Quote from: shorena on May 18, 2015, 08:26:44 AM

Quote from: ACCTseller on May 17, 2015, 06:49:29 PM

-snip-
I think having a history of being fair with your trust. If you have a history of being right about these kinds of things then the community will believe your trust ratings. If you have a history of being unfair with trust ratings then your trust ratings will be ignored. If someone has a history of being right about figuring out alts of scammers, then when they say that someone is an alt of a scammer, then their word will be believed.

The same arguement could be applied to positive trust received. Just because you have been trustworthy in the past does not make you trustworthy now. Its the DT equivalent of the long con.

Well people that have large amounts of trust often do not need to use escrow and others are willing to send first without hesitation.

Quote

Quote from: ACCTseller on May 17, 2015, 06:49:29 PM

A negative rating is not a criminal punishment, and as a result it does not need to have the same protections that a criminal courtroom would provide. A negative trust rating is to provide a warning to others to trade with extreme caution and to alert their potential trading partners to take precautions when dealing with them. The primary effect of a negative rating is that it makes it more difficult for them to scam in the future.

Its not in a sense that you lock someone up, but it is in a sense that you can make it very difficult for someone to trade with others here. Its very close to a fine. This is esp. true for older accounts. A newbie account is quickly replaced, an established (as in high rank) account is not.

maybe. However overall the decision to leave feedback is based on your judgement.

Quote

Quote from: ACCTseller on May 17, 2015, 06:49:29 PM

Giving ways for scammers to avoid detection means that scammers will have an easier time pulling off their scams.

Yes. Hiding evidence of their scams means that you undermine the trust system and over time rending it useless. Any scammer can get enough information about how to hide their tracks without you revealing their idiocity. If the trust in the current system is destroyed it is useless and can not easily be replaced.

I disagree. If you have a reputation of successfully outing scams then others will eventually stop looking at the evidence and taking your word. I see little reason to create a thread few people will bother to read when the rating is taken on its face. If a conclusion is disputed then evidence can be provided to support such conclusion.

Quote

Quote from: ACCTseller on May 17, 2015, 06:49:29 PM

-snip-
I think it also makes my point. After presenting my proof that they were the same person, additional precautions were taken to cover his tracks. After seeing that his bc.i wallet was leaking the identity of his alts, he started using bitstamp and bitdice.me as his "wallet", leaving significantly less evidence then would otherwise be expected.

Next step will be mixers if it turns out bitstamp rats them out for a court order. Dark wallet. Anonymous focused alt coins. There are plenty options. Increasing the workload for scammers is a good thing.

It would create more work for scammers but it would also make detection more difficult, potentially to the point where it is not possible.

Quote

Quote from: ACCTseller on May 17, 2015, 06:49:29 PM

-snip-
I didn't post the evidence, but my allegation was still true. Asking for evidence when you are guilty of something is trying to get off on a technicality. As I mentioned previously, negative trust is not a criminal punishment, but is rather a warning to others

No asking for evidence is the only way to defend yourself. It is impossible to proof that you did not do something. It is however possible to show error in your chain of evidence.

This assumes that the accused thinks it makes sense to defend themselves. If someone is called out as a scammer, and knows they scammed then they might not even bother trying to defend themselves. Obviously we sometimes get people like the OP who know they are guilty and want to create a bunch of drama anyway.

My point is, that if someone has a reputation of accurately outing scammers then the scammer will not bother to ask for proof because he knows it can be provided. As what happened in this case, if proof is requested then it can be provided (it was quickly provided when asked for by the OP).

Also not all deals are done openly via threads. It is not uncommon for a deal to be done entirely via PM when one person sees a post indicating that they have something for sale/want to buy something (for example person B posting on person A's thread offering to buy a widget, then person C can PM person B to try to work out a deal if A and B cannot reach a deal.