I remember someone warned both of us, but we still proceeded to hand the positive feedback to the user for bursting scam
I didn't delete my positive feedback, rather I turned it to neutral while being able to capture the AI writing as a reason to change feedback from positive to neutral.
This user bursted an uncommon cheating of a signature swapper who earned from two campaigns simultaneously.
(Positive changed to neutral after accusation of AI posting) (Delete)Yes, it's okay, I deserve it, I'm also sorry for letting you down. Neutral tags as a reminder for me in the future to be even better.
It's fine, I have forgiven you. You are remorseful and I believe you must have learnt from your mistake, as you have already accepted the consequences of your crime. Good enough no one was scammed and you weren't banned as the moderators had chosen to be adamant in treating AI posting like plagiarism.
I also didn’t think it was the best use of the trust system at the time, we are lucky he didn’t take advantage of that positive trust to enter a transaction with members of the forum, that would have been really bad.
This is irony. This is how the world going on. Someone exposing scammers doesn't mean he is trusted. He can scam someone else. Everyone waits for an opportunity to scam others. This should represent why you shouldn't give positive feedback to a scam buster just because he catches scammers.
No hard feelings and no fatal crime in as much as the reason for the feedback is given.
I mean, if had a successful trade with Bob, the feedback will look somehow like this
Traded by bitcoin to fiat, and he trusted me to send first, the transaction was worth $2,000This type of feedback is different from Alice who is a scam buster may have
He is an active scam buster the forum, I trust him.
There is no guarantee that Bob will not scam and Alice will. Besides, anyone wanting to trade bitcoin to fiat will likely transact with Bob and not Alice.
The trust system is not complicated as we try to explain and use it.