Suggestions for the forum

[Madness]

Some people liked the idea that I posted here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.140
so I decided to post it here with more suggestions that I have to get more intention and see what more people thinks about it .



Trust/Marketplace System Changes :

• Only staff,Moderators,Administrators can get Vouch Copy for Digital goods.
  
• A visible button only on Marketplace forums under each user just like "Activity" saying "Request trade" , any user should use it before trading. that button should redirect you to a page where you have a form :
• Trade Request to : @#username#@ (Automatic by the forum)
• Trade Thread: @#Thread_link#@ (Automatic by the forum)
• Add Escrow (optional) : @#Escrow_Profile#@
• NOTE : I've read the trading guidelines and will not trade outside of Bitcointalk (e.g. through skype,facebook or whatever).

• Each user have under his name the following informations too    Marketplace : 0/0/0 (Positive/Neutral/Negative) so people can rate the trades with the users.
• Only Full Member/Sr.Member or above can Rate
• You can't rate unless you made a trade with the user (check first point)
  
  

I will keep updating this topic with more Let me know what you really think about anything I add to this thread. thank you

[1715266438]

1715266438

[1715266438]

1715266438

[1715266438]

1715266438

[Quickseller]

It is a free market isn't it?

[Madness]

It is a free market isn't it?

What do you mean ? this system is just to make more "protection" and less "scamming" .

[Muhammed Zakir]

How can we ensure they actually did a trade? With a alt-account, user can make a post and with original account, user can do the trade. Then, enter that link. I like your idea, showing the whole trust feedback under the username.

   ~~MZ~~

[Quickseller]

It is a free market isn't it?

What do you mean ? this system is just to make more "protection" and less "scamming" .

You are saying on staff+ can get vouches, it is up to individual members to believe a vouch. Mods have scammed before.

Some people may not want to make their trade public for a number of reasons.

Not being able to rate others unless you trade with them is a horrible idea. If someone whose opinion is not valued by the community is scammed then a scammer will be able to continue to scam and could simply trade with people without reputation.

[hilariousandco]

It is a free market isn't it?

What do you mean ? this system is just to make more "protection" and less "scamming" .

Isn't going to stop people from scamming, nor will it prevent scams. You can't force people to agree to a trade and many wont bother especially scammers. Do I have to agree to do a trade with someone who is very likely a scammer just to be able to leave feedback when they try scam? What's to stop them leaving retaliatory feedback on me?

Also relevant:

One problem with the trust system that would be great to try and solve it retaliation feedback. Often times people are afraid to leave someone who they think is untrustworthy negative feedback because that person has DefaultTrust and a high trust score and they fear retaliation negative feedback. I'm not sure of a good way of mitigating this, but it would be very useful.

IMO, removing the default trust list, and creating some sort of system to have BOTH users agree to a transaction before any trust ratings that can effect your trust score can be left would go a long way in doing this. People would still be able to comment on your trust page with neutrals, but it would not impact your trust rating. This 100% ensures only directly involved individuals in a transaction have the power to damage another persons trust score. Furthermore it may even be good policy to require users post the agreement first and reference during this mutual agreement function it so any disputes can be arbitrated based only upon the agreement the two entered into.

Then what happens when I agree to a trade with a newb and he doesn't pay or tries to scam? I leave negative then he returns the favour? This retaliatory feedback is what used to happen on ebay but now only buyers can leave feedback but then they often just leave negative for the slightest of things and it'll happen here. You can agree to sell something to a newbie and then what's to stop him from leaving feedback for no valid reason? This system also won't stop scammers and warn others before they scam and it's too late after they do.

[redsn0w]

How can we ensure they actually did a trade? With a alt-account, user can make a post and with original account, user can do the trade. Then, enter that link. I like your idea, showing the whole trust feedback under the username.

   ~~MZ~~

I also like this idea ,  Why not put the trust visible (each feedback will appear) like : 1 / 2 / 3 .

[Madness]

It is a free market isn't it?

What do you mean ? this system is just to make more "protection" and less "scamming" .

You are saying on staff+ can get vouches, it is up to individual members to believe a vouch. Mods have scammed before.

Some people may not want to make their trade public for a number of reasons.

Not being able to rate others unless you trade with them is a horrible idea. If someone whose opinion is not valued by the community is scammed then a scammer will be able to continue to scam and could simply trade with people without reputation.

Thanks for your answer QuickSeller .

Well, I know it's up to the seller to give a vouch copy or not . im just saying that if he did give a vouch copy he should give it to a Staff members (I guess both Theymos & BadBear know how to choose his staff very well).

You are free to not make your trade public or not but making it not public will leave you a bad situation I would say. like if you have no proof in case you got scammed.

For the last point, why would you leave a negative feedback on someones Profile if you didn't trade with him ? If he scammed you then just leave a negative feedback.

For hacked accounts & those stuff. I guess we need something like "reputation" (on profile too) to leave it on users . because they are separated things , each rank can give the following reputation :

• Full Member : +1
• Sr.Member : +2
• Hero Member : +3
• Legendary Member: +4

[Muhammed Zakir]

For the last point, why would you leave a negative feedback on someones Profile if you didn't trade with him ? If he scammed you then just leave a negative feedback.

There are many reasons you would for example if the user scammed anybody else, if it is a hacked account etc...

For hacked accounts & those stuff. I guess we need something like "reputation" (on profile too) to leave it on users . because they are separated things , each rank can give the following reputation :

• Full Member : +1
• Sr.Member : +2
• Hero Member : +3
• Legendary Member: +4

People would buy FM accounts and will do such thing many times. Better to remove FM from this.

   ~~MZ~~

[Madness]

For the last point, why would you leave a negative feedback on someones Profile if you didn't trade with him ? If he scammed you then just leave a negative feedback.

There are many reasons you would for example if the user scammed anybody else, if it is a hacked account etc...

For hacked accounts & those stuff. I guess we need something like "reputation" (on profile too) to leave it on users . because they are separated things , each rank can give the following reputation :

• Full Member : +1
• Sr.Member : +2
• Hero Member : +3
• Legendary Member: +4

People would buy FM accounts and will do such thing many times. Better to remove FM from this.

   ~~MZ~~

Rating on Reputation will be one time only , but yes I get you if they ban a lot of accounts you got a point
Just giving the basic idea , those rating pointscan be changed of course .

[TECSHARE]

It is a free market isn't it?

What do you mean ? this system is just to make more "protection" and less "scamming" .

Isn't going to stop people from scamming, nor will it prevent scams. You can't force people to agree to a trade and many wont bother especially scammers. Do I have to agree to do a trade with someone who is very likely a scammer just to be able to leave feedback when they try scam? What's to stop them leaving retaliatory feedback on me?

Also relevant:

One problem with the trust system that would be great to try and solve it retaliation feedback. Often times people are afraid to leave someone who they think is untrustworthy negative feedback because that person has DefaultTrust and a high trust score and they fear retaliation negative feedback. I'm not sure of a good way of mitigating this, but it would be very useful.

IMO, removing the default trust list, and creating some sort of system to have BOTH users agree to a transaction before any trust ratings that can effect your trust score can be left would go a long way in doing this. People would still be able to comment on your trust page with neutrals, but it would not impact your trust rating. This 100% ensures only directly involved individuals in a transaction have the power to damage another persons trust score. Furthermore it may even be good policy to require users post the agreement first and reference during this mutual agreement function it so any disputes can be arbitrated based only upon the agreement the two entered into.

Then what happens when I agree to a trade with a newb and he doesn't pay or tries to scam? I leave negative then he returns the favour? This retaliatory feedback is what used to happen on ebay but now only buyers can leave feedback but then they often just leave negative for the slightest of things and it'll happen here. You can agree to sell something to a newbie and then what's to stop him from leaving feedback for no valid reason? This system also won't stop scammers and warn others before they scam and it's too late after they do.

NOTHING WILL PREVENT SCAMMING. PERIOD. Scammers will ALWAYS ALWAYS find new ways to scam no matter what system we use. Preemptive law enforcement has been demonstrated without exception throughout history to be a slippery slope and a flawed policy.


As for the quote, you left out my reply to you:

One problem with the trust system that would be great to try and solve it retaliation feedback. Often times people are afraid to leave someone who they think is untrustworthy negative feedback because that person has DefaultTrust and a high trust score and they fear retaliation negative feedback. I'm not sure of a good way of mitigating this, but it would be very useful.

IMO, removing the default trust list, and creating some sort of system to have BOTH users agree to a transaction before any trust ratings that can effect your trust score can be left would go a long way in doing this. People would still be able to comment on your trust page with neutrals, but it would not impact your trust rating. This 100% ensures only directly involved individuals in a transaction have the power to damage another persons trust score. Furthermore it may even be good policy to require users post the agreement first and reference during this mutual agreement function it so any disputes can be arbitrated based only upon the agreement the two entered into.

Then what happens when I agree to a trade with a newb and he doesn't pay or tries to scam? I leave negative then he returns the favour? This retaliatory feedback is what used to happen on ebay but now only buyers can leave feedback but then they often just leave negative for the slightest of things and it'll happen here. You can agree to sell something to a newbie and then what's to stop him from leaving feedback for no valid reason? This system also won't stop scammers and warn others before they scam and it's too late after they do.

Thats why you get rid of red and green ratings and have everyone make custom trust lists. There is no reason anyone needs to preemptively destroy a users reputation even if they are highly suspected of scamming. This preemptive "scambusting" mentality has done more damage to this community than it has helped. Also, this is what the neutral ratings are for, for people to comment about suspected scams and the like without effecting trust ratings.

Which is the bigger barrier? The one VOD puts up for scammers via shotgunning negative ratings everywhere with little or no evidence, or the honest users that have all of their time money and effort wasted who at THE VERY LEAST have to wait months to even discuss having it removed. IMO this is just leading to innocent users being falsely accused and either driving them away or driving them into the ranks of trolls and scammers.

I repeat - A scammer can just get a new name or buy a new account. An HONEST USER loses all the time, money, and effort they invested into their username (often years of work) over accusations that VOD does not even bother to verify most of the time. Several of his ratings are simply for "annoying" him or "lying". Last time I checked that is not an acceptable use of the trust system. VODs practices are FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE to this community than the good he may or may not do "stopping" scammers (who return minutes later).

This is a well known subversion tactic. Get the enemy playing whack-a-mole so much that thy start catching up honest people, then as more and more honest people are burned sentiment turns against the authority handing these dictates down. It is a recipe for this community's destruction.

[Madness]

It is a free market isn't it?

What do you mean ? this system is just to make more "protection" and less "scamming" .

Isn't going to stop people from scamming, nor will it prevent scams. You can't force people to agree to a trade and many wont bother especially scammers. Do I have to agree to do a trade with someone who is very likely a scammer just to be able to leave feedback when they try scam? What's to stop them leaving retaliatory feedback on me?

I know that there is nothing basically that will stop scamming , but this is just to protect users more I guess and make it easy to find scammers easily & just ban them for good . so they don't scam over & over different people