I think people should leave negative trust only to users who scammed or when they strongly believe that person would scam if given the chance.
The inclusion of "strongly believe" gives enough room in my opinion. We should not leave negative trust if we don't honestly believe a person has scammed or will scam.
So I don't think the description should be changed to "You distrust this person" or similar.
Topic: Time to change the "Negative Trust" description? - page 2. (Read 482 times)
I think it is time to change the people who are in DT....
A small group of people have decided to give negative trust for reasons that have nothing to do with the person being a scammer.
A small group of people have decided to give negative trust for reasons that have nothing to do with the person being a scammer.
I voted "maybe" as I believe the way the trust wall is being used nowadays it is a more black or white in so far as you either Trust someone, want to make a statement about that person in a neutral fashion (eg this account is for sale), or, you distrust that person.
Different people here have different interpretations as to what to call the "trust settings" feature when you go into what I call the Trust Wall.
Different people here have different interpretations as to what to call the "trust settings" feature when you go into what I call the Trust Wall.
I voted for YES.
And definitely this would rather be a good idea, make it have a drop down menu for possible descriptions and make the characters specified on a limit.With this, nobody can shit around on the trust feedbacks...
We should stop giving false feedbacks unrelated to marketing. Scams and other frauds should only be given Red Trust. But I do believe attempts and any unethical misbehaviour should also be given Red Tags.
And definitely this would rather be a good idea, make it have a drop down menu for possible descriptions and make the characters specified on a limit.With this, nobody can shit around on the trust feedbacks...
We should stop giving false feedbacks unrelated to marketing. Scams and other frauds should only be given Red Trust. But I do believe attempts and any unethical misbehaviour should also be given Red Tags.
Amazing how some one can end up back right where they started all in the same statement. Any "unethical misbehavior" can be addressed in the "Reputation" subforum and need not be included in the trust system because such claims are totally subjective and completely open to abuse as we all see. Just changing the description is like polishing a turd. It might make it look more shiny, but at the end of the day it is still just a piece of shit.
I voted for YES.
And definitely this would rather be a good idea, make it have a drop down menu for possible descriptions and make the characters specified on a limit.With this, nobody can shit around on the trust feedbacks...
We should stop giving false feedbacks unrelated to marketing. Scams and other frauds should only be given Red Trust. But I do believe attempts and any unethical misbehaviour should also be given Red Tags.
And to add some things out, if you just don't feel like trusting another user we should just exclude them from our trust settings and put them on ignore. With that we can be happy and save our time on having useless debates on shitheads.
And definitely this would rather be a good idea, make it have a drop down menu for possible descriptions and make the characters specified on a limit.With this, nobody can shit around on the trust feedbacks...
We should stop giving false feedbacks unrelated to marketing. Scams and other frauds should only be given Red Trust. But I do believe attempts and any unethical misbehaviour should also be given Red Tags.
And to add some things out, if you just don't feel like trusting another user we should just exclude them from our trust settings and put them on ignore. With that we can be happy and save our time on having useless debates on shitheads.
Currently, the negative trust description we have is: "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer."
These quite specific words seem to be at the root of a lot of the claims of "Trust Abuse"... Specifically, we see a lot of users who receive negative trust ask questions such as "Whom have I scammed?". This arises from the fact that a number of users appear to use negative trust to show that they consider someone untrustworthy, as opposed to considering them a scammer, per se. On the flip-side... the positive trust description is: "You trust this person or had a successful trade." (emphasis added)
Would it not make sense for the descriptions of these two options to be properly mirrored as their names would suggest?
To this end, what if the negative trust description were to be modified to something like: "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer or you consider this user untrustworthy."? (emphasis added for clarity)
And the matching "Big Red Box"™ was changed to "Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they consider the creator of this topic untrustworthy or that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution." (again, emphasis added for clarity)
Hopefully, this can stay on-topic and we can avoid the usual petty name calling, accusations and counter-accusations. If you want that, there are plenty of other threads both here and in "reputation" to beat those dead horses... I am simply looking for discussion on the description for "Negative Trust".
So, "Should the Negative Trust description be modified?".... Good idea? Pointless exercise?
These quite specific words seem to be at the root of a lot of the claims of "Trust Abuse"... Specifically, we see a lot of users who receive negative trust ask questions such as "Whom have I scammed?". This arises from the fact that a number of users appear to use negative trust to show that they consider someone untrustworthy, as opposed to considering them a scammer, per se. On the flip-side... the positive trust description is: "You trust this person or had a successful trade." (emphasis added)
Would it not make sense for the descriptions of these two options to be properly mirrored as their names would suggest?
To this end, what if the negative trust description were to be modified to something like: "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer or you consider this user untrustworthy."?
(emphasis added for clarity)And the matching "Big Red Box"™ was changed to "Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they consider the creator of this topic untrustworthy or that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution." (again, emphasis added for clarity)
Hopefully, this can stay on-topic and we can avoid the usual petty name calling, accusations and counter-accusations. If you want that, there are plenty of other threads both here and in "reputation" to beat those dead horses... I am simply looking for discussion on the description for "Negative Trust".
So, "Should the Negative Trust description be modified?".... Good idea? Pointless exercise?
Very good point, the trust system is self contradictory on its face. Rather than renaming it I propose we have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws as the standard for leaving negative ratings.
Currently, the negative trust description we have is: "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer."
These quite specific words seem to be at the root of a lot of the claims of "Trust Abuse"... Specifically, we see a lot of users who receive negative trust ask questions such as "Whom have I scammed?". This arises from the fact that a number of users appear to use negative trust to show that they consider someone untrustworthy, as opposed to considering them a scammer, per se. On the flip-side... the positive trust description is: "You trust this person or had a successful trade." (emphasis added)
Would it not make sense for the descriptions of these two options to be properly mirrored as their names would suggest?
To this end, what if the negative trust description were to be modified to something like: "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer or you consider this user untrustworthy."? (emphasis added for clarity)
And the matching "Big Red Box"™ was changed to "Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they consider the creator of this topic untrustworthy or that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution." (again, emphasis added for clarity)
Hopefully, this can stay on-topic and we can avoid the usual petty name calling, accusations and counter-accusations. If you want that, there are plenty of other threads both here and in "reputation" to beat those dead horses... I am simply looking for discussion on the description for "Negative Trust".
So, "Should the Negative Trust description be modified?".... Good idea? Pointless exercise?
These quite specific words seem to be at the root of a lot of the claims of "Trust Abuse"... Specifically, we see a lot of users who receive negative trust ask questions such as "Whom have I scammed?". This arises from the fact that a number of users appear to use negative trust to show that they consider someone untrustworthy, as opposed to considering them a scammer, per se. On the flip-side... the positive trust description is: "You trust this person or had a successful trade." (emphasis added)
Would it not make sense for the descriptions of these two options to be properly mirrored as their names would suggest?
To this end, what if the negative trust description were to be modified to something like: "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer or you consider this user untrustworthy."?
(emphasis added for clarity)And the matching "Big Red Box"™ was changed to "Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they consider the creator of this topic untrustworthy or that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution." (again, emphasis added for clarity)
Hopefully, this can stay on-topic and we can avoid the usual petty name calling, accusations and counter-accusations. If you want that, there are plenty of other threads both here and in "reputation" to beat those dead horses... I am simply looking for discussion on the description for "Negative Trust".
So, "Should the Negative Trust description be modified?".... Good idea? Pointless exercise?
Jump to: