thousands of dollars of trades in the hardware section is only 1 above suchmoon. And rxalts who has done an astounding amount of trades in collectibles is +4 above him.

suchmoon who has a amazing and truly amount of merit that is well earned and deserved and has helped bust scammers going well above the call of duty to support this forum should be and is a well respected and well positive feedbacked (yeah I know that is not a word) user.

But and this is where a lot of us on the marketplace subforums get bent out of shape... trusted. Unless I am missing something no BTC has ever changed hands between suchmoon for a thing. Yes suchmoon helped fund a thing for philipma1957 when BTC was a lot cheaper but thats it.

And I feel to a certain extent and know to a certain extent that this is part of the issue that some people, not just me, are feeling.
It's the "I work hard to run my business, and always give the other person a good deal so everyone gets what they want. And then in the end a person who has never bought or sold a thing has more trust then me? WTF???" You can't go on most other sites and leave a positive trust for someone you have never had monetary dealings with. You can leave a "feedback" but you can't say you trust them with $.

If suchmoon comes and says don't trust user x they are a scammer, I would take another look at that user before doing a deal with them.

On the other hand, if sushmoon decides they have had enough of this petty BS and chooses to exit scam. (I know they are not going to but it's to make a point) and posts an auction for a 25 BTC Casascius how many people are going to escrow vs. how many people are going to say it's suchmoon and just send the BTC as suchmoon walks away with $250k+ while people are still demanding escrow for $325 deals from users because they only have 10 trades and no or very little merit.

We all get caught up in our bubble sections of the forum and forget that for whatever reason there are other sections with other people who see it differently for whatever reason.

Sorry about the wall of text it just hit me again this AM when working on a deal with someone. I actually discounted what they said because they were a relative new user with almost no feedback and no merit. Till I noticed the little that they had done totaled more then $50k and I was worried about $325...

Stay safe and enjoy the rest of the weekend.

-Dave

[suchmoon]

But and this is where a lot of us on the marketplace subforums get bent out of shape... trusted. Unless I am missing something no BTC has ever changed hands between suchmoon for a thing. Yes suchmoon helped fund a thing for philipma1957 when BTC was a lot cheaper but thats it.

Well... there was at least one recent thing where a substantial amount of money changed hands. I don't hang out in the marketplace though, that's true.

On the other hand, if sushmoon decides they have had enough of this petty BS and chooses to exit scam. (I know they are not going to but it's to make a point) and posts an auction for a 25 BTC Casascius how many people are going to escrow vs. how many people are going to say it's suchmoon and just send the BTC as suchmoon walks away with $250k+ while people are still demanding escrow for $325 deals from users because they only have 10 trades and no or very little merit.

I hope no one sends me (or anyone) 25 BTC just like that. Same thing would apply if someone had tons of merit and 500 feedback ratings for $10 trades and loans, doesn't it? Trust rating is not a replacement for due diligence, it's a tool to help with due diligence.


Nitpicking aside, I don't disagree that trading vs non-trading feedback is a bit of a mess. But how do you fix it? E.g. splitting it into two separate scores wouldn't solve the issue. Who's gonna police it and ensure that the trades actually happened?

[DaveF]

Well... there was at least one recent thing where a substantial amount of money changed hands. I don't hang out in the marketplace though, that's true.

Missed that, but it does kind of illustrate my point if I missed it how many others did too?

Nitpicking aside, I don't disagree that trading vs non-trading feedback is a bit of a mess. But how do you fix it? E.g. splitting it into two separate scores wouldn't solve the issue. Who's gonna police it and ensure that the trades actually happened?

The users & 1 very part time moderator. That's how it works / worked in the motorcycle forums.

If you and I do not do a PUBLIC trade and for some reason you leave me feedback - or + you get a warning and a temp suspension.
The 2nd time it happens permaban. This is usually pointed out to the mod by other users.

If you bother the mod with this user did not do this trade when it's obvious that it did happen, temp ban 1st offence 2 weeks, 2nd 2 months, 3rd permaban

If someone keeps getting + feedback for things that cannot be proven (padding feedback) then the users can and do step in and you become a need 3rd party to trade.
At that point if you post stuff without agreeing to send though an escrow (free at that point) for a period of time (usually 1 month per "unverified" item) you also get a perma ban. There are a lot of shops willing to escrow for free because it "makes them look good" and <cough> might get the person getting the goods to walk in the door and buy stuff....

This way if people keep leaving me + trust for no reason and other people complain it is kind of policed.

If I keep reporting people that leave me + trust for no reason (they are trying to make me have to go though escrow) I have no penalty.
etc.

It's not perfect but it does work. There are a lot of shady parts dealers out there and although some do slip through it does help.

The one thing that one of them did before shutting down was an aggregate system. Someone with massive positive feedback like minerjones would count more then getting positive feedback from some new user. Getting negative feedback from anyone counted the same no matter what. This helped fight some big sellers with massive positive feedback from crushing the new guy.

And yes you could setup a bunch of shill accounts to "buy" from you, but it is really obvious to long term users. New guy sells 20 sets of tires to 20 new users and ignores all long term members.

Also, unlike here since most of those transactions are with CC / PayPal there is a massively different dynamic. On the vehicle service for cash side it is a massive aid.

Personal observation and I know I have said it before: There might be contention and strife on this forum but compared to the car / bike world we are all holding hands while skipping thought a field of flowers singing Kumbaya.

-Dave  

Remember in the past week or so there have only been 40 threads or so in the hardware side and possibly 80 in the collectibles side so it's really not that much.
Once you figure in digital goods / other stuff it does become massive but that could be done slightly differently.

[LoyceV]

Using the default trust settings there are people on here who have a 10+ rating that have NEVER as far as I can tell had a trade.

I guess I'm one of those too: the majority of my feedback has nothing to do with trades (but the largest deals I've made never resulted in receiving feedback).

I think your idea of positive feedback is still based on the old feedback system. Currently, it's this:

Code:

Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.

I think this is valid for suchmoon, for you, and for many other users.

Coming in as a new user looking at their trust using the default trust settings that many users do you see in order above as of now a +14 , +15 , +19
So bittawm who has done thousands and thousands of dollars of trades in the hardware section is only 1 above suchmoon. And rxalts who has done an astounding amount of trades in collectibles is +4 above him.

I have a slightly different view: I've seen new users on the Collectibles board with many positive feedbacks for trading items. Some even received 2 positives for 1 trade (including one from the escrow). I've never bought collectibles because I value my privacy, but I've always thought of it as an easy board for new users to get positive feedback.

It's the "I work hard to run my business, and always give the other person a good deal so everyone gets what they want. And then in the end a person who has never bought or sold a thing has more trust then me? WTF???"

It's quite easy to earn positive feedback for actual trades, but it's a hell of a lot of work to earn it by being a generic good forum user. I've put a lot of effort into this forum, even without many trades, and there's no way I'd risk my reputation over anything.

On the other hand, if sushmoon decides they have had enough of this petty BS and chooses to exit scam. (I know they are not going to but it's to make a point) and posts an auction for a 25 BTC Casascius how many people are going to escrow vs. how many people are going to say it's suchmoon and just send the BTC as suchmoon walks away with $250k+ while people are still demanding escrow for $325 deals from users because they only have 10 trades and no or very little merit.

I wouldn't dare ask for 25 BTC to be sent to me for any reason, and most people should be scrutinized if they do. I'd ask to be trusted $200 and some people would probably trust me with a lot more, but somewhere between $200 and 25BTC is where most people will draw the line. I don't know where that line is, and I like to think many people trust me because I'm not going to get close to that line.

If you and I do not do a PUBLIC trade and for some reason you leave me feedback - or + you get a warning and a temp suspension.
The 2nd time it happens permaban. This is usually pointed out to the mod by other users.

That conflicts with this forum's mission to be as free as possible. It's also easy to "cheat": take a small loan or do a small currency exchange and you can get your feedback.

[bonesjonesreturns]

I fully agree.

Clearly merit has been conflated with trust.  That entire premise is ridiculous and highly dangerous.

Merit = easy to abuse, actually it is pretty impossible to punished for abusing merit. Can be super quick to accumulate If you get in and tickle the ears of a merit source or have a merit source as an alt or a group of friends with merits to get rid of.
There is no correlation between merit and trust in financial terms at all.
The smartest and very best poster could well be the best super scammer here waiting for his big exit scam.

The same could be true for stacking up with lots of small and medium trades. However if they have conducted lot of confirmed high or medium value trades with other legends and heros that have done the same in turn with entirely separate long term members then you start to see that you are pretty safe with trades of a medium value. I mean you can say they are all colluding and farming trust but that is a hell of a lot harder than accumulating merit  much much harder.

On top of that the damage and time to rebuild that again is vastly longer and harder than simply grabbing up merits via popular views or even providing genuine quality posts. Even the most unpopular accounts likely have popular accounts since you wouldn't want to approach important debates glowing red and having gross bias against your points before you get started.

So clearly medium to high value trades among several different long term accounts that are frequent traders with others is a much more powerful guarantee of financial security.

Even then a super scammer likely to extract 100s of btc would be able to game this assumed trust and leverage that to do a super scam.
But for the smaller sub 5btc to 1btc then you may be okay.

Activity can not be gamed. So you have to consider what say a 2000 activity account with great history is worth and the time to replace it ?  That combined with an in depth trading history investigation  and perhaps a small merit consideration would be sensible.

You want to send 5 btc to a 6 month old account with no trading history with 500 earned merit?
Or
You want to send 5btc to a 5 year old known, recognised and active trader with many medium to high value trades with other frequent high value traders with 65 earned merits  ?

You want to lose you 6 month old account that accrued 500 merits saying popular things in meta?
You want to lose your 5yr old account with huge trust ratings from frequent high value trades over many years with others of a similar renown?

One is easier to fully automate but entirely unreliable to the point of being clearly dangerous the other will take some rules that need manual assessment and enforcement but could provide some credible security.

Of course an escrow with impeccable long term history is best for super large trades.

For sure though merit had nothing to do with trust in financial terms. It was kind of a strange move to infer one from the other.
Just like a super honest trader may not be the most valuable poster ( not that merit seems to have any correlation with the real value of a post either).

The only persons that will tell you merit is the best indicator for trust are those that give lots of it to each other.
Trust and merit are both systems of control that control pretty much every aspect of the forum. They should have always been isolated from each other as much as possible.

Best way is to thoroughly research the person and you can really only do that if they have a long history and lots of trades. There is no other conceivable way even attempt to estimate  if they are financially trustworthy.

This was clearly stated when it was announced merit now equals trust.
Actually it was clearly stated it would be a terrible error to connect the merit and trust control systems in anyway before it then went and happened

Another issue with having those that are very politically involved with the forum that post a lot specifically in meta by default having vast power over the trust system is that it is frequently abused to create warnings of financial danger to enforce their political agenda. This impacts upon free speech and seriously dilutes the value of the red tags and type 1 flag warnings among other serious issues.

So yes I would say that I am a very strong critic of the merit = trust fallacy.

To give 1 clear example of the implications of this

A legend that once fought the largest scam here and forced a 2 000 000 000 usd compensation offer to the entire forum was given a scammer tag by the very scammer he busted for saying he would encourage others to examine his post history and find out the truth.

Thay trust abused legend had been a pinnacle of trust and had once held over 2400 ltc worth of coins for many months for a community and could have sold them at anytime and left the forum.
That member had never even traded or attempted to trade only once in 7yrs and it went fine
He created a prediction thread that picked 6 of the top 12 largest gainers of the last bull run before it took place and was publically thanked by members for making them millionaires from nothing?

So how is it there is big fat scam tag over all of his threads applied by the same scammer he busted who was scamming investors and then trying to prevent the board receiving a 2000 000 000 usd compensation offer?

Because this new system is full of blunders.

Really if you game this system correctly you need not pull direct scams you simply use the merit and trust metrics to ensure you are one of a self elected few that meet the " requirements " for the highest paying sig campaigns or escrow jobs or other rev streams.

So you have scammers punishing real contributors who have helped vast members here get fair treatment and avoid being scammed. Then the scammers get the best sig spots and escrow jobs.

This is undeniably true. If you are able to debunk of that then please do.

The introduction of this system literally brought members back into DT that were sitting glowing red as pariahs based on real untrustworthy actions they had been busted for.  It was a dreadful mistake and ever since that point the truth has been far more difficult to present here. Legitimate sensible and undeniable criticism is met with all kinds of futile resistance such as trying to label observable independently verifiable events as " trolling " or even " lies"  or else they will attempt to get you banned for nitpicking crap.

Merit is cancer in general but then in this new trust system essential saying merit is trust is pure forum massacre type recklessness.

We need reliable credible and accurate warnings for scammers or those displaying  typical traits of setting up a scam or attempting to scam with minimal impact upon free speech ( legitimate).

This new system crushes free speech and fails to provide credible consistent reliable and valuable warnings. it waters them down with bast proportion of tags for political disagreements or even whistleblowing on scammers.

The latest trend is mutual red tag removal between scammers to obtain clean trust scores.

Sorry these trust changes are a complete failure and disaster. I am not even a theymos critic on a personal level.  He has been a very great warden here for years and the board still has to be the best place to discuss cryto on the planet and the free speech is there if you dont mind being branded a scammer or troll by real scammers.  

However it is not as good as it was under the old system. That was hand selected by theymos. How could it be he has the best interest of the forum in mind. Everyone else will always just have their best interests in mind. Hence will game the shit out of any system that is not locked down tight. Hence the swathes of issues i have correctly mentioned.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

JusticeForYou - No longer DT2.

I’m a poet & I didn’t even know it.

[suchmoon]

[...]

Remember in the past week or so there have only been 40 threads or so in the hardware side and possibly 80 in the collectibles side so it's really not that much.
Once you figure in digital goods / other stuff it does become massive but that could be done slightly differently.

It's unlikely that anything like that would ever be implemented here - theymos is a big fan of the decentralized unmoderated trust system. OTOH, anyone could technically create a trust sub-network similar to what you're describing by including only users who follow certain rules (e.g. post feedback only for verifiable trades). You can do it yourself. You wouldn't be able to ban users but you can exclude those who don't follow your rules, basically nullifying their feedback in your sub-network. Granted this wouldn't be the DEFAULT trust network, at most it would be just part of the default network (as long you're in DT1) but hey, freedom of choice.

[Lesbian Cow]

LoyceV brought up a point regarding collectibles that is both accurate and something I feel I can comment on. 

I am not sure exactly when, but somewhere around 2016 the way we leave trust feedback in the Collectibles section changed.  Prior you only left trust if you actually trusted the other party in the deal.  For example, if you sent first.  If you bought something from me and paid prior to me shipping I would not leave you trust as I did not have to trust you in the trade.  Now, positive trust is left for a positive trade.  If the trade is successful both parties generally leave a positive.

I preferred the old way as it was actually a trust system.

[Timelord2067]

JusticeForYou - No longer DT2.

I’m a poet & I didn’t even know it.

Take care @LFC_Bitcoin - I did a similar thing and it wasn't taken very well.

[DaveF]

LoyceV brought up a point regarding collectibles that is both accurate and something I feel I can comment on. 

I am not sure exactly when, but somewhere around 2016 the way we leave trust feedback in the Collectibles section changed.  Prior you only left trust if you actually trusted the other party in the deal.  For example, if you sent first.  If you bought something from me and paid prior to me shipping I would not leave you trust as I did not have to trust you in the trade.  Now, positive trust is left for a positive trade.  If the trade is successful both parties generally leave a positive.

I preferred the old way as it was actually a trust system.

It was more of a slow evolution then a hard line in time. Not sure why or how but it did happen. I think that is why I have been pushing pushing for separating trade trust and forum feedback. Perhaps because feedback from other parts of the forum the collectibles (and hardware) slowly morphed.

Stay safe.

-Dave

[philipma1957]

LoyceV brought up a point regarding collectibles that is both accurate and something I feel I can comment on. 

I am not sure exactly when, but somewhere around 2016 the way we leave trust feedback in the Collectibles section changed.  Prior you only left trust if you actually trusted the other party in the deal.  For example, if you sent first.  If you bought something from me and paid prior to me shipping I would not leave you trust as I did not have to trust you in the trade.  Now, positive trust is left for a positive trade.  If the trade is successful both parties generally leave a positive.

I preferred the old way as it was actually a trust system.

It was more of a slow evolution then a hard line in time. Not sure why or how but it did happen. I think that is why I have been pushing pushing for separating trade trust and forum feedback. Perhaps because feedback from other parts of the forum the collectibles (and hardware) slowly morphed.

Stay safe.

-Dave

My return policy allowed full satisfaction of gear with zero question and no penalties for a return.

Gear breaks makes sense to allow it. If buyer does not abuse this I would give a trust.


Why this ever happen in coin collectibles I don’t know.

But it does make sense with returnable gear.

[Lauda]

LoyceV brought up a point regarding collectibles that is both accurate and something I feel I can comment on.  

I am not sure exactly when, but somewhere around 2016 the way we leave trust feedback in the Collectibles section changed.  Prior you only left trust if you actually trusted the other party in the deal.  For example, if you sent first.  If you bought something from me and paid prior to me shipping I would not leave you trust as I did not have to trust you in the trade.  Now, positive trust is left for a positive trade.  If the trade is successful both parties generally leave a positive.

I preferred the old way as it was actually a trust system.

This is also known as trust farming when done for notorious purposes, and increases the risk for everyone here when done for whatever purpose. Make some small trades here and some small trades there and you are done.