Before giving RED TRUST to anyone i think DT members obviously investigate properly.but my question is isn't it alarming when we see someone have 1000 merits but got red trust. This kind of profile spoils our forum fame.
Not really. For a start a lot of legendary accounts already have 1000 merit automatically from the merit that was provided to them automatically when the merit system was introduced. Merit is for post quality and not for trust.
I have merited some users with negative trust because their post was good - sometimes their post was brilliant and very useful.
Trust is based on opinion - so the person placing it feels there is a reason to warn others.
I use a modified trust list to include people I know and trust and exclude people I don't trust.
Negative trust does not necessarily mean that the person is a "written off" in all aspects. This is why it is really important to place a reference link and clear explanation why the rating has been given. (Same applies for positive trust)
Anyone can provide trust or negative trust and people on the DT list is not directly controlled by the forum. They are "independent agents".
Some scams are clearly defined while others are more subjective. For instance - if a business fails due to no illegal activity of the member. Is it a scam because people lost funds - or is it not a scam because no illegal activity was involved ?
Things that can get people negative trust from a DT are:
Attempted or successful fraud or theft.
Business activity that resulted in the loss of funds by others.
Account sales
Merit sales / swapping
Harassing a DT
Offering escrow without a track record
Asking for a no collateral loan
Shilling / advertising MLM or ponzi
Escrowing for themselves
Late loan repayments / loan defaults.
Any other untrustworthy or illegal behavior.
Saying "I don't trust you" is subjective. It doesn't mean there has been a judicial process that has found the person to be guilty of a crime.
Sometimes minor dishonesty is a sign of more less obvious stuff. Like Al Capone who was convicted on tax evasion.
Also just because a person has done something in the past (history is something that we rely on to identify patterns of behavior) it doesn't mean that they will repeat their mistake or haven't reformed.
Some historical scams and failures have also been very good learning processes for the Crypto community.
Some of it resulted in Terms like:
"To get Goxed"
Definition: To suffer from mt. gox’s technical glitches; to get screwed over by mt. gox; to lose all your money in a speculative investment ."To take a Big Vern holiday" Definition: To disappear like Paul Vernon - the owner and CEO of the now defunct Cryptsy who "vanished" like the exchange funds. (Also referred to as an "exit scam".
"To receive a (Butterfly Labs) BFL upgrade" Definition: To receive something substandard much later than promised.
"To buy a Yesminer" Definition: To pay for something and never receive it.
There was a thread about why scams are not moderated and it has good reasons:
What is a scam and who decides it is a scam ?
Some scams are obvious but others are not. Once you start moderating scams it can quickly become extremely complex.
Some people call bitcoin a scam. Some people call bcash a scam - some people call it bitcoin cash.
Some people call Ripple a scam. Where do you draw the line ?
Cloud-mining contracts ? Short term mining contracts ? HYIP ? Pump and dump groups ? Crypto exchanges ? Tax collectors ?
The trust system - while not perfect - works fine in identifying and warning people of potential issues and scams.
The reality is that people need to educate themselves on how to spot scams, keep their crypto safe, use escrow and do their own research.
If Theymos wanted to, he could come up with a list of things that are and aren't acceptable. It might not be easy, and it might not please everyone, but he could do it instead of doing nothing. I mean, that's what laws are--they're written rules describing behavior that isn't acceptable. Lawmakers don't throw up their hands at the complexity of the legal system and decide to not prohibit certain things as a result.
Once you start censorship it opens up a whole new can of worms.
If you censor some scams but not others it can provide a false sense of security.
Banning copy-pasting is not censoring because they have nothing
unique to say.
It is also a matter of "proof" and "liability". Copy-pasting when caught is fairly clear cut.
Once you start censoring scams you are accepting some sort of responsibility for the safety of the users.
The whole bitcoin thing came from the Cypherpunk movement - which tends to have a free speech and libertarian viewpoint on life.
Once you start censoring it very quickly turns into over-reach.
The reality is that most users that get banned probably re-incarnate as another account anyway.
A known & tagged scammer is better than an unknown & untagged scammer.
Lawmakers often over-reach. The powers they give their "henchmen" often affect ordinary citizens. (I'm not only talking of developed democratic countries)
To make something illegal - lawmakers only have to declare it to be illegal. Lawmakers only pursue "crime" if it is in their self interest.
The average CEO salary is more than 531 times that of the average hourly worker.
Politicians get a regular pay rise -but for other Government workers it is "not affordable".
Some wealthy executives pay less tax than a laborer.
Some drugs with minimal risk are illegal - while other drugs with high risks can be prescribed by your doctor.
Euthanasia, and suicide are illegal in most countries - but the death penalty or "shooting by police" is not illegal in some of those countries.
Some large corporations pay no taxes without breaking the law.
Some legal action can leave an innocent person broke.
Location is irrelevant.
