How many red trust users are ACTUALLY scammers? - page 3.

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: YoonYeonghwa on January 04, 2016, 07:58:05 PM

Some of them are actually scammers, and some are just accused of being a scammer but it is not certain that they are.

In bitcoin, it's better to be called a scammer when you aren't, then to not be called a scammer when you are.

There are no second chances with irreversible currency, so it's best to err on the side of caution.

hedgy73

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1077

Most DT members are trusted enough to hand out negative or positive trust.

Good thing is with DT membersis that trust feedback means something, usually negative to scammers.

Usually the only people moaning about negative trust are scammers and people that have bough accounts and are trying to scam.

I have no feelings for members that are red (negative) trusted for whatever reason unless they prove their innocence which is very, very rare.

99% of times people marked as scammers are or dissapear or dont prove otherwise.

YoonYeonghwa

sr. member

Activity: 242

Merit: 250

Some of them are actually scammers, and some are just accused of being a scammer but it is not certain that they are.

LFC_Bitcoin

legendary

Activity: 3556

Merit: 9709

#1 VIP Crypto Casino

Most accounts that have red trust unfortunately have it deservedly in my experience. DT members don't tend to hand out negative trust for no reason.

The only time I've seen an 'unfair negative trust' was when tspacepilot was involved in a row with Quickseller. That obviously resolved itself when QS was removed from DT.

Shibashi Dogemoto

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

I must agree that in my opinion, not all red trust is completely deserved... Especially the ones given by untrusted members. But, in case of a DT member leaving red trust it's almost always justified in some way.
This does not mean the member receiving -ve is a sure scammer, but it does mean that he did something like ignoring rules, displaying scamlike behaviour, selling/buying questionable goods...

I think about 5-10% of the -ve given by DT is not really deserved (mostly -ve given for account sales, or sales of goods that are in the "grey area" like MS keys). At least 30% of the red trust given by untrusted members is not deserved (in my opinion)

minifrij

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1268

In Memory of Zepher

Newbies who get red trust from loan requests aren't using collateral, which means one of two things:
1. They plan to run off with the money they're given,
2. They are incapable of reading the guidelines which say specifically not to request a loan without collateral.
Neither of these things look particularly good on a user, do they?

It's up to the person giving the red trust as to if it's justified, but if several higher members disagreed with the person leaving the trust, said person would be removed from DT (making their ratings not show straight away by default). Because of this, you can conclude that they must be doing something right.

Dorrittulx

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

This came across my mind just after seeing another member given red trust complain on the forum. It's obvious that red trust is ugly, and basically f*cks up your forum profile and reduces your trust to dust. But, do people who got red trust actually deserve it? I feel as if red trust is given out too easily. I see no point in marking a newbie asking for a loan, a scammer. It's too easy to assume they will run-off. Funny, because people refer to bitcointalk as a great place to get a loan, so why not make an account and ask for a loan if you actually need one?

The point is, how many people who have red trust would scam you if they could. I see red trust for any reason nowadays, whether it's selling illegal items, a potential alt, or even for selling disagreeable items like Microsoft keys. It makes me wonder, what % of red trust users are scammers? My guess: 70%. What's your guess?

Topic: How many red trust users are ACTUALLY scammers? - page 3. (Read 2749 times)