The diversity of opinion is interesting. It seems this is a grayish area as to the extent of lying warranting a negative feedback rather than whether or not one is warranted period. Definitely a little different to opinions being made by others members in different parts of the forum. Looking forward to reading more opinions.
Well, that's up to you. We all lie at some time in our lives. The problem is lying too much or some fat lies that cannot be forgiven.
If you believe that a certain person is lying and this makes you distrust him/her for a trade, leave him/her negative feedback. Others will exclude you from their trust list if they don't agree, but this is relative because if they agree with the rest of the feedbacks and not with one in particular they will not exclude you.
This thread is just for discussion. No need to get your tits in a knot over it if you take the trust system so seriously that it effects your sleep. It's not a suggestion for change, just a poll and discussion.
It's been discussed many times. Anyone can use trust feedback any way they see fit, including red-tagging for lying, but sane users would likely exclude you if you tag someone for lying in a non-trade-related discussion. Someone saying that Santa exists or that Earth is 6000 years old is not necessarily a potential scammer.
There is definitely an extent of lying. Sometimes it's not intentional, like in the event of just getting something factually wrong. That can happen to us all of course. Jokes are technically lies are well however, it's definitely not what I'm referring to.
Malicious lying is the kind that I am talking about. Misinformation, lying about other users, misrepresenting factual information with an agenda, in a reputation matter, or a trade. These all pose detriment and risks to users.
OP, you already know the answer, we here have three Types of feedback.
feedback
Type:
O: Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.
O: Neutral - Other comments.
O: Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.
Besides, you already quoted what was hinted at by: @theymos, isn't that clear enough, what should be given to a liar.
To me, if you make a trade, then the user you made the trade deal with is lying and you have valid proof and you are really at a loss in that case, Negative clearly as an option, it doesn't only happen here, outside this forum, also taking such actions.
The question is more about when a trade isn't involved. I described it above. Does a non-trade scenario of a liar that involves other users, which is proven, warrant a negative trust? Let's say it's not an opinion, a user is misrepresenting facts etc. Negative warranted?
Anyway, OP, you better take these trust things patiently and not get too emotionally involved. I'm telling you from experience.
There is a Thick-Skinned Gang Leader on the forum that we should all learn from in this regard, me included.
I agree, and I will. It's curiosity at this point as there have been a lot of interesting situations and opinions shared over this past week, leading to this thread.
It depends on what he is lying about and why he had to lie.
For example, if a random person asks me about my gender, where I live, how much btc I have.. then I may lie to him (in most cases I would simply ignore him because that's none of his business. I this case, lying didn't cause any harm and it was necessary to protect my privacy.
However, if am selling a product or offering a paid service and I lie about the qualities of that product/service with the intent to deceive the consumer then, in this case, a red tag is completely justified.
I can agree that lying for the sake of protecting yourself and your privacy is fine. In fact I'd encourage that in a situation where that information isn't at all necessary to be true.
Lying about a service and it's quality, I definitely agree that the red tag is justified (maybe even a flag if there's sufficient proof).
However these are a bit less vague. Lies that are non-trade related that effect third party judgement in a sensitive situation, or involve other users period, is one example of the kind that is a little more vague.
To what extent can a user misinform or misrepresent facts relating to other users before a negative trust is given, and is a neutral warranted or a negative, if this is proven? Is a better question if we want to add a little specificity to the topic.
It's not that I care a lot about it, but I want to say from memory the words of a person whose name I don't really remember (this phrase just settled in my head ... and I agree with it). "After the introduction of the flag system, negative feedback is suitable for many other "self-confident things"" with which I actually agree, so stepping aside a little leaving the negative is not feedback abuse or misuse, at least not to the extent that was earlier.
I completely agree with this
Poll
