Neutral Feedback to replace the red paint for non-scamming activities?

[TheBeardedBaby]

A solution to the drama with the red trust given for any stupid activity can be just a simple change in the system.

As theymos noted, the red trust should be strictly for scammy behaviour.
 For the rest we can leave neutral comments like we do now for merit begging.

The only improvement will be to show the neutral feedback in the profiles, like we have now positive and negative.

This count won't affect the account itself but will warn the other users to read the feedbacks before doing business with the person, again only DT1 and DT2 feedbacks will be counted.

[1713964456]

1713964456

[1713964456]

1713964456

[1713964456]

1713964456

[1713964456]

1713964456

[TMAN]

Whilst I agree in principle the average new user is the equivalent of a 4 year old on the street, they need warning and protection from scams and issues that the more senior members just know. People asking for no collateral loans will skam newbies, people refusing escrow or a Ponzi scheme. Even really fucking annoying users like cryptocunt, I mean could you imagine doing a trade with that mentalist?

One thing that is pertinent is forgiveness, if someone hasn’t actually scammed someone then after a period of good sensible behaviour then tags should be removed, people need a chance to learn there lesson and come back form a tag.

[xolxol]

GOOD suggestion,shouldnt be red painted a gray mark would be nice for neutral, i suggested that these feedbacks will be shown to trading boards,and other boards which involves trading,buying and selling stuffs.The drama will surely stop IMO.

But these abusive DTs wont allow that why? because their power to bully will stop,they will be normies like most of the red trusted users.
my post will be deleted in few minutes,retarded mods are on the move lol.

[jackg]

@etf it's probably not a good idea to show neutral trust unless people go through ratings. Neutral can be either good or bad.

@iaseko I'd be in support of a button that turns red to neutral... I'd like to do that with a few of mine but don't want the date to change on them...

[suchmoon]

A couple of issues:

1) Enforcement.
2) Incessant bitching that would ensue if neutrals gain any more visibility.

[Sharon121212]

Not a bad idea but even if only the dt feed backs counts in your suggestions and drawers the looker to the person profile I think if there might be tons of feed back some even born out of sentiment and share beefing.
And on another thought it's just wise and simple to always check the profile of someone you want to do business with regardless of if the trust is visible or not.

[The Cryptovator]

I think DT's are handling feedback's carefully since guests are able to see warning. All of drama has been created by couple of users. Overall trust or feedback's are working fine. Problem is, people's are not bothering to read neutral feedback and that's the reason why most of DT members do not bother to leave neutral feedback. Neutral feedback is appropriate on specific case those are really not related with scams. But which feedback's will appropriate like bounty cheaters with multiple accounts? Because it's not related with scam and neutral feedback will not reflect on profile.

[TMAN]

I think DT's are handling feedback's carefully since guests are able to see warning. All of drama has been created by couple of users. Overall trust or feedback's are working fine. Problem is, people's are not bothering to read neutral feedback and that's the reason why most of DT members do not bother to leave neutral feedback. Neutral feedback is appropriate on specific case those are really not related with scams. But which feedback's will appropriate like bounty cheaters with multiple accounts? Because it's not related with scam and neutral feedback will not reflect on profile.

Bounty hunters using multiple accounts are stealing from the advertisers so yes they deserve red tags as that is a scam imo

[Tyrantt]

Bad goy, bad.

[FFrankie]

I like the idea of being able to change the color of a rating without deleting it, personally I think the neutral should be yellow/orange not just un-bolded. I do think that neutral feedback should somehow affect the trust feedback score.

[TheBeardedBaby]

The whole idea behind the neutral feedback is to take away the tension between some members.
They can still fight their wars without ruining each others accounts with baseless accusations.

I personally don't like to give the red paint to people without solid proofs. So accusations based on assumption should be noted with neutral feedback.

Regarding the protection of newbies, it's better to educate them to protect themselves and question everything, not only pointing out the threat.
There should be a warning signs everywhere that there are some scammers operating in the forum and to be aware. Those warning should be visible to everyone below member rank.

The best solutions are born in discussions, do that's why I created this thread.

[tranthidung]

Theymos clearly raises his opinion on Trust ratings there:

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!".

In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
 - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
 - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
 - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.

All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.

Or LoyceV's:

When someone gives you negative trust without valid reason then what does that mean you are a scammer?

No, it means someone just disqualified himself from ever deserving a position on DT. If you don't value someone's sent feedback, you can exclude him from your Trust list.
I recently got red trust from someone. I left him neutral trust explaining it, and mentioned it in my reputation thread because I was curious why he left it. I'll never know, because he was banned the same day.

If you are not a scammer then how you will react, you will keep silence? If you keep silence then what will happen, You agreed with the feedback which you received?

This was actually the reason why I created my reputation thread last year, and there's some discussion about it. This was my conclusion at the time:

I kinda want to leave red trust in response, but it doesn't feel right to (ab)use DT-powers to do so. On the other hand, I obviously don't trust someone who leaves me random red trust without any reference link.
So, I'll leave this question for the community: what to do? This question has been answered ("do nothing"), thanks!

[xolxol]

Theymos clearly raises his opinion on Trust ratings there:

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!".

In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
 - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
 - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
 - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.

All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.

Or LoyceV's:

When someone gives you negative trust without valid reason then what does that mean you are a scammer?

No, it means someone just disqualified himself from ever deserving a position on DT. If you don't value someone's sent feedback, you can exclude him from your Trust list.
I recently got red trust from someone. I left him neutral trust explaining it, and mentioned it in my reputation thread because I was curious why he left it. I'll never know, because he was banned the same day.

If you are not a scammer then how you will react, you will keep silence? If you keep silence then what will happen, You agreed with the feedback which you received?

This was actually the reason why I created my reputation thread last year, and there's some discussion about it. This was my conclusion at the time:

I kinda want to leave red trust in response, but it doesn't feel right to (ab)use DT-powers to do so. On the other hand, I obviously don't trust someone who leaves me random red trust without any reference link.
So, I'll leave this question for the community: what to do? This question has been answered ("do nothing"), thanks!

LoyceV is the only DT member i respect,he/she has some sort of thinking that isnt self centered btw he has contributed a lot on this forum unlike to these gang members who's only knowledge is at the meta section,no technical capacity just a plain text full of shits.

[LoyceV]

Not bad idea, but normally people don't bother read user's trust feedback if overall trust isn't on red "zone".
It's different story if total of neutral feedback also included on user's profile, example :

Code:

<overall score>: -<negative feedback count> / ±<neutral feedback count> / +<positive feedback count>

That would make neutral weigh more than just "neutral". I just checked all neutral feedback sent by me, and I don't think any of them has to be announced with user's posts.

I've been leaving more neutral feedback myself lately, it's like taking public notes on someone's profile.
This forum has never aimed to be a safe place, scam's aren't moderated, freedom prevails. It wouldn't hurt though to make this a bit more obvious, as too many people are still too naive when it comes to securing their own money.

[Lauda]

Neutrals are useless in 99.99% of the cases, so no. I'll stick to red.

[Thule]

Whilst I agree in principle the average new user is the equivalent of a 4 year old on the street,

Yeah and you are their choosen babysitter LOL


Just have a look who is against it.What a surprise

[TMAN]

Whilst I agree in principle the average new user is the equivalent of a 4 year old on the street,

Yeah and you are their choosen babysitter LOL


Just have a look who is against it.What a surprise

Yes people like you should have a red tag. I couldn’t imagine the pain of trying to transact a simple deal with you, members need a warning that you are not right in the head.

Peace out princess

[tranthidung]

Neutrals are useless in 99.99% of the cases, so no. I'll stick to red.

For things don't relate to trade/ exchange/ financial stuffs / scams, it should be neutral feedback. For minor mistake, it should be neutral feedback.

[Lauda]

Neutrals are useless in 99.99% of the cases, so no. I'll stick to red.

For things don't relate to trade/ exchange/ financial stuffs / scams, it should be neutral feedback.

That's what you think and I'm not frankly interested in your opinion. Unlike you, people actually complain to me about getting scammed somewhere quite often.

[tranthidung]

For things don't relate to trade/ exchange/ financial stuffs / scams, it should be neutral feedback.

That's what you think and I'm not frankly interested in your opinion. Unlike you, people actually complain to me about getting scammed somewhere quite often.

I mentioned about scams in my post, scam-related things should be tagged with Red, I agreed.