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:
Well, some people will send you the nft/money, just will lie to you maybe about some extravagant results, or maybe they won’t like some trade offer anymore, so they will disappear and ignore you, or will not provide you the description despite prior promises, or will just somewhere behave irresponsibly. So this might be a grey area needing its own recognition. And also, this one would have to send their stuff first in member to member trade and others will no longer rely on them for description, or anything other than trade itself, as this time, they will be warned, instead of just seeing maybe less ‘trusted trader’ votes.
On the other hand, having a negative voting option invites potential for abuse too.
Vile people can create new accounts and then simply vote on “Suspicious” and by this distort other’s overall perception of a trader.
Of course those votes generated by new and unknown accounts will not have much subjective weight to the eyes of experienced forum users.
Here, we can limit it to only members and regulars.
Or at worst, to only regulars.
This one seems like a balanced solution.
Right now there are 3102 forum user with at least “basic” status and 1157 forum users with “member” status. So every third account will be able to vote.
(only 121 forum users have “regular” status)
Reminder reference
