Topic: If someone is a proven liar, do they deserve to be given negative trust? (Read 983 times)

These are two different things, from the eyes of two different classes of users. Theymos sees this forum from the eye of an owner and would do everything he can to keep here harmonious, not allowing anything that will unnecessarily drive away those who use this place while the rest of us are the users and we see it as a place of interaction, and most times a competition.

What theymos does is the same thing a business owner does with the way he handles his customers and tries to placate any unsatisfied one while the children of the business owner may not care much if aggrieved customers are pacified or not or they come back to patronize their businesses or not.

Users will continue to get agitated over tags as long as tags are used by campaign managers as a point of reference for enrollment in their campaigns.

The last post in this thread was on September 25, 10:01:31am.

Poll question: If someone is a proven liar, do they deserve to be given negative trust?

The poll results at the time of this post stand at:

Yes    - 11 (31.4%)
No    - 13 (37.1%)
Not sure    - 11 (31.4%)
Total Voters: 35

The diversity of opinion has been interesting to read. Thank you all for sharing.

This thread will be locked on October 2, or, 7 days after the last post (excluding this one).

I believe sometimes people do this to save someone or to cover up something's in other for it not to get worse and sometimes it is diplomatically done to control situations. That can be considered as smart move by some people to have save or forestall any occurrences if that lie was not said but any lie told is already done. There is no way it could be erased anymore from your name that you once told a lie. Be it for the right motive or not once done is already done. No two ways about it.

This is a very honest statement, but it is not always the case and not everyone is like that he does not lie. You should also think about yourself if you are so honest that you have never lied to anyone, depending on the situation you may have lied to others many times. If no one is harmed by a lie told by someone, then that person cannot be identified as a criminal. So one can be considered guilty if a major crime is committed by lying, but not otherwise.

Not all lies are the same, and if you would like to see how world would look like without even a most harmless lies, you might wanna check The Invention of Lying.


Really? So you are brutally honest with everyone around you 100% of the time? Never said a white lie in order not to hurt your friend/family member feelings? Geez, you must be fun in RL. 

A lie is always a lie no  matter how sweet sugarcoated it is. A little lie can cause a whole disaster if care is not taken. When it comes to trade, it shows how unstable and unreliable someone who tells lie just to try convince someone to get in  a project just for they telling lies to benefit. That is too dirty of an individual. I believe sometimes people tell lie just to cover up something's for their friends or loved ones but no matter how tough the situation could be  telling a lie could end up excavating things beyond what one could imagine.

I have never seen anywhere lie after being told does good but rather harm the situation making it escalate.

Well, i would say yes even though the majority voted for "No" in the poll, this is because I personally feel that a proven liar will be very hard to trust even in trade deals, if a user is proven to be a chronic lie in ordinarily things in and around the forum, what makes anyone think that the same user will not cheat in a trade deal and lie about it ?..

For me, lying should not be encouraged at all in this forum, because it will also affect trust in trade deals, anyone noticed or discovered to be involved in constant lies should be given a negative tag as a punishment and also to serve as a warning and deterant to other users with such behaviors or attitude .

Cool, thanks. See you around.

I smell something but it might also just be the air where I am today.

Thanks dude, best wishes to you! And I can promise... It's 100% genuine. You will see a lot of me I guess 

If this is genuine (doesn't read like it is to me but I could be wrong) then, cheers, welcome.

Hello BenCodie! Hope you doing great. I have never had an account on this forum, but I have been here many many times before when I needed help with something and Google it.
At least I decided to be a Member because I think it can benefits me more.

Anyway, hope you liked me answers, cheers buddie!

I think you are very opinionated for someone who just joined the forum in August.

Thank you for your input anyway. I'm not going to comment or reply to it as I really just came here to highlight your very loud presence in the forum since joining.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been to the forum before/are you an alternate account or is this the first account you've ever created on the forum?

I'm not just asking because of your post here but because I'm seeing your name is many threads with opinions that do not seem like they come from a brand new person who joined 1 month ago for the first time.

All this...... maybe hundreds of threads of the trust system, I bet it is like it is. it wont change the past future, because of it already did.
I haven't had a reason to use the trust system yet, so I can't say to much. But one strange thing is that if two guys does a deal, of course they should be able give each other trust (Good or Bad) depending on how the trade goes.

But people that got zero things with what happens 99.99% go and give red trust like they where FBI is wrong in my opinion, It can have some good abilitys to. I don't deny it, but the must is must change for the better of the forum (at least what I think)
It will only end up in one thing, that your feelings & emotions will control the trust system NOT the fact of what actually happen. And we all are like that... that just how it is.

Today more people give red tust just because they dislike someone or even more embarrasing because their friend dislike someone, grow up stop using Feedback things for personal reasons. That you can get help with in real life and not here, and start use Feedback system for what it should be.

So is the trust system good? No, its terrible, but nothing can change, and this is a easy thing to change. Just make people understand the difference from FACT & EMOTIONS AND FEELINGS.

Fact of something: You give some kind of feedback

Feelings & Opinions: Keep it for yourself!

Cheers -BabyBandit-

It's related to scam, obviously the users were deserved to get negative feedback.

I don't think such kind lie is positive, it always related to merit fishing because these kind thread are created by low rank users and they post in the section that have a good merit circulation. If they create it about shitcoins and posted in shitcoins board, I don't care.

It depends on what he lied about and how much harm the lie caused. Call it the lie of the Bounty Campaign manager who is running a fraudulent bounty ^[1]. Based on the lies spread by the Tokensuite team, DT members have left negative feedback on their profiles as a form of prevention for other members so they don't believe in what they are running. 
Lies that spread fictitious stories through a post with the aim of increasing other members' enthusiasm for investing do not have a bad impact or harm other members. This type of lie can be called a positive lie that does not harm members in the forum.

1. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/tokensuiteio-and-bountysuiteio-fraudulentscam-platforms-discussion-thread-5106337

Like I said earlier from my first post you will understand what I meant as I do mentioned that is the "world" we are into and we can't avoid it, and not in terms of money. From what you said about your kids, I think you are only trying to convinced them on trying to do what you didn't want them to do at the moments. So indirectly whenever you are practicing this we can call it lie as well.

I'm approaching my forties, and I've yet to met a person who has never told a lie in their life. People fib from time to time, but it doesn't necessarily make them compulsive or pathological liars. Take me, for instance; I might tell little white lies to shield my kids from harsh realities or to make my wife feel better. Ever heard of the classic "Do you think I'm fat?" question? Try answering that one honestly and see what happens!

So, if you claim you've never lied, you're either a hermit living on a deserted island or not doing a great job as a parent, spouse, or friend...

Yeah you are correct but let just say that is the "world" we found ourselves and is unavoidable... Although most of those words are logical statement knowing too well "you are looking great" and off course your Car definitely looks "Nice" and they must want to commend on it, at this point you knows already.

Do I say it depends on individuals and not everyone will want to lie about some things (the truth is always bitter), there are people who are that strict and doesn't lie and they are very fair in their judgements. Although this lying attitudes are commonly with the newbies (or anyone whose purpose is to scam or gain something for self satisfactory), I believe such a reputable and high profile person like you can't involves in those silly act and you can't lie over something that I know that will or won't add any value to you, as I believe you are above that stage in life and in forum entirely.

However, like I said before I might not know much about the trusting system, so I will keep learning from you people the more I spend quality time here.

How about Santa? The tooth fairy? "You look great!"? "Nice car!"?
People want you to lie about some things, and they aren't going to like you if you're brutally honest with them all the time.

Well I may not know much about the trust system but with my understanding so far and compared with physical cases anyone who lies is a criminal and criminal connotes a scammer. So while dealing with anyone and you think such person or sites are likely to scam people you can leave your feedback this depends on your personal thought towards that person maybe have had an encountered before and such person scammed you, then what is next is to give negative tag.

Again if there is anyone promoting a site that tends to offer 100 percent and above as a return of investment within some hours you should know this sites is scam site, hence the poster deserves a negative tag to warn people against the site.

Note: all lies are lie no lie can be considered as little, a thief is always thief and whenever they are caught that's is the day they started stealing you should know such person's has been stealing for long, so he deserved tag for such act at this point negative tag is possible.

That wasn't the main point here because you didn't present your initial question in that manner.

So, to address your question once more: "If someone is a proven liar, should they get negative trust?"
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Please refer to my initial reply in this thread.

I think we are forgetting the main point if we are talking about lying without considering its effect.

A white lie which doesn't actually effect anyone in comparison to a lie that may increase a person's trade risk or trustworthiness would be very different to situations to one another.

The results of nearly all scientific research on the general population show that even honest people tell an average of up to two lies a day. These are mostly referred to as "white lies," but they are lies nonetheless. Approximately 75% of the total number of participants fall into this group. About 20% of people are intermediate liars, telling 3-5 lies per day, while 5% are prolific liars who tell 6 or more lies per day.

https://www.uwlax.edu/currents/how-often-do-people-lie/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/questions-character/202211/are-most-people-liars

Yes, the experience with JollyGood is where my curiosity has stemmed from.

I didn't want to carry over the drama to here, as I was wondering without involving that situation.


I suppose you are right. However that also a pretty big fact to drop...that the majority of this forum would be in negative trust because lying is apparently so common..

Sounds pretty terrible when you word it properly, ey?


If it's been happening for a long time then there is obviously a blurry line that needs to be corrected.

Anyhow, thank you all for your opinions. It has been good to get so much perspective.

I don't think so, well depending where the lies are coming from, like they say you'll never know until you know.
Before coming into conclusion about someone or someone's business is better you give it a try first other than base on speculations.
Someone can paint the name of a trader who you want to do business with in a bad way for you not to even believe and drop the negative trust when you haven't given it a try or know nothing about that individual, if you don't take a risk then you'll never know who's legit or not.
All I'm saying is life is a risk so take it or leave it.
So don't let your emotions cloud your judgment over someone you know nothing about and I don't think in some cases that lying indicate trade risk.

I think it is natural for a human to feel "less safe" with someone in a trade if they see that person as a known liar.

Personally, I'd rather trade, and would have a slightly safer feeling, with people I see as honest and having integrity, when compared to a random person.

Of course, I'd have my own criteria on the types of lies that might make me feel less safe trading with someone, and others may have their own criteria.

It's a subjective peer-reviewed system which can carry consequences within the system from those peers.. socially, financially and otherwise... similar to a reality TV-like social drama clusterfuck.

Yes, its already an overly complex system -- I agree that any additions would just create unnecessary complications. Some people continue to fail to grasp the difference between trust ratings and inclusions/exclusions, despite there being plenty of educational resources out there and years worth of banter about how they should be used.


Also seems to be the case. The trust system has taken on a special significance here because (from what I understand) it is used by campaign managers to help differentiate applicants. But at the end of the day I'm a firm believer that it should only be used to indicate trade risk and not as a tool to silence critics or promote friends.

You'll end up with cases where someone gives positive feedback for a successful trade in the trade trust system, and negative feedback in the reputation trust system because he thinks the other guy is an asshole. I'll order the popcorn

No need, BenCodie isn't on DT, and asking attention for this case has only brought him further away from DT:
I'd say (at least in this case) the Trust system works just fine.

I had left DT for awhile until I read LoyceV I think saying something like leaving DT wasn't the way to improve it because we just leave a spot open for a potential scammer to get in. Something like that anyways. So I decided to make myself eligible again.

Liar or not, I have been trying to be a little more mindful of who I tag these days. Since we don't have an appropriate trust system for reputation, I think we misuse the current system. What other choice do we have though? Alts of banned people get tagged, someone doesn't like someone else and a tag happens, or a guy cheated a campaign, or 100 other reasons.

It is a joke in a lot of ways.

That made me chuckle--not because it's ridiculous but because the trust system is so ridiculous that its absurdity is deserving of such witty ridicule. 

As to the statement above by EFS, I would have to disagree unless I'm not seeing all the evidence that the majority of the forum members are liars.  That's not to say that I haven't seen hundreds of examples of dishonesty by scammers, bounty cheaters, and the like but bitcointalk has multiple millions of members.  Anyway.

The trust system really, really needs an overhaul.  When Theymos added the flag system, I just scratched my head and then rolled my eyes.  When he made the default trust list a rotating system, I entered ~DefaultTrust and said I was done with it.  But given how deaf he is to suggestions from the community I don't expect things to change anytime soon.

I concur with you strongly. Not everyone does things with the intents that appears. Certain factors that do not entertain their honesty towards a particular demand might be triggered leaving the person helpless and in a situation of a liar but in reality, it was never so.

Some business people do understand that customers are not concerned with the inbetweens of transactions but results, hence, they leave their customers out of the details but it doesn't entirely mean that the details will align entirely with their expectations. On this condition, I do not consider negative trust a befiting compensation. Just my 2 cent.

It depends on how he lies If the lies result in a loss of money or probability of losing money then he deserves to receive negative feedback or even a flag, if he lies about the information he provided then he deserves neutral feedback Neutral feedback is a warning to provide the right information, we cannot be 100% correct on the information we provided but we need to be transparent when we are trading with funds.

You bet! The current trust system already leaves some folks scratching their heads. Can you imagine the chaos if we introduced another layer of complexity with a second one?  

But I agree, the current system has its flaws and definitely leaves plenty of space for drama. In my opinion, it should be fixed. Introducing some form of voting for negative trust ratings, similar to what we have for flags, might help improve things, even if only to some extent.

For instance, in cases like this one, where BenCodie made a somewhat bad judgment call resulting in an undeserved negative rating, DTs should have the power to overvote the OP and change the rating from negative to neutral.

Which is why i've said many times that we need a reputation trust system and a trade trust system. At least if we had 2 different systems we would have more things to complain about as people would misuse 2 systems instead of 1.

If someone got negative trust for lying, the trust rating of the majority of this forum would be in the red. It's not correct to use the trust system in situations unrelated to trading in this way.
It has become annoying that the trust system has been used for personal ambitions rather than trading in this forum for a long time.

No indeed.  There are liars who scam people out of their money--and those types deserve red trust, because if I remember Theymos's guidance from years back, that's what the feedback system (positive/negative, not neutral) is supposed to be used for, trade risk--and liars about other people because of interpersonal differences/dislike/outright hatred. 

There was a feud between Vod and OgNasty that went on and on, and each side told a different story.  That might have been one or both of them lying, or it could have been a misunderstanding of facts or a misjudgement of them.  Who knows, but just because you don't like a member, don't like what they write, whatever, that's not a basis for leaving them a negative.  That affects their ability to trade, and whatever your differences are (including whether you think they're a liar or even if they're giving out verifiable misinformation about something unrelated to trading), those should be handled by a neutral tag at best.

Disclaimer: Any discussion or judgement about the trust system or people's use of it should be given a lot of latitude IMO since Theymos set it up to be way too complex with way too much freedom in how to use it.  Even with that guidance he gave, nobody has to follow it if they don't want to.  I don't think it ought to be that way, but who the fuck listens to me?

For the record, I have not read any discussion yet.

No. Not until they failed in a trade. Feedback system is not your notepad. Stop copying JollyGood.

I can lie about my wife is beautiful but she might be a 60 stone lady LOL

IMO, it depends on the kind of lie that was told. I really cannot think of or describe any of anything now, but there are some kinds of heavy lies that are causes loss to a merchant, and such lies deserve a neg tag since it's going to be a risky trade than for an honest person.


I think it's not all lies that just deserve a negative tag, unless you are really aware that it would be very risky to trade with a person who is not straight-forward in their behavior.


To some extent, I think that a neutral tag is just like an alarm trying to warn people to be careful if trading with such a person, but a negative tag is a clear warning for other members to avoid trading with such a person. So, depending on what the offense is, that will determine whether it warrants the neutral or negative tag.

Let's not stir around it: you're talking about JollyGood. I took a random number between 3 and 3.5 million: 3302703. You can't honestly believe trading with JollyGood is less safe than trading with m.wizinger!

This is what I told OP:
He's doing the opposite.

Everybody lies, it's part of social behaviour. That doesn't necessarily make someone untrustworthy.

Let me put it this way: if OP reaches DT2 and still abuses the Trust system by then, I'll exclude him.

Not completely correct, if they're only lying in his post, but they always leave an appropriate feedback, flag, and anything that related to the forum, I'd say they shouldn't be kicked from DT network.

Most of proven liars usually get neutral feedback, aside from that what can people do are only report the post that contain misleading information or just click ignore on his account.

If you get a unified opinion, then I think that the trust system has failed. It is a mixture of distributed opinions that gain their strength from the extent of others’ trust in them. You can give negative trust to everyone, but simply more members will ignore your account, and then you will not be a DT1/2 member, and therefore no one cares what You are saying.

For me, when you want to trade, you set conditions or rules. If a person lies about these rules, you will give him negative trust. If the rules say you will get a card worth $50 without KYC and when using that card, it asks you to complete KYC, then the seller lied and you have the right to give him negative trust. It differs from a lie that is not related to the rules, such as you sent him a message and a lie that he was busy.

If someone is a proven liar, you are supposed to boot them off the DT network by distrusting them, not by painting them in red.

We also probably need to always remember that we are all on the Internet. If I see a piece of news on the Internet, I won't believe it until I agree and check many other sources. We ourselves are the masters of faith in what they want to tell us. From here, we need to build on the fact that by seeing someone else's lies, we can warn other users that there is a person who is lying. In such a case, we must provide irrefutable evidence of what we consider to be lies. Also, depending on whether this lie is deep and bears any particular consequences for a person, the color of the review is red or neutral.
But, as a rule, if a person lies once, he is not burdened by the principles of morality; that is, he will do it again, and it does not matter whether it is in trade or some other activity.
We and only we must make decisions about our future relationship with this person.

No.

If it has nothing to do with a person's ability to conduct a trade on-forum then it should be left out of the trust system. Over the years, "trade" has been expanded to include participation in bounties, signature campaigns and any kind of agreement that involves an exchange of goods or services for BTC, other crypto, or money.

Some things negative trusts should never be used for include:

- airing personal grievances
- calling someone a troll
- calling someone a liar outside of anything related to trade

Neutral trust should be used when commenting on someone's ability to use the trust system correctly.

Like LoyceV said in the other thread, no one can stop you from leaving any kind of trust you want, but in doing so you can't expect other people to agree with your interpretation of appropriate use of the trust system.

There is a difference between lying to deceive (trade risk) and expressing an opinion. Everyone has the right to their opinion, even if it happens to be wrong or incorrect. Contrasting opinions should be addressed through reasoned discussions or by simply ignoring them, and this should take place within the context of regular forum conversation, rather than using the feedback system.

On this forum, we hold the principles of freedom of speech, or freedom of expression if you prefer, in high regard. Everyone has an equal right to express their thoughts as long as they adhere to the forum rules. If you believe someone is violating these rules, report them to the moderators for appropriate action. If you happen to disagree with someone's opinion, you can engage in a discussion or simply choose to ignore them. Disagreements are a natural part of any discussion platform, but trust ratings should not be part of the equation.

I view your use of the trust system as vindictive and driven by personal feelings because you didn't appreciate someone's opinion of you, and now you are trying to rationalize it.

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.

---

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.


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?


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.


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.


I completely agree with this

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.


By the way, despite my position that I stated above, I cannot agree with the accuracy of your feedback for the reason that I had conflicts with JG more than once (in those days when members of the DT had a lot of power and when my account did not represent nothing out of myself). However, despite the facts I mentioned, JG was a decent sub-person and I don't remember him acting arrogant (as the feedback you left suggests). 

There is no universal rule for such cases, many factors influence it.
If it is possible to present unequivocal evidence that someone is lying, then there is probably a justification for a negative tag in that case.

@BenCodie, I think that forming a strong opinion on every issue isn't always possible; it kind of depends on how we personally see things. "Lying" is a pretty big word, and the context surrounding it can totally change how we look at it. Yes, if someone has been proven to be a liar, it's fair to be a bit wary when dealing with them. Trust is usually built on what someone has done before, so if they keep lying, it can make people see them as untrustworthy. But it's kind of a tricky thing that can change depending on the situation. Not all lies are the same, if you get my drift.

If the case involves money - then you have the right to send him a negative tag as a warning to other users. I agree with what suchmoon said - if he lied on something unrelated to trading, then your negative tags might be questioned. Apart from that - you are free to send tags to anyone as long as you don't abuse the system.

Maybe he was just kidding - LOL.

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.

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.

If we are talking strictly about trading with someone, then use an escrow and it doesn't matter if the person you are trading with is a liar, scumbag, piece of shit, or good dude. Other then that basically it comes down to do you trust the person? Others opinion or tags aren't always something to go by, they are just a warning from what they may have experienced with a user.

Dishonest = not trustworthy. Someone who is dishonest often cannot be trusted so that person has the potential to harm others financially or so on. But as long as there are no cases where someone is being dishonest or lying, then I don't think a trust rating is necessary even if it is neutral.

If someone gets a negative or neutral trust rating simply because someone thinks that person is lying without hard evidence to support it, then I don't think they deserve any rating on their trust page. Someone who is identified as lying and committing scam which results in a risk of loss, then the negative tag is very appropriate.

If deceit results in material loss to one of the parties, then this will certainly be reflected in the trust. This is unavoidable and will allow other forum members to remain wary of a lying user should they wish to do any trades with him. Although I would not do this even with someone who has been caught in such a deception at least once, but even the absence of such a recall in the trust does not mean that you can't be deceived. So, at least leave a negative trust that you don’t leave, this is generally only a subjective opinion (if there are no mass complaints and a public fact of lies), which is not direct evidence of the user’s lies. Look, some users have a negative trust, the content of the comment is not always adequate.

Depends on context. If someone says that is happy to see his wife's mother when he's not in fact, I don't think it anyhow corresponds with trading risk with him. And if someone sais he will return you 2 cents in a week and hasn't return in a month it is another kind if lie: maybe 2 cents is not so much, but if a persom declared a deal and didn't follow the rules he declared by himself, this will be a totally different case.

Lie as an idea by itself doesn't say enough about trading risk. So I suppose that no, it is not appropriate to leave a negative tag just for lying. The one should show how can it be projected onto trading. If it has too few connections with trade, than it's not a Trust case on this forum.

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.

OP, you already know the answer, we here have three Types of feedback.

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.

A "proven liar" is definitely someone not to trade with. If you can't trust someone's word, much less you can trust him with money: it is well worth a negative tag imo.

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.

However the trust system is not moderated so anyone can tag anyone either because the account is dangerous or because of a personal dispute. That's all I know, and I'm pretty disappointed with the trust system even though in some ways, it works well.

Even though theymos has a wise view regarding the trust system, but not all members can think like theymos. Apart from that, scammers always have their own methods even though the trust system has been implemented in the forum, so the best way is not to trust anyone or don't make any trades here

Does lying indicate that the trade risk is higher than that of someone who is honest, thus requiring negative trust?

Are lies an indicator of trade risk and do they warrant negative trust feedback?


Sub-topic:
How different would the forum be if all neutral feedback toward dishonest and lying members was changed to negative?

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.