It is funny how you scammers are always talking about how trust system should work. Besides, OP is exactly what people are fighting against - payed ICO bump service, shilling for scam projects, spamming forum, bumping threads with nonsense, misleading investors etc.
I think there shoud be a voting system for DT members to survive each month .
Who will vote?
You and your alt account army?
Shitposters with 50+ accounts?
Quacky and his alt account army?
A green trust guy lol . Yes, I have more than 50 alts, wait not 50 more than 1 crore alts now that sounds good ? Stupid people like you say anything without any single proof : do you have even a single instance where I have scammed someone ? No ? Please get lost !
How about an overhaul to the trust system?
What I think of: members would submit evidence/reference of whatever they are accusing another member of for moderators to look in to and decide whether the member deserves to be tagged or not (more like how 'Report to moderator' works). It would go down like this:
1. Negative Trust: if evidence is verified as true, accused members will be tagged with a red trust (exactly like what it is right now). This will be primarily for scammers, Ponzi, HYIP or Pyramid schemes' creators and promoters, known alternatives of scammers and even wanna-be scammers (if evidence is solid);
2. Slightly Negative Trust: if evidence cannot be verified or hardly present, but moderators can see that the accused member is showing attitude or doing actions which sustain the evidence (i.e., a member who is explicitly attacking, flaming or accusing other members for no obvious reasons—I think this forum has a fair share of those). This will also be for account sellers and buyers, verified shills, members suspected of being scammers (no solid evidence), Trust abusers, Merit and Trust traders, etc.;
3. Neutral Trust: would stay the same as it is;
4. Slightly Positive Trust: trusted members giving their trust to other members (for good actions like doing something good for the forum or the members themselves, trying hard to clean this forum from scammers and spammers, or trusting with no evidence, etc.), moderators won't need to look much in to this;
5. Positive Trust: this will be for honest, reputable traders (whether it be currency exchange, physical or digital goods, etc.), bounty managers, services providers, moderators, etc. This still needs evidence to be provided and approved in order to be tagged.
Notes:
I know this will still annoy butt-hurt people like CoolWave and KingScorpio as it gives MOAR POWAAA to "corrupted" moderators, and we will see increased numbers of threads like this one.
I know this will add a ton of work for the already busy moderators, so expanding the moderation team a little could help.
I know Trust abusers will find a way to manipulate the system. However, this might stop members from tagging each other unfairly.
I also know that this isn't perfect (nothing really is?), and would need suggestions and changes from other trusted members.
I agree and I declare that I have had none of those characteristics .
Something like this would be good. But I would change a little: If you receive one negative feedback (from a DT member, obviously) you will have an orange mark (automatically); then to turn the mark red, the DT member will have to find another DT members to corroborate his feedback. It avoids persecution and situations like that where one person has enough power to destroy someone's reputation totally (what is the maxim of the centralization), generating controversies and inconsistencies.
And of course, a difference between the trust traders receive for making deals and trust people receive for being admired by others. This is a good point to think about...
I think this is far better idea to call at least 10 DT members to verify the basis on which a person is negative tagged .
