maybe we can create a poll, or multiple polls and add each member, and whoever wants to vouch for the member, can vote
based on the votes, the trust badge can be allocated
maybe we can create a poll, or multiple polls and add each member, and whoever wants to vouch for the member, can vote
based on the votes, the trust badge can be allocated
I love that voting idea.
Makes it super easy for everyone!
Let’s do this.
A poll where others can see who voted for whom.
That way, Trusted Traders will have a lot of votes from trusted people.
Unknown Traders will not have many votes and need to “send first” to earn their votes.
Suspicious Behavior and Scammers will be exposed in the scammer thread.
In the voting thread, everyone creates one post for themselves, something that looks like this:
< JAAJ’s post >
0 voters
There is another way. A more open poll: submission method where people throw in usernames anonymously somehow. Trying to make it as seamless as possible
I don’t understand what you mean.
Anything “anonymous” would go against the idea of someone vouching for someone, wouldn’t it?
1 Submission form > users pitch in the username(s) they vouch for into the form > results with numbers of repeat mentions of names
Instead of everyone having to spam polls for each user, clogging up the thread.
Finding a way so it’s more optimal unless this is the only way
Okay, I think I now understand. Thank you.
Let’s do this then as soon as we can.
The earlier the better.
Amusing how it’s an exemplary poll, yet people are still voting
Sending suggestions to staff for forum software extension in regards to trader trust / profile review
Theres the forum addon that gives user profiles ratings (max 5 stars). But idk if it can / will be implemented
i propose the following format(based on personal experience)
every member will create their own polls to get vouches and ratings
0 voters
0 voters
These are valid arguments.
Let’s do it this way with the voting system.
The search function can still be used to search for specific users.
There should be only one voting check box though, that simply says “Trusted Trader”. Because otherwise, if someone gets a lot of poor trade ratings, they will simply delete their post and start anew.
Therefore, users should be motivated to create one voting post for themselves and then keep it as long as possible and collect positive ratings from trustworthy voters.
What about those who may abuse the rating system, a false rating?
Everyone sees who has voted for whom.
Unknown voters will simply barely have any trust behind them.
For example if Maoshan votes for someone then his vote as a trustworthy longterm forum member has much more subjective weight than votes from new and unknown users.
People can also click on the voter’s icon to see their profiles.
The only challenge I see is that new forum members will need to educate themselves on whose votes to trust more than the votes of others.
the votes must be public for everyone to see who vouched for who.
if a poll does not have public votes, we can flag it for removal
with public votes everyone can check before a trade who has vouched for the trade partner and decide if they want to continue or not
(Taking some time to finalize the synthesis of ideas here. Let’s not forget other contributions)
Give it a week or so depending on the solidification
Why only one option?
How about the group in the middle? That in mid-conversation disappears and ignores you then, how some of us saw it with @lonewolf , or someone who will promise you the full description after u buy it and then just copy-pastes the public thread’s overview?
Elaborate
Bcs of that, I thought to have a box for cases like that.
Maybe something like:
Fully trusted trader
Semi-trusted trader
Potential Scammer/Suspicious
And ideally, only members (who are here for let’s say at least 1 month) and regulars would be able to vote.
And if someone deletes, then we will see that it after a long time, doesn’t have much votes, since I don’t think many would be willing to vote multiple times just bcs someone deletes and re-creates.
My reasoning for this was like this: