Positive/Neutral Trust

[actmyname]

I dont know if this is right question but can this be resolved with council, for example most respected member here or member that are longest here to create something like this and that this can be settled like this. Maybe its huge change, but many say this is abused, can say that something here is right or not but im not here long enough to know, and I dont want to point fingers like kids he did it first.

Spaghetti text.

The "council" is the Reputation... or Scam Accusation board. Focusing the power to "respected" members is vague and creates centralization. Any member is able to counter a rating.

Maybe this council or something that will be with 3-5 member that will be informed on every trade here can be good but think that then that council would do nothing then just read all that. This is not a solution only observation for possible solution for this problem.

1) To verify trades, this requires effort and disclosure of personal details.
2) This proposal can be made inconsequential through spam.

[TECSHARE]

I dont know if this is right question but can this be resolved with council, for example most respected member here or member that are longest here to create something like this and that this can be settled like this. Maybe its huge change, but many say this is abused, can say that something here is right or not but im not here long enough to know, and I dont want to point fingers like kids he did it first.

Spaghetti text.

The "council" is the Reputation... or Scam Accusation board. Focusing the power to "respected" members is vague and creates centralization. Any member is able to counter a rating.

Maybe this council or something that will be with 3-5 member that will be informed on every trade here can be good but think that then that council would do nothing then just read all that. This is not a solution only observation for possible solution for this problem.

1) To verify trades, this requires effort and disclosure of personal details.
2) This proposal can be made inconsequential through spam.

Or we could all just agree on a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws being maintained and publicly posted BEFORE negative rating some one, not after. There is no need for a council. We are already all the council. We examine evidence of scams daily in scam accusations and make a collective determination. We just need better standards by which to organize so that the most abusive and duplicitous individuals don't always run everything.

[mikeywith]

This kind of PM indicates trust buying (IMO), people who have the intention to have green trust would PM someone just to gain trust feedbacks. Trust is earned along the way when you have more transactions.

While i wouldn't go to as far as sending a pm to everyone i trade with to get a positive feedback, everyone who trades here want to have those green points.

 this does not indicate trust buying or any sketchy behavior,  i speak from personal experience, i have traded  hundreds of thousands of dollars here( yes no typos )i  bought and sold thousands of bitmain coupons last year from a large number of members here, i was just a random newbie and sadly non of them was a DT, but there is 1000 times more reasons why i should have my profile painted in green more than a person who happen to buy a 500$ item from a DT member and ended up with a few positive feedback, but i sure won't demand a feedback for every trade, and this is the way it has to go.

This is one of flaws about this DT thing we have, i am very well known and trusted in many FB crypto groups, and just about every large Telegram group that has to do with mining gears, but i chose not to buy something i don't need from a  DT member only to get positive trust, so by looking at my profile you would hardly trust me , and you would be naive if you do to be honest, so if i had to go to the extent of pming everyone i trade with to get a positive feedback, i would probably have to excuse myself, tho i sure as hell won't do that.

So people wanting feedback can be for the purpose of making business easier and not having to deal with who would go first or wait for an escrow agent to respond, while i am very certain that many members want those feedback to scam people,  so i think one should think 10 times before giving someone the privilege of being trusted by default, even if they had to be unfair to another 10 users by not leaving them a positive.

[Hhampuz]

Well, I've spent some time going over previous trust I've left. I changed a bunch of positives to neutral and intend to take a second round tomorrow and do the same. I also removed some negatives completely or revised to neutral as I felt some of them were a heat of the moment thing (although arguably justified). I think we all learn little by little and I'm hoping that I'll be able to look at it more objectively as time passes but it's always hard when you interact with a lot of people while also being very emotional (working on the latter).

Also just wanted to put it out there that if you find any trust rating of mine that can be considered either trust abuse or just bad, I invite you to let me know and I'll look over it and perhaps revise it.

EDIT; spelling errors.