Nope. My problem is when someone does a trade, just for that number. That number holds a disgusting amount of weight around here. And it just ends up with people looking for others who can give it to them easily.
Basically people looking for another CanaryInTheMine.
Basically people looking for another CanaryInTheMine.
I've either forgotten or wasn't fully briefed on CITM. Are the feedback instructions the same now as they were back then? Was CITM putting down risked BTC to add undeserved weight to those who sent first/before contracts were in force?
Here we go again with the fucktarded debate about trust because people just look at useless colored/formatted numbers & are too lazy or stupid to click a hyperlink called Trust:, then read text and the numbers that actually matter:
What is the purpose with entering "Risked BTC amount"? To weight the rating, whether positive, negative, or neutral. What "Risked BTC amount"/weight did I place on the "or had a successful trade" positives for email forwarding? That's right, zero, zilch, zip, nil, nought, nothing, nix, diddly-squat, BECAUSE THEY SENT FIRST - no BTC or theft of services was risked on my end, because their contracts only came into force as soon as they paid & I saw at least 1 confirm.
When I do fill the "Risked BTC amount" involving a contract, it's because it was already in force, and the person either deserved the weight of +/- trust for breaking or not breaking contract, or a neutral if the trade was successful in less than every sense of the word.
Would you prefer dishonesty; not categorizing successful trades as successful trades, as the feedback page instructs us all to do?
What is the purpose with entering "Risked BTC amount"? To weight the rating, whether positive, negative, or neutral. What "Risked BTC amount"/weight did I place on the "or had a successful trade" positives for email forwarding? That's right, zero, zilch, zip, nil, nought, nothing, nix, diddly-squat, BECAUSE THEY SENT FIRST - no BTC or theft of services was risked on my end, because their contracts only came into force as soon as they paid & I saw at least 1 confirm.
When I do fill the "Risked BTC amount" involving a contract, it's because it was already in force, and the person either deserved the weight of +/- trust for breaking or not breaking contract, or a neutral if the trade was successful in less than every sense of the word.
Would you prefer dishonesty; not categorizing successful trades as successful trades, as the feedback page instructs us all to do?
Quote
Date Registered: June 22, 2012, 07:06:12 AM
You should definitely know that people only look at colors and usually dont check the trustpage.
Hence my first sentence/paragraph. Do you even read, bro?
It is fine to report a successful trade whatever the size/value but you could just give neutral trust in case of i.e. email and sms forwarding. 
I could, but then I would be dishonest and not following the forum's instruction to categorize successful trades as Positive, as bolded in my second paragraph and reiterated in my last. Do I need to take a screenshot of /index.php?action=trust;u=xxxx so you can NOT read that, as well? Again: Do you even read, bro?
You should know how much DT is worth for scams because people always fall for it. Since 2009.
If people not being caveat emptor is your problem, then join the rest of us wailing at a brick wall about how the feedback functionality is poorly coded in this forum...
Quote from: Bitcointalk.org footer
Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines