What specific task?
I'm going to get back to you about that, don't worry.
Also what if he was not a native speaker. I don't see any examples of exemplary English, I see adequate command of English.
Nope, before the re-awakening his English was master class. Almost perfect by forum standards. I'm going to perform a comparative analysis of the two different time periods when I have some free time.
Neutral trust with a warning the account "may be" changed hands is enough.
I actually agree with you here but if it is proven then the red trust is warranted. This is yet to be determined.
Well, exactly, as it is to be determined it should remain at neutral. Persons are innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.
@Bones.
People who are going to do a trade that they will not use escrow for or they are vulnerable at any point should be reading everything they can about the person including the neutral ratings.
However, I do agree I think there could be a different warning for things like possible account change ownership or proven account change ownership. Since people may purchase an account just to earn at a higher rate and never scam anyone.
I personally believe trust should be for people that are likely to scam . All other "opinions" about that person should be in a separate feedback area which could just be called "
other feedback" . In this case a person that was highly generous and has not done anything wrong now has a big red label that suggests he is a scammer.
We should be really pushing people to do their own investigations on the person they will trade with before trading rather than relying on a score corrupted by subjective opinions.
Whatever their trust score I would try and use DDE for anything of real value.