Positive/Neutral Trust

[Hhampuz]

I've long struggled with this myself but, when I've sold something physical in the collectibles section and the buyer left me positive trust I've often done the same. Although I'm the seller and I didn't have to trust the other party with anything besides sending me money I think that a neutral would be more suitable.

I just had a thought that if someone has a tarnished rep here (Like 2-3-4 negatives) and decided to go on over to goods/collectibles and make a few trades they could basically buy trust to restore some sort of reputation to their account which is quite bad. I don't think this has happened yet and there's nothing saying it ever will but I was just going over it in my head and if I were put in such a position it would seem like a "cheap" out.

Now, to my question. Can a neutral trust rating be considered fair when someone bought something from me? I more often than not receive a PM saying "Hey, I bought this thing from you and left you positive trust, would appreciate it if you left me some too.", it always feels weird if I don't do it but lately I've been trying to move away from it but it's hard.

/Discuss?

[1713517716]

1713517716

[bones261]

If they sent you the funds first and you waited for the appropriate confirmations, then it really didn't require any trust on your part. A neutral is more appropriate. If you provided the goods and services first, and then they paid you upon receipt or completion, a positive would be appropriate. IMHO

[Hhampuz]

If they sent you the funds first and you waited for the appropriate confirmations, then it really didn't require any trust on your part. A neutral is more appropriate. If you provided the goods and services first, and then they paid you upon receipt or completion, a positive would be appropriate. IMHO

That's what I'm thinking too. I've not sent anything first for 2 years so I'm never really put in a position where I have to trust the other party.

[bones261]

If they sent you the funds first and you waited for the appropriate confirmations, then it really didn't require any trust on your part. A neutral is more appropriate. If you provided the goods and services first, and then they paid you upon receipt or completion, a positive would be appropriate. IMHO

That's what I'm thinking too. I've not sent anything first for 2 years so I'm never really put in a position where I have to trust the other party.

You may want to also leave positive trust if they paid you by reversible means such as paypal or wire transfer. Not right away, however...

[NeuroticFish]

Some years ago I made a trade with Neotox and I've sent first. He paid, I've left him positive feedback. I felt back then pretty disappointed he didn't "return the favor".
Since then I've learned a lot and I agree that there are many positive feedbacks that clearly could be neutral.

On the other hand, @Hhampuz, don't feel bad. I think that the lending section is the more obvious one for "buying" positive trust feedback, not the actual trading.

[Hhampuz]

You may want to also leave positive trust if they paid you by reversible means such as paypal or wire transfer. Not right away, however...

Good point, and I agree with you on that one. However I never do deals that include reversible payment options, but others in the collectibles space do.

Some years ago I made a trade with Neotox and I've sent first. He paid, I've left him positive feedback. I felt back then pretty disappointed he didn't "return the favor".
Since then I've learned a lot and I agree that there are many positive feedbacks that clearly could be neutral.

On the other hand, @Hhampuz, don't feel bad. I think that the lending section is the more obvious one for "buying" positive trust feedback, not the actual trading.

That's true, although within the collectibles section you get something that probably won't lose value (you could sell it as soon as you've received it), so there's no loss on your end besides giving out some sort of shipping info, to receive the positive trust ratings from more lenient people.

[TheBeardedBaby]

Just my point of view.
If the guy didn't show any shady behaviour, then should be no problem to leave a positive feedback.
But you can make your own policy depending of the risked amount from the other side, like positive for risking over 100$ for example.
If I take 20$ loan or 500$ one, there should be difference in my trust rating. It's almost the same in the Collectables.

Anyway we have examples like TF and MagicalTux which from very trustworthy members turned to a large scale scammers.

Nowadays feedback are used in many different occasions, not only trust related so green is not always money related.

Another thing to consider can be the value of the accounts and the risked amount. Green trust accounts are more valuable and have a less chance to be scammed for small amounts under the "price" of the accounts.

[TECSHARE]

If they sent you the funds first and you waited for the appropriate confirmations, then it really didn't require any trust on your part. A neutral is more appropriate. If you provided the goods and services first, and then they paid you upon receipt or completion, a positive would be appropriate. IMHO

By this same logic then it would not be valid to rate people positively for anything else that did not directly relate to trusting them with value either. This is the constant conflict I am talking about. Theymos in a what I think is a misguided effort to keep this place free of oppressive regulation has simply fostered an environment of oppressive regulation that is completely unwritten and arbitrary. At least when there are written rules everyone is mostly on the same page regarding the goal of the system.

[Hhampuz]

If they sent you the funds first and you waited for the appropriate confirmations, then it really didn't require any trust on your part. A neutral is more appropriate. If you provided the goods and services first, and then they paid you upon receipt or completion, a positive would be appropriate. IMHO

By this same logic then it would not be valid to rate people positively for anything else that did not directly relate to trusting them with value either. This is the constant conflict I am talking about. Theymos in a what I think is a misguided effort to keep this place free of oppressive regulation has simply fostered an environment of oppressive regulation that is completely unwritten and arbitrary. At least when there are written rules everyone is mostly on the same page regarding the goal of the system.

We are probably on the same page on this one. I can't, after going through my trust ratings, see any positive trust I've left that did not include in me at least somewhat trusting them with value. Now this could be me misunderstanding or forming my own opinion about how it should work. Either way I'm always up for the discussion.

[theyoungmillionaire]

PM saying "Hey, I bought this thing from you and left you positive trust, would appreciate it if you left me some too.",

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. I think neutral feedback will do if someone PM you like this, it is like your confirmation to his/her positive feedback that you have done a transaction with that particular user at that time.

[The Cryptovator]

I am agree with bones261, We should not leave positive feedback's just single transaction if we were not on risk. You can leave a neutral feedback for future reference. If same person trade with you multiple time and all trade ended smoothly then it will not wrong to leave positive feedback in my opinions. But if you sent first that means you were on risk, so positive feedback appropriate in this case.  

I more often than not receive a PM saying "Hey, I bought this thing from you and left you positive trust, would appreciate it if you left me some too.", it always feels weird if I don't do it but lately I've been trying to move away from it but it's hard.

Whoever will ask like this, really he do not deserve positive feedback. Because when someone leave feedback we are aware about it even that is untrusted. Especially I visit occasionally my untrusted feedback's. So I don't think they need to ask for it, because it will consider feedback's trade.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

By this same logic then it would not be valid to rate people positively for anything else that did not directly relate to trusting them with value either.

As far as I can tell, this doesn't have anything to do with Theymos or the forum's rules--it has to do with not giving DT-weighted positive trust to people who might be doing deals with DT members solely to get that feedback.  Everyone is still free to leave feedback however they see fit, but a member might not stay on DT for long if they consistently give positives for small deals where they have no money at risk.

Hhampuz, just be careful who you hand out positives to, and that's solid advice in general for any DT member.  I've left neutrals for members I've had transactions with if they sent cash or bitcoin first, and nobody has had a problem with that so far.  Green trust can be a dangerous thing in the wrong hands, so DT members should be very conservative with the positive trust.  Props for seeking advice on the issue.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

The neutral tag is been massively ignored so I don't see any thing bad in you trying to use it. The way I understand the trust system, your feedbacks are meant to show you trust someone, not someone trust you. In your case it's more appropriate if the buyer leaves a positive feedback on your account and you aren't meant to do the same since you didn't have to trust him, he was the one trusting you by paying you first. You can just use the neutral feedback as a way of appreciation.

PS: Anyone sending you PM just to gain reputation after successful trade is just trying to take advantage of your DTship and if I was in your shoes I won't leave feedback for such users.

[Hhampuz]

Hhampuz, just be careful who you hand out positives to, and that's solid advice in general for any DT member.  I've left neutrals for members I've had transactions with if they sent cash or bitcoin first, and nobody has had a problem with that so far.  Green trust can be a dangerous thing in the wrong hands, so DT members should be very conservative with the positive trust.  Props for seeking advice on the issue.

Yeah, I've been told I should be more wary with the trust I leave once I'm on DT. It may be that it started spiraling out of control before I even got to DT2 and then I may have been too stubborn to change my behaviour. I've been meaning to just completely change most of the positives I've left but the way the whole delete/add trust system works I'd have to commit a few hours at least.

Figured this could be the best place to get peoples opinion. I personally despise trust begging (I don't always think that is the intention when I've sold something), and perhaps I should try and educate the ones asking me for positive while also giving them neutral.

[TECSHARE]

I am of the opinion that a positive or negative rating should be based on a direct interaction with a user. If some one purchases an item from me for example I will usually leave them a positive rating with some kind of description of what the trade involved so people reviewing ratings can weigh it appropriately. A regular history of being able to afford purchases and complete exchanges without incident has value too. Now if you see a user with tons of tiny trades well then you can see that the number of ratings themselves mean less than at first glance. This all comes back to teaching users to do due diligence, not just trust red and green numbers blindly.

[bones261]

I am of the opinion that a positive or negative rating should be based on a direct interaction with a user. If some one purchases an item from me for example I will usually leave them a positive rating with some kind of description of what the trade involved so people reviewing ratings can weigh it appropriately. A regular history of being able to afford purchases and complete exchanges without incident has value too. Now if you see a user with tons of tiny trades will then you can see that the number of ratings themselves mean less than at first glance. This all comes back to teaching users to do due diligence, not just trust red and green numbers blindly.

However, if you want people to do their due diligence, then a neutral rating will let them know the same thing without making it appear at first blush that the person is more trusted than God.

[OgNasty]

I've long struggled with this myself but, when I've sold something physical in the collectibles section and the buyer left me positive trust I've often done the same.

Many people in collectibles do the same (including adding them to their trust network)...  That's a big part of the reason why the old DT system was getting more and more inaccurate (any why Vod called Blazed the biggest trust abuser), but if you weren't in the old DT, it was likely never an issue you were faced with.  Now that DT is opening up to more users, I look forward to people beginning to understand my prior actions (for example, my refusal to give out trust in many trading situations) and catching up to speed with the right way to move forward here to restore credibility to the trust system.

[Hhampuz]

I've long struggled with this myself but, when I've sold something physical in the collectibles section and the buyer left me positive trust I've often done the same.

Many people in collectibles do the same (including adding them to their trust network)...  That's a big part of the reason why the old DT system was getting more and more inaccurate (any why Vod called Blazed the biggest trust abuser), but if you weren't in the old DT, it was likely never an issue you were faced with.  Now that DT is opening up to more users, I look forward to people beginning to understand my prior actions (for example, my refusal to give out trust in many trading situations) and catching up to speed with the right way to move forward here to restore credibility to the trust system.

Yeah, it is a learning curve and I never thought about it back when I wasn't on DT. Even when I first got added to DT2 my focus was more on the negative trust I gave out, the thought never crossed my mind that positives would weigh more heavy as well.

[TECSHARE]

I am of the opinion that a positive or negative rating should be based on a direct interaction with a user. If some one purchases an item from me for example I will usually leave them a positive rating with some kind of description of what the trade involved so people reviewing ratings can weigh it appropriately. A regular history of being able to afford purchases and complete exchanges without incident has value too. Now if you see a user with tons of tiny trades will then you can see that the number of ratings themselves mean less than at first glance. This all comes back to teaching users to do due diligence, not just trust red and green numbers blindly.

However, if you want people to do their due diligence, then a neutral rating will let them know the same thing without making it appear at first blush that the person is more trusted than God.

I don't see any problems with rating people whom you have exchanged with. It allows trusted users to interact with people with no reputation giving the trusted user and opportunity to give them a once over while giving the new user the ability to build their own reputation without requiring huge risks. The point is the system is able to be gamed to one extent or another no matter what, and the focus should be one teaching people to review ratings. Individuals attempting to make many small trades with very trusted people in order to farm trust ratings make themselves obvious pretty fast, and that is a good thing. This rating farming either way can be solved with some very superficial review of all ratings.

[OgNasty]

I've long struggled with this myself but, when I've sold something physical in the collectibles section and the buyer left me positive trust I've often done the same.

Many people in collectibles do the same (including adding them to their trust network)...  That's a big part of the reason why the old DT system was getting more and more inaccurate (any why Vod called Blazed the biggest trust abuser), but if you weren't in the old DT, it was likely never an issue you were faced with.  Now that DT is opening up to more users, I look forward to people beginning to understand my prior actions (for example, my refusal to give out trust in many trading situations) and catching up to speed with the right way to move forward here to restore credibility to the trust system.

Yeah, it is a learning curve and I never thought about it back when I wasn't on DT. Even when I first got added to DT2 my focus was more on the negative trust I gave out, the thought never crossed my mind that positives would weigh more heavy as well.

This is the big issue that separates me from Lauda I think as far as our idealism with trust ratings...  Giving out positive trust to those who don't deserve it is potentially much more damaging than not labeling a newbie as a scammer in my opinion.  No trust doesn't mean trusted by default as some people seem to think.  Trust is earned.  If trust is given to those who haven't earned it, the entire system breaks down.  I have been trying to be more lenient in my ratings lately (the change is clearly seen in February of 2018 in my sent ratings), as I've come to understand that many people don't feel the same way I do and as mentioned above, people get salty when trust isn't reciprocated.  It would be great if everyone got on the same page and had the same understanding though.  I know it would have saved me a lot of headaches in the past.