What people deserve is a useless metric. What is relevant is what is enforceable and logistically possible. I would remind you that ATTEMPTING a crime is still a crime, and if you can produce solid evidence of this attempt I have no issues with that.
Absolutely. Someone who tries to scam deserves negative trust and even (real) legal punishment.
However I do take issue with the 4 lane highway of a subjective loophole that is just based on opinions and beliefs allowing for abuse of this system.
I would agree to that too.
Something people always ignore is that too many frivolous ratings creates signal noise and allows actual fraud to be buried in the din. Not only that, no one ever addresses the security threat of users having the ability to extort trusted users with false ratings in order to force compliance and silence.
Again. I agree. I'm not sure if this is addressed to me. Read
my previous post. I don't see how you'd think I disagree with this.
In the end if you are saying we are going to prevent scamming with negative ratings, that is just horse shit.
No, it's not. Just because I try and use negative trust to reduce scamming and you think it should be used to punish it only doesn't mean what I'm saying is horse shit. The fact someone disagrees with you doesn't make that opinion shit.
Negative ratings are simply a reaction AFTER THE FACT, and any attempt to leave preventative negative ratings without evidence is not only a fools errand, it creates tons of signal noise allowing real cons to blend in, opens numerous avenues for other abuses, and creates endless conflict that is destructive to the overall community cohesiveness here.
If it's abuse, then yes. If there are clear signals a user is trying to scam but not definitely proof then that negative trust can reduce scam.
Any preventative warnings can be solved with warning threads and neutral ratings.
Not always. For example, a lot of non-registered users have been scammed by new accounts creating locked and/or self-moderated threads with links to auto-buy sites. Of course, they didn't deliver anything after being paid.
Those non-registered users didn't see any warning threads or neutral ratings. That situation was improved a lot after the warning theymos added to threads created by users with negative trust. But of course that warning is shown only if those brand new users have negative trust.
Clear scamming signals are there: they are brand new accounts, they lock and self-moderate their threads, they post links to auto-buy links, most of the times (but not always) they get feedback from other brand new accounts (posted on a locked thread). But there's no absolute proof they are trying to scam. Leaving negative trust to them did prevent a lot of scams. Before, more than half of
threads on that section were of that kind and there were a lot of "
I wish I read this warning thread sooner" posts
here, posted by newbies after registering.
Now only a few threads of that kind are posted, a scammer who used that method (with brand new accounts)
has said he's leaving the site and no more "
I wish I read this warning thread sooner" posts have been seen.
So it's absurd to deny leaving preventing negative trust is usefull.
The problem is trust should not be abused under that excuse.
The trust system can either be a warning or a penalty, not both at the same time, and there is no denying it is detrimental to a user's ability to trade when they receive negative ratings.
Yes, it can be both. And yes, it's more difficult to trade for someone with negative trust. That's exactly why scamming can be reduced with preventive negative trust.