Quote from: Steamtyme on March 23, 2019, 02:00:40 PM

Quote from: Steamtyme on March 22, 2019, 11:14:05 PM

What is the greater concern here though? Is it the fact hat people feel they are labelled as a scammer, because I've read many times you are affluent and not in need of Satoshi's.
If so would all the problems go away if theymos changed the trust page to state "This person has been deemed untrustworthy by the leaver of feedbacks".
It wouldn't change anything for the users who can no longer participate in a Signature Campaign, as that's bad for advertising. Let's not forget in no way does anyone's feedback affect their ability to participate on this forum.

Quote from: cryptohunter on March 23, 2019, 12:55:13 AM

~snip~

Red trust is for scammers and those STRONGLY likely to scam. There is no point having a "score" that means something different to every person on the board. It renders the score pointless.

~removed portion about Sig campaigns already covered~

Just call any other "feedback" .... well ....why don't we call that feedback for everything other than proven scams and STRONGLY likely to scam incidents. That don't result in a " warning warning this person is a scammer" glowing red symbol on your account. People can read about how you are evil and an extortionist/ blackmailer/ scammer you are for advising people to review other peoples feedback LOL

I can see why perhaps you were confused I used the wrong punctuation. It was meant to be a simple question with a fairly simple straightforward answer. Highlighted in blue.

I was at no point trying to state we should be running parallel Account feedback systems. You're right having multiple systems would render any scores pointless, and would not serve the purpose of providing insight into what to expect from a member.

The final part of your quote is where you actually sort of understood me. I am wondering if that's all the concern is the wording (as it's been stated it's not financial). That's why I ask would you feel differently if the wording next to negative changed from

"Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer."
to
"Negative - You deem this persons actions untrustworthy"

This wouldn't change the fact that the " leaver of feedback" can write anything they want in the actual feedback. It also wouldn't change the fact that some people are never going to fully agree about what is untrustworthy and what isn't. This is where you are going to see people leave/say whatever they want/believe, that's a system everyone can participate in. It's also one that can be changed slowly if we try to discuss, not argue or try to win. Rational simply explained arguments for or against certain behaviors can help shape peoples actions.

Quote from: cryptohunter on March 23, 2019, 07:08:02 AM

I will tell the police if you don't give me back my phone... did you Alice?? I mean you know 2 wrongs don't make a right ...right??, These blackmailing tendencies have you been experiencing those for quite some time now or just when on the bus??

This is an example of trying to see things from another perspective. That's what I've done, and is done within the original confines of this Analogy

By creating a "tit" for "tat" scenario, Alice can be said to be blackmailing Bob. There is the perceived agreement if you return my property, I will not notify the police. Do something for me and I'll remove the negative consequence of your actions from the table. Now would Alice be punished, charged or sentenced for this - No at least not in my country. Should the police become involved their advice would be to always notify them and file a report even if you've recovered the property.

Rightly s o, Alice may not realize that by letting Bob off scott free, she is only setting the predator on a path to the next victim, who may not be so lucky.

Let me just touch on the last part first.

At no point did Alice say that she would not still inform the police of the incident regardless of whether he gave it back. At which point fox pup can call her a scammer, con artist, untrustworthy and sneaky.

There is always going to be the other persons view. Like the rapist who views the person putting up a struggle as an assault on him and his right to satiate his basic human desires. I mean those fighting back and getting all scratchy, noisy and over excited are not as bad as those that run off altogether I guess but still both should be ashamed of themselves. Wait until they try to report it to the cops because he taped their overreaction and cruelty ....they are fucked either way.

Please don't be ridiculous. No person would entertain this stupidity outside of meta board.

I must remember NOT to say to those drunk fools vandalizing my expensive automobile " stop smashing my car up or else I'm calling the cops" next thing I'll be in jail on blackmailing charges. HAHA fuck you guys crack me up. What victims those vandals would be ahaha

......and then they said "you then proceeded to blackmail to stop them smashing your car,?? these tit 4 tat tactics are okay you say?? hands behind your back sir, up against the wall please, legs apart , " hahaha

I mean I don't think any police force in the entire world except perhaps the meta board police would even consider Alice as a blackmailer, extortionist it would not even be mentioned. It is quite farcical that foxpoop is trying to say she would be charged with blackmail or extortion or that it makes her untrustworthy. This just serves to demonstrate what kind of imbeciles that we have to endure here the fact the admin makes them merit sources and DT is perhaps worse.

I mean how can people with such broken minds be expected to differentiate between a net negative post and a net positive post. The entire thing is ludicrous.

More worrying is that a mod would ascribe to the idea that Alice is a blackmailer and that Bob is A victim too. He is apparently not THE victim, they are both A victim of each others actions. Haha I love meta board. Once you find it you never look at the world though the same eyes again.

Back to the other thing....

I think a TRUST system is valid for trading here and for financial dealings. So yes you could have a trust score that relies on feedback strictly for SCAMMING and STRONGLY likely to scam. Then just have a link called other feedback where you can read if people have just mentioned an observable event that a DT wanted to forget about in their post history.