In all fairness it looks like
rxalts had at least two transactions, and maybe used the same escrow provider for both. Another review was merely an atta-boy, but whatever, you can take it for what it's worth. The troubling thing is adding a newbie to your inclusions, seems very much like trust-self-scratching indeed.
I agree there seems to be a lot of it going on with the folks in the collectables section. I don't know if it's a conscious effort to pad their own trust score, or if it's a matter of them sticking together and looking out for one another. Either way it sure looks funny.
Here's a striking example:
buckrogers on DT1:
Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.buckrogers not on DT1:
Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.It appears that buckrogers also likes to use exclusions for retaliatory purposes. I don't mean to pick on buckrogers, but he made a easily accessible example.
The second (a Brand New user) looks like a future project made by
DireWolfM14.
Indeed, that's mine. I totally forgot about that, and it was a project I meant to get back to. I've removed the profile from inclusions (for now,) and tagged it to eliminate any future confusion. Sorry if it caused you any loss of sleep.
It's not just the selling of coins (physical as well as Crypto) where positive feedback is given out far too easily, it's also escrows themselves giving positives simply for having received then passing on funds.
I always thought that was weird also. It's one thing for the people doing the transaction to leave a positive feedback for each other, and possibly the escrow provider (obviously that requires some trust on the part of those doing the trading,) but for the escrow provider to leave positive feedback for the either, or both of the other parties strikes me as odd.
