Trust improvements

[TheButterZone]

I just downgraded all of my "not personally a victim" negrates to neutrals. If I could recode my own forum, I would rename Neutral to Suspect (leave comments why you suspect this user is scamming/has scammed), and have the points display trusted/trust depth # of positives in green | # of neutrals/suspects in black | # of negatives in red. Then below that line, "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!" would show up if any of your trusted users or depth thereof left a neutral/suspect, or negative.

[1715342005]

1715342005

[1715342005]

1715342005

[1715342005]

1715342005

[1715342005]

1715342005

[1715342005]

1715342005

[ruthless09]

I often leave negative trust feedback for scammers before they scam anyone, or after they scam others. I don't often get scammed myself.

Perhaps the wording next to "negative" should be changed from "I was scammed" to "this person isn't trustworthy".

Sounds like a fair suggestion in my opinion since its a good change in wording.
It's possible for people to be suspicious from the start and it doesn't hurt to be proactive in preventing fraud since it's not always "I was scammed" but I am preventing people from scamming / their intentions are suspicious to me.

If you flag them before they scam, potential victims are alerted by the "trade with caution" note next to their posts.

If you wait until after they've run off with all the coins, it's too late. By then they've made a new account and a new scam thread.

Seems daft to me to only allow us to leave negative feedback after the event, and only if we were personally scammed.

The neutral ratings is something that can be left is someone is acting suspicious but not acting like they are going to outright scam. Prior to trading with someone, you should check their trust rating, and if you share someone else's suspicions then you may want to trade with an elevated level of caution.

Another reason why a neutral rating may want to be used is if you are on default trust, but do not want to leave outright negative trust, for example if someone is requesting a scammy loan however appears to be doing so because they do not know any better. The neutral trust could be used as a "warning" to be used and if similar behavior is used in the future then an outright negative trust may be warranted  

[dooglus]

The neutral ratings is something that can be left is someone is acting suspicious but not acting like they are going to outright scam. Prior to trading with someone, you should check their trust rating, and if you share someone else's suspicions then you may want to trade with an elevated level of caution.

Another reason why a neutral rating may want to be used is if you are on default trust, but do not want to leave outright negative trust, for example if someone is requesting a scammy loan however appears to be doing so because they do not know any better. The neutral trust could be used as a "warning" to be used and if similar behavior is used in the future then an outright negative trust may be warranted  

What about the guy who starts yet another Ponzi thread: "guaranteed 200% returns in 24 hours, no limit". He hasn't scammed me, but he's obviously trying to scam. There are noobs in the thread asking questions, and my negative rating could well help them not fall victim to his scam. But he didn't scam me, and won't, because I know it's a scam.

That doesn't seem like a "neutral" case to me.

[Oldminer]

Definitely a move in the right direction.

Will everyone's 'trust depth' be automatically changed to '2' as it should be (seeing as most people would be default set to '3' and have no idea what this means, and so are unlikely to change it)?

[ruthless09]

The neutral ratings is something that can be left is someone is acting suspicious but not acting like they are going to outright scam. Prior to trading with someone, you should check their trust rating, and if you share someone else's suspicions then you may want to trade with an elevated level of caution.

Another reason why a neutral rating may want to be used is if you are on default trust, but do not want to leave outright negative trust, for example if someone is requesting a scammy loan however appears to be doing so because they do not know any better. The neutral trust could be used as a "warning" to be used and if similar behavior is used in the future then an outright negative trust may be warranted  

What about the guy who starts yet another Ponzi thread: "guaranteed 200% returns in 24 hours, no limit". He hasn't scammed me, but he's obviously trying to scam. There are noobs in the thread asking questions, and my negative rating could well help them not fall victim to his scam. But he didn't scam me, and won't, because I know it's a scam.

That doesn't seem like a "neutral" case to me.

Negative trust would be appropriate in this case, as they are clearly trying to scam.

The descriptions are really only guidelines as to when it is appropriate to leave various ratings. The trust system is still un-moderated and you still have the right to leave whatever trust ratings you feel appropriate. The added feature is to allow people to add in comments without leaving any actual trust. The use of this feature would only be appropriate in "moderate" events

[freedomno1]

I often leave negative trust feedback for scammers before they scam anyone, or after they scam others. I don't often get scammed myself.

Perhaps the wording next to "negative" should be changed from "I was scammed" to "this person isn't trustworthy".

Sounds like a fair suggestion in my opinion since its a good change in wording.
It's possible for people to be suspicious from the start and it doesn't hurt to be proactive in preventing fraud since it's not always "I was scammed" but I am preventing people from scamming / their intentions are suspicious to me.

If you flag them before they scam, potential victims are alerted by the "trade with caution" note next to their posts.

If you wait until after they've run off with all the coins, it's too late. By then they've made a new account and a new scam thread.

Seems daft to me to only allow us to leave negative feedback after the event, and only if we were personally scammed.

If it's green I trust them white impartial either way (neutral) red I got scammed.  
Old one was bipolar either trust or don't trust so can see why it seems daft to say only if I was personally scammed they get negative feedback.

From that viewpoint and considering the change it may make sense to add a new color
Thinking of a stop light system
Red for proven scams it's trade with caution / avoid
Green for trusted users
Yellow is a caution/warning and could fit in the neutral category
(or perhaps a 4th category making it possible to be ambivalent to them aka truly neutral feedback, alongside a suspicious but with not enough evidence to call it a scam outright category)

The question would be how other people view yellow ratings and if enough people agree it is suspicious how would it impact the related trust levels.

Ruthless and Butter do make a fair point that neutral could be used to label someone suspicious but it just seems ambivalent by default in my opinion without some sort of specification.

That said Theymos called it trust improvements for a reason which is why it makes good discussion.

(as for the ponzi threads would skip to red, the yellow is more for those borderline cases either way where your not really thinking a scammer by default but not necessarily trustworthy either E.G. a new service that hasn't done many sales yet.)

[hilariousandco]

Another reason why a neutral rating may want to be used is if you are on default trust, but do not want to leave outright negative trust, for example if someone is requesting a scammy loan however appears to be doing so because they do not know any better. The neutral trust could be used as a "warning" to be used and if similar behavior is used in the future then an outright negative trust may be warranted  

That's one good reason, but usually the red warning was also there for a good reason because of the high potential and likelihood of a scam being committed and served as a good warning but now that warning won't show up. I like the idea of neutral trust and is good if you want to leave a positive comment without issuing trust but I don't think it's going to work very well for several reasons. Dishonest or angry people aren't suddenly going to start leaving neutral trust instead of negative to be 'fairer'. Also, if I or anyone else leaves a neutral feedback on someone voicing their suspicions of a user's behaviour or the high likelihood of them scamming they'll still likely retaliate with negative feedback.

[Somekindabitcoin]

Why not make neutral trust visible? Still could work as trade with caution. It could have an extra info tab as to why there is a neutral there. If multiple people neutral this person, it would say a reason why like something around the terms of suspicious activity and the potential to scam/high risk.

[BadBear]

The neutral ratings is something that can be left is someone is acting suspicious but not acting like they are going to outright scam. Prior to trading with someone, you should check their trust rating, and if you share someone else's suspicions then you may want to trade with an elevated level of caution.

Another reason why a neutral rating may want to be used is if you are on default trust, but do not want to leave outright negative trust, for example if someone is requesting a scammy loan however appears to be doing so because they do not know any better. The neutral trust could be used as a "warning" to be used and if similar behavior is used in the future then an outright negative trust may be warranted  

What about the guy who starts yet another Ponzi thread: "guaranteed 200% returns in 24 hours, no limit". He hasn't scammed me, but he's obviously trying to scam. There are noobs in the thread asking questions, and my negative rating could well help them not fall victim to his scam. But he didn't scam me, and won't, because I know it's a scam.

That doesn't seem like a "neutral" case to me.

FWIW, I personally would feel that is warranted, and wouldn't attempt to remove one from default for that.

[hilariousandco]

It'd be fine to still leave negative for that. A person doesn't have to have personally scammed you before you can leave feedback. Ponzis should still likely recieve negative as I'm sure most would agree they deserve it, and people who are almost certainly trying to scam should also still recieve a negative as a warning in my opinion.

[theymos]

Will everyone's 'trust depth' be automatically changed to '2' as it should be (seeing as most people would be default set to '3' and have no idea what this means, and so are unlikely to change it)?

The default has always been 2.

[Welsh]

Will everyone's 'trust depth' be automatically changed to '2' as it should be (seeing as most people would be default set to '3' and have no idea what this means, and so are unlikely to change it)?

The default has always been 2.

Great few edits & new additions, thank you!

[devthedev]

Why not make neutral trust visible? Still could work as trade with caution. It could have an extra info tab as to why there is a neutral there. If multiple people neutral this person, it would say a reason why like something around the terms of suspicious activity and the potential to scam/high risk.

That's a good idea.

[qwk]

I'm with dooglus here.
The whole point of the trust system should be to warn others before they are scammed.

I am an experienced user of this forum. I know a scam when I see one.
Why should I not be able to point the potential scammer out as what he is?
After all, it's not like I'm accusing him of a crime, all I want to say is:
I don't trust that guy, if you think I'm smart, follow my advice.

It is absolutely necessary not only to allow, but even to encourage negative trust for suspected scammers.

I often leave negative trust feedback for scammers before they scam anyone, or after they scam others. I don't often get scammed myself.
After these changes, I don't see a way of doing that any more, so what should I do?

If you flag them before they scam, potential victims are alerted by the "trade with caution" note next to their posts.
If you wait until after they've run off with all the coins, it's too late. By then they've made a new account and a new scam thread.
Seems daft to me to only allow us to leave negative feedback after the event, and only if we were personally scammed.

What about the guy who starts yet another Ponzi thread: "guaranteed 200% returns in 24 hours, no limit". He hasn't scammed me, but he's obviously trying to scam. There are noobs in the thread asking questions, and my negative rating could well help them not fall victim to his scam. But he didn't scam me, and won't, because I know it's a scam.

[John (John K.)]

I'm with dooglus here.
The whole point of the trust system should be to warn others before they are scammed.

I am an experienced user of this forum. I know a scam when I see one.
Why should I not be able to point the potential scammer out as what he is?
After all, it's not like I'm accusing him of a crime, all I want to say is:
I don't trust that guy, if you think I'm smart, follow my advice.

It is absolutely necessary not only to allow, but even to encourage negative trust for suspected scammers.

I often leave negative trust feedback for scammers before they scam anyone, or after they scam others. I don't often get scammed myself.
After these changes, I don't see a way of doing that any more, so what should I do?

If you flag them before they scam, potential victims are alerted by the "trade with caution" note next to their posts.
If you wait until after they've run off with all the coins, it's too late. By then they've made a new account and a new scam thread.
Seems daft to me to only allow us to leave negative feedback after the event, and only if we were personally scammed.

What about the guy who starts yet another Ponzi thread: "guaranteed 200% returns in 24 hours, no limit". He hasn't scammed me, but he's obviously trying to scam. There are noobs in the thread asking questions, and my negative rating could well help them not fall victim to his scam. But he didn't scam me, and won't, because I know it's a scam.

+1 here. Notice that most seasoned users do not or rarely get scammed. I personally try to leave negative trust for users that I deem untrustworthy if I can to prevent other unsuspecting members from falling for them.

[dooglus]

+1 here. Notice that most seasoned users do not or rarely get scammed.

OK, so I'm going to continue using the trust system as I did before the wording was changed, and leave negative trust for people I think aren't trustworthy, whether they managed to scam me or not.

I'll assume the "I was scammed" is just an example of when to use negative feedback rather than an exhaustive list, until I hear differently.

[John (John K.)]

...

I'll assume the "I was scammed" is just an example of when to use negative feedback rather than an exhaustive list, until I hear differently.

There's this cause "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.", so a negative feedback is certainly sanctioned.

[dooglus]

There's this cause "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.", so a negative feedback is certainly sanctioned.

OK, so it changed again. Yesterday it just said "You were scammed".

Problem solved then I guess.

[TheButterZone]

Almost back to square one, then?! What's the point of having neutrals? Belief is not the same as proof, and should be a lesser rating level (that still displays in black on poster_info).

[guitarplinker]

Nice to see the changes!

I have a question about the trust though - right now it appears that I have 1 trust point, and two more pending. Is there a time frame for when those pending trusts will become trust points? Ex x number of days after the trust has been given? I've tried to figure this out for awhile but can't seem to figure it out.