Red Trust Account

[2double0]

It is not necessary that you get red trust for bad things only, but many peeps also leave negative ratings just to show off their power. This means that a red trust given cannot be accurate always and it is better to do your due diligence before trusting other's ratings. I did not target anybody here, but those who are doing what I said are clever enough to get this heard.  

@The Pharmacist, it looks like OP has a high rank account which they don't want to get disclosed.

[KaneVWE]

Red Trust accounts are accounts that have made mistakes in the past, maybe they violated the rules on forums, maybe they have promoted scam projects or did anything that people thought it was wrong.
Often projects want the best people to advertise their projects, so Red Trust accounts are rarely accepted in signature campaigns.

Well that's not the case for all members is it?

Red trust given by who? Oh yes default trust goons.
That's the only red trust that counts right?
Sig scampaign managers only care about that

Unless.....

Yep you're a DT goon. Then red trust doesn't matter they will still allow you on the campaigns.
Take a look often DT will have a red tag or 2 and have no problem getting on good campaigns.

Besides if the red tags are bogus and are not based on any objective independently verifiable evidence then wrong doing is that of those leaving fake red trust.

Stop promugating garbage here.

Red tags and type1 flags are not reliable or credible. If there were any provable financially motivated wrongdoing they would have a type 2 flag ( unless they are DT goons then they would collude to prevent any flags on each other)

Want evidence then request and I'll provide.

[jademaxsuy]

<snip>

Most DT are reputable and do knows their title as a DT but I guess not all as what you like to imply.

Yes, there are faults in every system and that probably include the trust system. However, I do believe that it works like tagging the users promoting scam projects of which white papers or other documents presented in the project were being copied or was plagiarized. And that is a work as DT an extra baggage or load of work with no pay.

There might be mistakes but all of it are subject for developin and that one day I do believe will going to change. So let us be part of that change.

[Lorence.xD]

red trust = violated forum rules or do something wrong including scams, fraud, etc.

the reason why bounty managers doesn't allowed it since when participating to bounty campaigns since the participants are the one who will promote the project and if they have untrusted feedback or they are violators then they are not good representation of the projects and might destroy the projects reputation.

This is the mark that will send your account into downward spiral. Try not to get this kind of violation if you can, although it will only be put if the evidences is stacked against you. Do not worry about this because those who are responsible on issuing it, knows what they are doing and they are reasonable if you give an explanation at least.

[KaneVWE]

<snip>

Most DT are reputable and do knows their title as a DT but I guess not all as what you like to imply.

Yes, there are faults in every system and that probably include the trust system. However, I do believe that it works like tagging the users promoting scam projects of which white papers or other documents presented in the project were being copied or was plagiarized. And that is a work as DT an extra baggage or load of work with no pay.

There might be mistakes but all of it are subject for developin and that one day I do believe will going to change. So let us be part of that change.

Most DT are not reputable due to being knowingly complicit with undeniable abuse of the trust system and deliberately preventing legitimate warnings on proven scammers. That is without any shadow of a doubt.

Well what you are describing: deliberately promoting a project with a provably bogus or copied white paper as a legitimate original project are both meeting the threshold for both troll and scam facilitator. That is reason for a ban and assisting setting up a scam  fits with the purpose of a legitimate flag 1 if it was left to remain. To me deliberately and wilfully protecting or promoting a certain scam is just as bad.

This is entirely different from giving a red tag to someone that presents evidence of undeniable scamming from a DT member.
Using tags to brand whistle blowers as scammers is dangerous and disgusting.

DT members that don't stand against it are colluding and complicit.

There is no other way to see it

Also campaign managers bending the rules and allowing DT with red trust to participate are double standards scum and should be removed.

There is no other way to see it or explain in if you want your explanation to stand up to scrutiny.

Red trust is as meaningless and dangerous as merit.

[Nellayar]

Trust is very important in this forum when it comes to transactions. If you have green trust, you are a trusted person which mean you had successfully transacted by a person without any harm nor violated rules. Negative trust is being given to the scammers and loan defaulters of the forum. It is not a serious crime but it is an equal part of consequences when you did something wrong to other users.

[KaneVWE]

Trust is very important in this forum when it comes to transactions. If you have green trust, you are a trusted person which mean you had successfully transacted by a person without any harm nor violated rules. Negative trust is being given to the scammers and loan defaulters of the forum. It is not a serious crime but it is an equal part of consequences when you did something wrong to other users.

Why is scamming and defaulting on loans not a serious crime?

Surely this is what a type 2 flag or above is for not just a tag.

I have no idea what red tags are for. They serve only to pollute and devalue all other warnings.
If you removed red tags but had the red glowing warnings under the avatar for type 2 flags and above the system would work.
Type 1 flag should be financially motivated wrong doing related only or be deleted.

The only reason to give a tag without a flag is that you have zero evidence of scamming attempting to scam or setting up an scam.
A tag is really a political or personal attack. Nothing more or why not give a flag ?

So asking what is red trust account now? It is nothing you may just like eating lemons.
Why do campaign managers only allow DT with red tags on their campaigns
A they are corrupt
B they are scared they will get a tag

Red tags are subjective silly and dangerous noise.

[Lordhermes]

Why is everyone talking about scamming being respective and subjected to red trust on a user, i have seen several users on the forum (name not to be mentioned) having red trust because of indecent/inappropriate accusations on other member without proof, this sound something like a rebel, that results to that user getting red trust by DT1, DT2, ......members, and that's something to avoid to enable oneself in joining campaigns. Its always stated by BM & CM never to allow such users to participate in their campaigns so as to maintain their good reputations throughout.

[KaneVWE]

Why is everyone talking about scamming being respective and subjected to red trust on a user, i have seen several users on the forum (name not to be mentioned) having red trust because of indecent/inappropriate accusations on other member without proof, this sound something like a rebel, that results to that user getting red trust by DT1, DT2, ......members, and that's something to avoid to enable oneself in joining campaigns. Its always stated by BM & CM never to allow such users to participate in their campaigns so as to maintain their good reputations throughout.

Can you point to some of those specifically
Show me examples.
Specific details.

I can show you the exact opposite.

I mean if you say something is happening but wont bring conclusive proof of highly corroborating evidence that is the same thing really you are talking about others doing.

I'm not sure if speculating on others is worthy of red trust if they cant conclusively debunk it especially concerning behaviors apparently conducted on the forum.

[~Money~]

Why is everyone talking about scamming being respective and subjected to red trust on a user, i have seen several users on the forum (name not to be mentioned) having red trust because of indecent/inappropriate accusations on other member without proof, this sound something like a rebel, that results to that user getting red trust by DT1, DT2, ......members, and that's something to avoid to enable oneself in joining campaigns. Its always stated by BM & CM never to allow such users to participate in their campaigns so as to maintain their good reputations throughout.

Can you point to some of those specifically
Show me examples.
Specific details.

I can show you the exact opposite.

I mean if you say something is happening but wont bring conclusive proof of highly corroborating evidence that is the same thing really you are talking about others doing.

I'm not sure if speculating on others is worthy of red trust if they cant conclusively debunk it especially concerning behaviors apparently conducted on the forum.

See Red trust was made just to flag out people for their suspicious activity in the group so that other members in the forum get alert/caution while doing any transaction or deal with them.
Signature campaign or bounty managers start filtering the best out of many applications by dropping red trust members. Then slowly, It becomes the guidelines(rule) for campaigns that red trust members are not allowed to participate in it.
Now as Lordhermes said there are various incidents that happened in past where people are got red trust just for silly reasons or to destroy their profile(or campaign income) on Forum.
I personally feel that we should use this weapon very carefully and give red trust after giving at least 1 warning to a member.

[KaneVWE]

Why is everyone talking about scamming being respective and subjected to red trust on a user, i have seen several users on the forum (name not to be mentioned) having red trust because of indecent/inappropriate accusations on other member without proof, this sound something like a rebel, that results to that user getting red trust by DT1, DT2, ......members, and that's something to avoid to enable oneself in joining campaigns. Its always stated by BM & CM never to allow such users to participate in their campaigns so as to maintain their good reputations throughout.

Can you point to some of those specifically
Show me examples.
Specific details.

I can show you the exact opposite.

I mean if you say something is happening but wont bring conclusive proof of highly corroborating evidence that is the same thing really you are talking about others doing.

I'm not sure if speculating on others is worthy of red trust if they cant conclusively debunk it especially concerning behaviors apparently conducted on the forum.

See Red trust was made just to flag out people for their suspicious activity in the group so that other members in the forum get alert/caution while doing any transaction or deal with them.
Signature campaign or bounty managers start filtering the best out of many applications by dropping red trust members. Then slowly, It becomes the guidelines(rule) for campaigns that red trust members are not allowed to participate in it.
Now as Lordhermes said there are various incidents that happened in past where people are got red trust just for silly reasons or to destroy their profile(or campaign income) on Forum.
I personally feel that we should use this weapon very carefully and give red trust after giving at least 1 warning to a member.

Yes indeed.
However if there is no punishment or requirement to use red tags in a useful and credible way and there is clear financial incentive not to use them correctly... the guess what happens?

The system is wide open to abuse and gives financial incentive to abuse it 
Hence those controlling it miraculously have all the best sig spots and control the other rev streams.

It's a mess. Its undeniable.

[BITCOIN4X]

I personally feel that we should use this weapon very carefully and give red trust after giving at least 1 warning to a member.

I don't think we should have any more warning before the red tag is given. The reason is because If I'm not mistaken then we already have the previous 33 warning point as a forum rule. If a user break this rule then it is possible that DT member can mark their account with a red tag as the reason for breaking the rule. The 33 point that I mentioned must always be remembered and read so as not to make mistake in making decision that will later become habit. As in one example, someone complained and continued to complain about the unfairness of staff and the merit source in distributing merit to user. If the person keep complaining and complaining, eventually there will be hate speech thrown at the staff and the merit source so that the person will be marked as a troll.

In addition, there are many thing that get a person get red tag and clearly all wrong that have been breached, especially there are warning for that.

[KaneVWE]

I personally feel that we should use this weapon very carefully and give red trust after giving at least 1 warning to a member.

I don't think we should have any more warning before the red tag is given. The reason is because If I'm not mistaken then we already have the previous 33 warning point as a forum rule. If a user break this rule then it is possible that DT member can mark their account with a red tag as the reason for breaking the rule. The 33 point that I mentioned must always be remembered and read so as not to make mistake in making decision that will later become habit. As in one example, someone complained and continued to complain about the unfairness of staff and the merit source in distributing merit to user. If the person keep complaining and complaining, eventually there will be hate speech thrown at the staff and the merit source so that the person will be marked as a troll.

In addition, there are many thing that get a person get red tag and clearly all wrong that have been breached, especially there are warning for that.

Complaining about unfairness whilst presenting a solid case that has never been debunked that corroborates everything you say is not trolling.
Please stop promugating such nonsense.
Hate speech? Another meaningless term. Is this any speech someone else doesn't approve of.
Your post could be hate speech? Why trying to conflate independently verifiable evidence as trolling?
Sounds like hate speech to me.
Also sounds like trolling as per the rules.

Sadly a Red trust account has zero meaning any longer.

Only a type 2 or 3 flag should have some meaning but don't be shocked if you find that proven scammers on DT have no red tag or flag of any kind. Because they collude to prevent them.  

Red tagged accounts have zero meaning aka you cant say oh look a DT1 or multiple DT1 have tagged them they must behaviors in their histories that show they are scammers or attempting to scam or setting up a scam.

Even the flags that claim this are bogus for type 1 or can be.

If you were trust abused on the old system ( pre flag) you are treated to a red tags and a nice warning banner defaming your account as financially dangerous or telling lies that some members have located such behaviors.  This could be entirely untrue if you analysed it.

Repeat after me. Red tags mean nothing alone. You would need to investigate the entire background to the claim yourself. Most are too dumb or lazy to do that.

All you have are type2 and type3 flags to rely on.  Even then I would be checking for myself.
Campaign managers on the  big projects are working with DT to ensure they get the best spots regardless of whether they have red tags or can even make objectively valuable posts.  

Don't contradict me unless you can debunk my points with evidence because you just look like a pleb to those that will objectively analyse your reply. Bring evidence or request it from me if you're not privy to the core arguments around here since the silly new merit and trust mess was introduced.