[LIST] of user that "abuse" positive and negative trust feedback.

[DadyD]

Hello bitcointalk users. I'm here to build up a list of all the users that send positive and negative feedback...

...more precisely:

1) Without a valid intervention in the discussion concerning the feedback.
2) Without a valid contribution to unmask / find the scammer.
3) Intervene without reason in a user's thread and send positive / negative feedback to the detriment of the thread creator's opinion. E.g If you ask for a loan and the borrower is happy (or neutral) about the result, it is useless for you to present negative or positive feedback, maybe just neutral.
4) Even those who copy and paste feedback from others, without having any merit in this regard, aiming only to increase the negative or positive feedback of the subject in question. 2 c/p feedback are tolerated

why?:

1) E.g: If I do a good deed I get one positive feedback from the person involved. Instead, if I do a bad deed, I get a lot of negative feedback even if the bad action is aimed at just one person and not all readers. If the interested party leaves a negative or positive feedback, it is useless to leave others copied and pasted with the same opinion only for the purpose of increasing or decreasing truth count. The action performed is one, and only one feedback must be present. If you have quick hands and want to have your say, as a rule of thumb, natural feedback is tolerated.
2) I do it for the transparency and fairness of the act itself, bad or good. Aren't you okay with the issue? Then I propose another example, totally contrary to the one mentioned above.
3) If someone does a good deed then we all have to reward him? Since the bad guy is covered with negative feedback, let's do the same with the good guy filling him with positive feedback for each action. Fair? I dont think so. So letss fix that.

Personal issue?

1) If this post or its content causes you any emotional problems, please report the post to the moderator.
2) If you do not agree with the post or its content, you can freely express your opinion, in a constructive way without abusing it. I'll put the thread in self-mod, just to keep it clean from any abuses.

Why someone should read this list?
Only one reason. The trust system in the forum is not very moderate, too free. People do what they like, with very few repercussions for those who overwhelm them. My intent is to reduce their numbers and increase their quality. I don't want trust system to be a question of numbers, but of trust. So if you want you can take a look at this list before to deal with someone.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
||                                                   !Page still in prorgress !                                        
||   The page and the list will be compiled every day and I will make accurate research      
||   on every member that I think is to be viewed. If you want to report some users, you  
||   are free to do so.  
||                                                                                                
||   Obviously my list will be filled with evidence concerning active users and I think they
||   have merit with neutral and non-negative feedback.
||
||   I will ignore scammers and inactive users, even if they have been abused against them.
||
||   I will not go beyond 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an exemple , i'll reserve the next 2 post for create the negative and positive liste of trust abuse, so please don replay before i do it!
_________________________________________________________________________

|| User: yogg
|| List of feedback abused: http://prntscr.com/pgn0nx  - DadyD - ...more precisely: Point 1, 2 and 4.
||                                     http://prntscr.com/ph0sm7 - http://prntscr.com/ph0tig - Fatcat  ...more precisely: 1 and 2.
_________________________________________________________________________

[DadyD]

List of user that abuse trust system with negative feedback!

Abuser	||.Points.to.Reference	||.Abused.......	||.Evidence	||.Comment
yogg	|| 1, 2, and 4	|| DadyD	|| 1	||
yogg	|| 1 and 2	|| Fatcat	|| 1, 2	||
marlboroza	|| 1 and 2	||Craige288reagannn	|| 1, 2	|| He used the work of reagannn without being ashamed as a means to send negative feedback
marlboroza	|| N/A	|| cabalism13	|| 1, 2	|| Send negative feedback randomly, without even waiting for the discussion to end.  Then delete its (possible) posts and remove the negative feedback. Trust abuse.

List of user that abuse trust system with positive feedback!

Abuser	||.Points.to.Reference	||.Abused.......	||.Evidence	||.Comment
marcotheminer	|| N/A	|| DadyD	|| 1	|| Sent positive feedback even though he knew I was trust farming. Abuse requested by marlboroza Feedback now in neutral.

[suchmoon]

Sounds bizarre coming a self-admitted trust farmer but hey, free speech, knock yourself out. Your English has improved considerably, so... congratulations?

I'm trying to get some loan to incrase my trust

[DadyD]

Sounds bizarre coming a self-admitted trust farmer but hey, free speech, knock yourself out. Your English has improved considerably, so... congratulations?

I'm trying to get some loan to incrase my trust

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190446.msg52671836#msg52671836 - Quoted from TryNinja

This is something you build through the years, and not making fake trades and getting loans.

Somewhere i have to start right? I think this list will bring some utility to this community.

Thanks, google translate help a lot.

[The-One-Above-All]

I would start here there are many documented trust abusers here that are also PROVEN SCAMMERS themselves.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0

Meta board is a wealth of information especially posts from cryptohunter and ourselves.

DT is infested with PROVEN scammers that trust abuse other members that have ZERO instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their past.

Meta is more fun, go there to discuss and debate.

[DadyD]

I would start here there are many documented trust abusers here that are also PROVEN SCAMMERS themselves.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0

Meta board is a wealth of information especially posts from cryptohunter and ourselves.

DT is infested with PROVEN scammers that trust abuse other members that have ZERO instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their past.

Meta is more fun, go there to discuss and debate.

Thanks for your interest.

But what I'm trying to do is closely related to the trust system. Furthermore, I think your way of doing things is too aggressive, which I don't like when trying to give explanations in which someone should listen to you and "follow" you in your intent. Have a good one.

[The-One-Above-All]

I would start here there are many documented trust abusers here that are also PROVEN SCAMMERS themselves.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0

Meta board is a wealth of information especially posts from cryptohunter and ourselves.

DT is infested with PROVEN scammers that trust abuse other members that have ZERO instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their past.

Meta is more fun, go there to discuss and debate.

Thanks for your interest.

But what I'm trying to do is closely related to the trust system. Furthermore, I think your way of doing things is too aggressive, which I don't like when trying to give explanations in which someone should listen to you and "follow" you in your intent. Have a good one.

Nobody is asking you to be aggressive. You asked for examples of clear trust abuse given to people that have no instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their past right??

Use the information as you choose. This information is 100% related to the systems of control  - both merit and trust.

You have a good one too.

[Vod]

1) Without a valid intervention in the discussion concerning the feedback.
2) Without a valid contribution to unmask / find the scammer.

To me it sounds like a dystopian community that knows who I trust and punishes me if I gain too much experience.   :/

[DadyD]

1) Without a valid intervention in the discussion concerning the feedback.
2) Without a valid contribution to unmask / find the scammer.

To me it sounds like a dystopian community that knows who I trust and punishes me if I gain too much experience.   :/

Abused experience..If you have any idea about that issue tell me. And just as exemple, this night i've received a negative feedback for somethig that i did 4 day ago...by a user that wasnt even involed in my thread...a random guy..Do u want a forum full of this random "feesbackees" negative or positive?

I would start here there are many documented trust abusers here that are also PROVEN SCAMMERS themselves.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0

Meta board is a wealth of information especially posts from cryptohunter and ourselves.

DT is infested with PROVEN scammers that trust abuse other members that have ZERO instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their past.

Meta is more fun, go there to discuss and debate.

Thanks for your interest.

But what I'm trying to do is closely related to the trust system. Furthermore, I think your way of doing things is too aggressive, which I don't like when trying to give explanations in which someone should listen to you and "follow" you in your intent. Have a good one.

Nobody is asking you to be aggressive. You asked for examples of clear trust abuse given to people that have no instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their past right??

Use the information as you choose. This information is 100% related to the systems of control  - both merit and trust.

You have a good one too.

True, thanks again

[o_e_l_e_o]

Trust isn't moderated. Anyone is free to leave a negative rating to any other user. If you don't agree with their feedback, then exclude them from your trust list. Also, there is absolutely no prerequisite or requirement saying you must have been involved in a discussion with the user prior to leaving them feedback.

If the interested party leaves a negative or positive feedback, it is useless to leave others copied and pasted with the same opinion only for the purpose of increasing or decreasing truth count.

Absolutely incorrect.

Let's say I see user X, who I promoting a Ponzi and therefore a scammer. I leave them a negative rating. User Y comes along, and also sees user X promoting this Ponzi. I am not on user Y's trust list, and so to them, user X has a trust score of 0. User Y then also leave them a negative rating for their own benefit. This can be repeated several times. If you are using the Default Trust settings, and myself and user Y are both on default trust, then you will see both of our ratings. Conversely, if you have neither myself or user Y in your trust list, you won't see either rating. Duplication of trust ratings is intended, even more so now that the default trust list changes on a monthly basis, to prevent scammers from suddenly going back to a score of 0 if a particular user falls off of default trust.

If you don't agree with a user's ratings, exclude them from your trust list.

I suggest you do a bit more reading regarding the trust system, because you don't seem to understand its design. Pay particular attention to the last point below:

Q: What is Trust and how does it work?
A: Trust is Bitcointalk's feedback based on trust (hence the name). The Trust system is made up of 2 components: the Trust list and left feedback.

The Trust list is where you select the users whose feedback on other users you trust and how deep is this trust. You can either trust just their feedback (select the Trust depth as 0), theirs and their trusted users feedback (Trust depth 1), and so on (up until Trust depth 3). Trusted feedback will be counted when displayed as numbers to the left of a users post in trade boards such as Marketplace or Goods. If a you don't set up your own trust list, a default one is used (info on how it is generated can be found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.0).

The feedback page is where you can leave feedback on other users or see a detailed view of a users feedback. Trusted feedback will be shown first and untrusted feedback will be hidden by default. You can view it by clicking the link "Show ratings". Last of all, you can see all the feedback the user has left on others.

This covers the basics of the Trust system. If you want a more in depth description of the Trust system and details I probably missed, go here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.0.

Q: What are Trust flags and how do they work?
A: While Trust feedback is meant for trade-related endorsements or accusations, which other forum members can read through to get a general idea of a user's trade history, Trust flags are meant to serve as a more serious equivalent of a negative Trust feedback. There are 3 types of flags:

1. Warning to guests / newbie users that "anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money". Anyone can create this type of flag, even if they weren't impacted by the actions of the user they are flagging.
2. Violation of "a casual or implied agreement". This type of flag should only be created by a member who was directly damaged by the actions of the user they are flagging (e.g. got scammed out of goods or services).
3. Violation of "a written contract". Same as the type 2 flag, but the victim had to have had a written contract with the user they are flagging.

When a flag is created, other forum members can support or oppose it. When calculating if a flag has more supporters or opposition, it uses the same Trust list mechanics as the Trust feedback system (only counts votes of users you "trust"; see previous question for more info about how "trusting" users works). For logged out users (a.k.a. guests), a default Trust list (with the default depth) is used (see previous question for info on how it is generated). A type 1 flag is active if it has more supporters than opposition. For a type 2 or type 3 flag, the flag has to have 3 more supporters than opposition for it to be active.

Active flags are displayed on the flagged user's Trust feedback page (above the trusted feedback list), as warnings on threads they've started (shown only to guests and newbies for type 1 flags and to all users for types 2 and 3) and on their Trust score on their profile page and beside their posts (shown as # symbol for type 1 flags and as a more verbose warning for type 2 and 3 flags). Inactive flags are only shown on the flagged user's inactive flag page (the link to which can be found on the flagged user's Trust feedback page under the "Inactive flags" section).

For a more in depth and detailed explanation, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.0.

Q: Why is there a warning displayed on my thread / topic?
A: Either you've been flagged (see previous question) or you have more negative pre-flag (before the flag system was introduced) Trust feedback than positive. The pre-flag feedback (both positive and negative) that is included in the calculation is determined by the thread viewer's Trust list and Trust list depth.

Q: Why isn't trust moderated?
A: Feedback isn't moderated (except for obvious cases such as pure advertising, hundreds of identical empty/gibberish reports on one user) for the same reason as scams - too much room for abuse.

[DadyD]

Trust isn't moderated. Anyone is free to leave a negative rating to any other user. If you don't agree with their feedback, then exclude them from your trust list. Also, there is absolutely no prerequisite or requirement saying you must have been involved in a discussion with the user prior to leaving them feedback.

Why someone should read this list?
Only one reason. The trust system in the forum is not very moderate, too free. People do what they like, with very few repercussions for those who overwhelm them. My intent is to reduce their numbers and increase their quality. I don't want trust system to be a question of numbers, but of trust. So if you want you can take a look at this list before to deal with someone.

Please, dont do selective read. And don't be contradictory. Given the lack of moderation it is obvious that there should be no interference in the topic to leave feedback, but it should be a fair thing...And i saw I can exclude them from my trust list but the Untrusted feedback list is still there...and I bet you whatever you want, before to deal with someone you check both

If the interested party leaves a negative or positive feedback, it is useless to leave others copied and pasted with the same opinion only for the purpose of increasing or decreasing truth count.

Absolutely incorrect.

Let's say I see user X, who I promoting a Ponzi and therefore a scammer. I leave them a negative rating. User Y comes along, and also sees user X promoting this Ponzi. I am not on user Y's trust list, and so to them, user X has a trust score of 0. User Y then also leave them a negative rating for their own benefit. This can be repeated several times. If you are using the Default Trust settings, and myself and user Y are both on default trust, then you will see both of our ratings. Conversely, if you have neither myself or user Y in your trust list, you won't see either rating. Duplication of trust ratings is intended, even more so now that the default trust list changes on a monthly basis, to prevent scammers from suddenly going back to a score of 0 if a particular user falls off of default trust.

If you don't agree with a user's ratings, exclude them from your trust list.

Absolutely? If i have 4 negative feedback by 4 different users regaring the same mistake, i could not be elegible for events/contest becouse they count numbers of negative feedback and not numbers of mistake...in my case 1 mistake 4 negative feedback..Absolutely? Dont think so.

Regarding your example, as already mentioned before, I bet you whatever you want, before to deal with someone you check both list..So its pointless posting more copy paste feedback...

Duplication of trust ratings is intended, even more so now that the default trust list changes on a monthly basis, to prevent scammers from suddenly going back to a score of 0 if a particular user falls off of default trust.

Thats interesting. Thanks, didnt know about. I'll tolerate 2 copy paste then.

I suggest you do a bit more reading regarding the trust system, because you don't seem to understand its design. Pay particular attention to the last point below:

Design or not, you can't deny that the abuse in the trust system is there .. Thanks for your suggestion.

And for the last point..."Hundreds" I think is too high a number (although I guess it's random) ... it is clear that if one receives 100 negative feedbacks that is either a scammer taken in fragrant by 100 worthy users of the forum (something very rare if not almost impossible) or one is a victim of trolls that send 100 random feedbacks ... In any case, in my opinion, even 3 feedbacks copied and pasted concerning the same error are too many ...

[suchmoon]

Regarding your example, as already mentioned before, I bet you whatever you want, before to deal with someone you check both list..So its pointless posting more copy paste feedback...

It's not pointless. It affects trust scores too. For example I see an orange "-3" on your account and it's far more informative than "0" would be if only one person posted negative trust for you and that person happened to be not in my trust list.

You have no case. The trust system works exactly as expected here. When users post feedback ratings they shouldn't be looking how many others did that etc. They should be posting their own assessment. Multiple users consider your behavior untrustworthy. That's reflected in your feedback.

[o_e_l_e_o]

If i have 4 negative feedback by 4 different users regaring the same mistake, i could not be elegible for events/contest becouse they count numbers of negative feedback and not numbers of mistake

That is neither here nor there. If you didn't want red trust, you shouldn't have engaged in untrustworthy behavior.

In any case, in my opinion, even 3 feedbacks copied and pasted concerning the same error are too many

Emphasis mine.

That's fine, and you are perfectly entitled to hold that opinion, but it's not how the trust system works. Given that there have been far more egregious misuses of the trust system than 4 users leaving entirely justified feedback that have gone unmoderated (and still do), you aren't going to be successful in getting an admin to step in here.

Go and look at the profiles of some of the worst scammers currently active on the forum. game-protect springs to mind. From a default trust point of view, that account has 40+ negatives all due to the same behavior. Seeing an entire page of red on his trust wall as opposed to just one single red rating, and seeing -37 rather than -1 next to his name, are far more effective at warning people to steer clear of this user at all costs. As I explained above, several ratings referencing the same incidence are not only permissible, but desirable.

[DadyD]

Regarding your example, as already mentioned before, I bet you whatever you want, before to deal with someone you check both list..So its pointless posting more copy paste feedback...

It's not pointless. It affects trust scores too. For example I see an orange "-3" on your account and it's far more informative than "0" would be if only one person posted negative trust for you and that person happened to be not in my trust list.

You could also see 0 0 0 but the fact remains that you check both lists before making the trade...I think more then 2 copy pasted feedback are useless, even to avoid your problem of seeing orange or grey.

You have no case. The trust system works exactly as expected here.

It does not seem to me that I have criticized the system of trust but its abuse, they are two distinct things. And if you think the opposite then the word "trust abuser" is just a taboo.

When users post feedback ratings they shouldn't be looking how many others did that etc. They should be posting their own assessment.

TRUE! But, at least, have the decency to express an opinion before sending a negative feedback or copying one, don't you think? I think everyone should have their own opinion, but if NOT DIRECTLY interested, their opinion should (or at least most of the time) be neutral (preferably refrain if there are already other equal feedbacks.)
And just out of curiosity, why shouldn't they look at the number of feedback from others? it is obvious that a copy paste is a method of gaining "experience" in the field of feedback. "Trust farm" (Indirectly)

Multiple users consider your behavior untrustworthy. That's reflected in your feedback.

And as I think of it, for this reason there should be neutral feedback where negative feedback is not needed. To mitigate the total score .. otherwise see user with 30 positive feedbacks and in the last 3 days he cheated 5 users (hypothetical example), all of use can change! Or be hacked..
"He has 30 positive feedbacks, I trust without checking" - Cit.

If i have 4 negative feedback by 4 different users regaring the same mistake, i could not be elegible for events/contest becouse they count numbers of negative feedback and not numbers of mistake

That is neither here nor there. If you didn't want red trust, you shouldn't have engaged in untrustworthy behavior.

Its all here! Someone can tollerate 5 negative feedback...but, since there is abuse, those 5 feedbacks are 25 because everyone said his own on every of the 5 mistakes.

Emphasis mine.

That's fine, and you are perfectly entitled to hold that opinion, but it's not how the trust system works. Given that there have been far more egregious misuses of the trust system than 4 users leaving entirely justified feedback that have gone unmoderated (and still do), you aren't going to be successful in getting an admin to step in here.

My friend, re-read everything well. I'm not going to call in an admin, I'm just going to write a list of those people, which I think abuses the trust system ... Don't come up with non-existent arguments!

Go and look at the profiles of some of the worst scammers currently active on the forum. game-protect springs to mind. From a default trust point of view, that account has 40+ negatives all due to the same behavior. Seeing an entire page of red on his trust wall as opposed to just one single red rating, and seeing -37 rather than -1 next to his name, are far more effective at warning people to steer clear of this user at all costs.

I repeat, go and re-read everything. VERY WELL.
I'm not defending scamer with -40 negative feedback, do you understand? So, in your opinion, if trolls left me negative feedback and took me to -30 then I am to be avoided? We must first see why I received them and how many are copied ... I repeat it again, you think of the numbers and not the quality of the feedback itself. And on the other hand, seeing a green 30 and a red -1, doesn't calm me down at all, I'll still go and check all his feedback.
[/quote]

As I explained above, several ratings referencing the same incidence are not only permissible, but desirable.

Please tell me you're kidding!
Just to give you an example in real life ..
If I met you and slapped you with the excuse "You are not an angel, surely you have done something bad to deserve it", how would you react? E.g "You betrayed your girlfriend and she slapped you, I do the same. The way you think it is a fair thing apparently ...

...more precisely:

Quote
1) Without a valid intervention in the discussion concerning the feedback.
2) Without a valid contribution to unmask / find the scammer."

For this reason, neutral feedback should be more present at the expense of negative feedback, especially for those who watch and do not intervene or in any case have nothing to do with the completed act.

[suchmoon]

You could also see 0 0 0 but the fact remains that you check both lists before making the trade...I think more then 2 copy pasted feedback are useless, even to avoid your problem of seeing orange or grey.

I'm not planning to trade with you. I appreciate the quick overview that the trust score gives me. And if I find that "-3" is not appropriate I can exclude from my trust list one or more users who posted such unjust ratings. That's how the system is supposed to work.

You have no case. The trust system works exactly as expected here.

It does not seem to me that I have criticized the system of trust but its abuse, they are two distinct things. And if you think the opposite then the word "trust abuser" is just a taboo.

There is no abuse. What I'm saying is that those users used the system correctly. If one of them copy-pasted the same rating 5 times on your trust wall - that would be abuse. If they demanded payment from you - that would be abuse.

TRUE! But, at least, have the decency to express an opinion before sending a negative feedback or copying one, don't you think? I think everyone should have their own opinion, but if NOT DIRECTLY interested, their opinion should (or at least most of the time) be neutral (preferably refrain if there are already other equal feedbacks.)

Their opinions are expressed in their ratings and those opinions seem to match with the "high risk" verbiage on the trust page. I don't see why those ratings should be neutral. They consider trading with you to be "high risk" because you're farming trust.

And just out of curiosity, why shouldn't they look at the number of feedback from others? it is obvious that a copy paste is a method of gaining "experience" in the field of feedback. "Trust farm" (Indirectly)

Your lack of self awareness is mind-boggling but that's what got you in trouble to begin with, isn't it.

Multiple users consider your behavior untrustworthy. That's reflected in your feedback.

And as I think of it, for this reason there should be neutral feedback where negative feedback is not needed. To mitigate the total score .. otherwise see user with 30 positive feedbacks and in the last 3 days he cheated 5 users (hypothetical example), all of use can change! Or be hacked..
"He has 30 positive feedbacks, I trust without checking" - Cit.

I have no idea what that means but it sounds like whataboutism/strawman. It would probably make more sense to discuss your own problem and why you're considered untrustworthy.

[DadyD]

You could also see 0 0 0 but the fact remains that you check both lists before making the trade...I think more then 2 copy pasted feedback are useless, even to avoid your problem of seeing orange or grey.

I'm not planning to trade with you. I appreciate the quick overview that the trust score gives me. And if I find that "-3" is not appropriate I can exclude from my trust list one or more users who posted such unjust ratings. That's how the system is supposed to work.

I dont want to trade with you...useless information...If you appreciate the vision of your trust score ... what is the vision you want to have with the confidence of each user? We are discussing irrelevant things.

You have no case. The trust system works exactly as expected here.

It does not seem to me that I have criticized the system of trust but its abuse, they are two distinct things. And if you think the opposite then the word "trust abuser" is just a taboo.

There is no abuse. What I'm saying is that those users used the system correctly. If one of them copy-pasted the same rating 5 times on your trust wall - that would be abuse. If they demanded payment from you - that would be abuse.

In a system without moderation and rules, nothing is abuse. It is a question of fair, my friend ... If it is good of you that it is used in this way, it is okay, everyone is pleased.

TRUE! But, at least, have the decency to express an opinion before sending a negative feedback or copying one, don't you think? I think everyone should have their own opinion, but if NOT DIRECTLY interested, their opinion should (or at least most of the time) be neutral (preferably refrain if there are already other equal feedbacks.)

Their opinions are expressed in their ratings and those opinions seem to match with the "high risk" verbiage on the trust page. I don't see why those ratings should be neutral. They consider trading with you to be "high risk" because you're farming trust.

Just to give you an example in real life ..
If I met you and slapped you with the excuse "You are not an angel, surely you have done something bad to deserve it", how would you react? E.g "You betrayed your girlfriend and she slapped you, I do the same. The way you think it is a fair thing apparently ...The words "high risk" can also be used in neutral feedback to describe the subject's action.

And just out of curiosity, why shouldn't they look at the number of feedback from others? it is obvious that a copy paste is a method of gaining "experience" in the field of feedback. "Trust farm" (Indirectly)

Your lack of self awareness is mind-boggling but that's what got you in trouble to begin with, isn't it.

You have avoided answering ... I will not be aware of me (Even if I openly confess that I asked for loan to gain trust, but oky!) But at least I see this small line that exists between the farm, confessed, by the indirect farm as your colleagues do.

Multiple users consider your behavior untrustworthy. That's reflected in your feedback.

And as I think of it, for this reason there should be neutral feedback where negative feedback is not needed. To mitigate the total score .. otherwise see user with 30 positive feedbacks and in the last 3 days he cheated 5 users (hypothetical example), all of use can change! Or be hacked..
"He has 30 positive feedbacks, I trust without checking" - Cit.

I have no idea what that means but it sounds like whataboutism/strawman. It would probably make more sense to discuss your own problem and why you're considered untrustworthy.

I'm not going to talk about the reason for my negative feedback. I understand that the trust farm is badly seen, so I would see it too. I'm not here to complain about the negative feedback I received, but the number of users who sent feedback for no reason.

I think at this point we are going off topic. I say mine and you yours, and everyone continues to support their point of view.

[Lafu]

You should change maybe the Thread title or take some effort for that list you written in there , or is just for your Account!
For now i just see one User in there and that looks like is just recounter for that he has tagged you for something that looks like you abuse the trust to get positive Feedback .
Where is the whole list or is it in work ?

[DadyD]

You should change maybe the Thread title or take some effort for that list you written in there , or is just for your Account!
For now i just see one User in there and that looks like is just recounter for that he has tagged you for something that looks like you abuse the trust to get positive Feedback .
Where is the whole list or is it in work ?

I'm working on it. I am considering various criteria and if they are not met it is pointless to point out their work.

[suchmoon]

And just out of curiosity, why shouldn't they look at the number of feedback from others?

Trust ratings should reflect why trading with you is high-risk (or why you're unlikely to scam anyone - on case of a positive trust rating), not what others did or said. If Alice, Bob, and Carol think that you're untrustworthy - it doesn't mean that Ted shouldn't be allowed to say that you're untrustworthy, or that Ted should count the ratings and do something different based on that number. Irrelevant to the purpose of the trust system.

I'm not here to complain about the negative feedback I received, but the number of users who sent feedback for no reason.

There is a reason and it's quite clearly stated in your ratings. I don't think it helps your case to say things that are obviously false ("no reason"). It would be more accurate to say that you don't like the reason, which is not surprising but doesn't matter.

[yogg]

I'm working on it. I am considering various criteria and if they are not met it is pointless to point out their work.

Thank you much for bringing more visibility towards my profile.  
Please can you make sure that I remain #1 on your thread ? Would much appreciate.
My username starts with a "y", and generally when ordering alphabetically, I am at a disadvantage.

Thanks so much for bringing some justice among the mandatory concept of alphabetical sorting.
Such heresy.