Would it be an idea to reduce the strength of Trust color in certain circumstances?
Many users on DT1 with a lot of green feedback also have one or a few negative tags.
Examples:
My suggestion is to make the orange numbers black for users who have at least 10 times more positive than negative feedback.
That would make the above examples look like this:
Additionally, I suggest to make the green numbers black for users who have less than twice as much positive as negative trust.
My reasoning behind this suggestion is that real scammers easily receive a lot of negatives and shouldn't have any green feedback left, and negative feedback for highly trusted users can be less prominent as they aren't a real risk in most cases.
(Editing this quote was a lot of work on Mobile, but the weather is too nice to go inside again)I wouldn't try and pretent to be capable of "reasoning " yet robovac. Better off sticking to copy and paste raw data with very mild processing.
We find it strange that you should be worrying about this just as some "non" gang members are about to "nearly" get into the much guarded DT1 and when they do the ratings from other non gang members and acolytes will start to become more visible. Then again you couldn't have worked that out so someone must have told you to make this post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of2HU3LGdboALL RED WARNINGS or red tags should be viewed as WARNINGS and attract attention if they deserve to be there AT ALL. Of course MANY of the most "untrusted" with multiple red marks and no positive (because they don't trade) have zero instances of financially motivated wrong doing AT ALL. So should not even have any red trust.
Of course you can't do 20 good trades then scam one person (that most DT members are too scared to red trust) and that is all fine and should be ignored or not considered when trading with them. The very idea is completely stupid. So not entirely surprising that a weasel brained moron like you though it up.
Of course the best scammers not the retards who scam for tiny amounts will build up a GOOD trust score first to entice the BIG SCAM later. As soon as they DO A BIG SCAM it needs to be drawn attention to immediately even if they are DT gang leaders.
Since most DT1 and their acolytes dominate the numbers for visible trust and clearly don't choose or rather they DO CHOOSE to ignore the SCAMMY behavior of other DT1 and their pals then you need any negative to gain as much notice as possible.
Really though this would be a moot point if the old trust system was deleted (like it should be) and only type 2 and higher flags existed. Anything below this does not indicate the person is a scammer, ONLY that some people speculate they may be going to scam.
Bogus system, and you are trying to make it even EASIER for scamming at the top to go under the radar.
Of course we sympathize with OG who has been damaged by rogue DT1 but that is the fault of the old crap system and theymos allowing observable scammers like tman, lauda and their kind into positions of trust.
Very strange how this only becomes a consideration now of all times.
A BETTER IDEA is make the old trust system that causes all the arguments, is subjective junk, and does not even warrant a type 2 flag or above VANISH.
or
Leave the scoring off and call it feedback only. If people can't be bothered to read the feedback, do their own research and reach the optimal opinion let the lazy and greedy slobs take risks they need not if they had read it.
Your posts all seem a waste of time, you are either presenting your merit stats, trying to validate and impress with your cycled bag of junk derived from blathering on about this meaningless and dangerous gamed metric or the OLD trust system which again is subjective, and dangerous garbage.
Try to ramming into the furniture more until you start to understand this robovac.
TLDR that grew just as long sorry
Stupid idea that only serves to whitewash the legitimate wrongs that some of the most dangerous scammers and extortionists here have done. Presumably only presented now since the DT1 members start to fear a "few" that will not 100% support their untrustworthy ways may start having some of their feedback go visible and some nice red marks may start to attract attention on their account.
Actually theymos should really consider that with the warnings at the top of the pages. If any DT members believe there is even 1 instance of scamming worthy of a negative trust then they should get a banner. Not say if you have more green than red you are okay.
If you find the DT members negative trust bogus, remove them.
Having this abuse grandfathered in to the trust system is bogus. Get rid of the old system or make it feedback only with no score.
There is no reasoning behind if you do a fair trade 20x then scam someone 1x you are okay or you should whitewash it. Either the scores mean something or they do not.
Thats why only the type 2 flags and above should be relevant AT ALL. Anything below it is clearly subjective and therefore wide open to abuse and gaming for personal gain and retribution.
Anything less should just be FEEDBACK with no scores. People read it or don't red it. Too lazy to research then you get scammed. You could still have DT feedback at the top IF YOU MUST but with no score so the comments could cast a negative OPINION and give their subjective argument but the readers decide and there is NO SCORE for these highly paid sig campaign manager friends to weaponize to shoot down non DT applicants.
OPINIONS about things not directly related to financial danger should not carry a financial danger warning. That is fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain. It just clouds the issue and causes a ton of fighting and misuse of power.
Feel free to debunk our central points.
Very stupid idea that also punishes the honest and stronger DT members (none really there in dt yet although some are "more" honest and strong than others there )and creates even more disincentive to speak up under the current conditions. Which are not really suitable, but still , that would tip it even more.
Type 2 flags and above have shown where there are HARD RULES that are not open to opinion then they are not often if ever broken. Where there is ANY subjectivity involved you get immediate abuse or usage that is not beneficial to the trust system or the environment here.
