Quote from: KWH on December 29, 2016, 01:46:52 PM

Quote from: shorena on December 29, 2016, 12:44:19 PM

Maybe I should leave counter ratings then. After all, its just my opinion that these ratings should not be given. I prefer discussions where both sides are open to change their mind. It seems they almost never happen here.

IIRC, theymos has stated a counter feedback is acceptable; to counter malicious/false feedback. The issue with this is ( just like original feedback) when it starts being used as a "like" button and an obvious side effect is it could diminish credibility.

Yes, its acceptable, but I dont like it and I try my best to avoid leaving such ratings. I think it takes difficult discussions off the forum and onto the trust page.

Quote from: whothefuckareyou on December 29, 2016, 02:04:36 PM

-snip-
He gave negative feedbacks to reduce his possible competitors for his ACE Campaign.

How so? AFAICT there is no competitions for ACE. Its pitch is high quality, all in one ad service for the services willing to pay a little premium for that service.

Quote from: whothefuckareyou on December 29, 2016, 02:04:36 PM

-snip-
He must be given negative trust or remove from DT.
-snip-

That will convice people. Some random throw away account, telling them they must do something.

Quote from: Lauda on December 29, 2016, 02:57:49 PM

Quote from: shorena on December 29, 2016, 12:44:19 PM

Neither can I, its not an abusive rating. I wouldnt give it though. At least not currently, if someone reads this 2021 and I changed my mind, sue me. It leads to what is currently common though, throw away accounts are used to sell accounts. This makes it impossible for account sellers to establish a reputation of good quality product. Good quality meaning, not hacked, not farmed with spam, signed message to confirm it was traded freely. This makes this market more confusing and might possibly do more bad than good.

I disagree with it doing more harm than good. Let's take a look at 2016 [...]
-snip-

I admit I have no numbers to back my argument which makes it pretty weak.