Quote from: FunFunnyFan on June 10, 2015, 04:08:46 AM

Quote from: erikalui on June 09, 2015, 09:40:17 AM

We don't need members to be added or removed from the default trust list and instead we need scams to be moderated else we members should be alert of any user trying to scam other users. By adding a negative to an account, it doesn't stop users to come back with their alts (some of which get detected while others don't get detected). Rather than this, why shouldn't there be an end to the ability to create a new alt account? It does help scammers and makes it tough for the DT members to detect alts. That's not a thing they should do all day waiting to search for alt accounts of scammers but it should be a rule to stop alt accounts on this forum.

I am not concerned about the number of people on the DefaultTrust list. I am concerned about the lack of people on DefaultTrust list being unwilling to leave negative trust when it should be left.

It is not realistic for moderators to moderate scams because it is impossible to tell when something is a scam or not with 100% certainty, and attempting to do so would cause many people being prevented from trading who are simply uneducated as to how to trade on here, and if my research of you is correct, this would apply to you prior to you accepting escrow services. This would be the bad of all worlds because scammers would learn how to avoid detection of moderators and slightly change their practices, and legitimate users would simply abondon bitcoin when they make small mistakes in how they try to trade with others.

I may propose some kind of system where members of the DefaultTrust list can vote, anon, if someone deserves an anon negative rating, and if so then the person should be awareded an anon negative rating that can only be removed with the vote of even more members of the DefaultTrust list. Maybe someone can receive such a "super rating" if three people vote for such a rating, and such a rating can only be removed if 130% of the number of people who voted for such a rating voted to have it removed.

There are indeed a lot of different options but the moderators and admins always seem to use the same excuse that its hard to moderate scams, i mean thats a super silly excuse. Imagine if that happened in real life, everyone could be stealing anything and they would never go to jail because it is not 100% sure if they did it or not -.-

I always said scammers should be moderated, why are spammers moderated then? How do the mods and admins know when a spammer is really a spammer? Doesnt that create problems? Yes it does, every 5 posts here 1 is about a ban so i dont see why that cant happen with scammers, are spammers more important and harmful than spammers?