Quote from: stingers on July 13, 2015, 07:06:09 PM

Quote from: XinXan on July 12, 2015, 04:20:51 PM

Quote from: stingers on July 12, 2015, 03:52:43 PM

Quote from: Vortex20000 on July 12, 2015, 02:36:24 PM

Quote from: XinXan on July 12, 2015, 02:27:18 PM

Quote from: stingers on July 12, 2015, 02:13:55 PM

I still feel that you gave a negative trust just based on "assumptions", cuz it has happened before so it will happen again, and as a "trusted" guy hasn't scammed before, so he wont scam in the future. I just feel the neg trust should have been converted to a neutral one(negative is too harsh cuz u gave it based on ASUMPTIONS), and so because of your assumptions, making an account bleed with red trust, is too harsh! I sincerely feel that it could have been a neutral one. If someone has to get scammed he will even get scammed after seeing a red trust, this is just because people tend to ignore the trust ratings because of the way neg. trust gets distributed by other members. The credibility of neg. trust has been reduced a lot and cases like this are making the red trust loose its importance.

I feel the case was more like : The op felt he is trusted, statistically he's untrusted, he offered escrow, hilarious took the offensive approach to defence the community, hilarious gave him a negative trust.
Could have been neutral imo.

Yes because if it was based on evidence then there would be no point talking about it, right? It's normal practice to give negative trust to people who are potentially going to scam, of course, based on asumptions, is not like we can know the future.

Also, negative trust isn't only given to past scammers, but those who are extremely likely to.

Do you really feel in this case that the user was "extremely" likely to be a scammer?

Quote

@bold: The negative isn't a permanent one. If the OP proves to be trusted in the coming months, hilariousandco being quite responsible while leaving ratings might reconsider this negative one. This negative is more like a precautionary one rather than a scam accusation.

Yeah that seems to be fine Wink

In my opinion i would say yes, he was extremely likely to scam, why? Well anyone who has low rank, has almost nothing to lose if he ends up scamming, so a newbie has more chances to be a scammer than a legendary member.

Second, he had no previous black, green trust and people who have no trust are more likely to scam than people with trust.

Third, he wanted to start an escrow service, known to be something only highly trusted members are able to pull off, so why would he do such thing if its not for scam? He obviously knew that 99.9% of the people wont use him as an escrow but maybe someone somewhere would and that would be his chance to scam.

So for all these reasons, i believe that he is a potential scammer

Well if you feel in that way then giving out a negative trust is justified.
But along with it, this also reflects the conservative mindset of the community and dis confidence on each other.
There is something very wrong with the community(particularly with a few members, hilarious excluded).

Quote from: Quickseller on July 13, 2015, 02:38:22 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on July 13, 2015, 02:25:16 PM

Quickseller has even backed off and changed his to a neutral. The fact that Quickseller thinks it is appropriate to do so, yet you still resist, is quite telling.

I changed my negative to a neutral because he is no longer offering escrow services. From my viewpoint, the OP probably saw that people are charging for their escrow services and wanted to earn some money in a similar way.

Once he was explained why this is a sign of him being a scammer, he quickly corrected his actions and closed his escrow thread. I think he most likely didn't know the "rules" regarding when it would be appropriate to offer escrow (and yes they are unfortunately unwritten and they do change from time to time based on the community).

Agreed! Thanks for letting this forum remain a fine place to post in.