[DENIED] Disallow 'X$+ Traded'

So there have been a lot of similar suggestions like this one.
However, this suggestion is just for this specific tag that users use to advertise their threads.

I think, for example, '$10.000+ Traded' looks somewhat trustworthy for people that don't know the market well. This however is of course no way of trust, as this user could just have bought/sold gold to a trusted User. It is used as a trust Symbol, just like a lot of other tags, but I think this specific one is less subjective, and newer users find this more trustworthy than simply using the word 'Trusted'.

A tag as [X Donor] or [ Mod ] are tags that are at least some indicators of trust, where [ $10.000+ Traded ] is no form of trust.

 

[S]

Trust is subjective, yada yada, been suggested numerous times.

Provided the traded amount is relatively accurate, it's just another form of advertising.

Also, to add onto the subjective nature of trust, another user may perceive one's donor status as irrelevant, and may perceive the traded amount as a more relevant factor.

No support.

 

Trust is subjective, yada yada, been suggested numerous times.

Provided the traded amount is relatively accurate, it's just another form of advertising.

I agree

Also, to add onto the subjective nature of trust, another user may perceive one's donor status as irrelevant, and may perceive the traded amount as a more relevant factor.

Judging how trustworthy someone is, is indeed trustworthy. However, in cases where people buy and sell gold where they went first every time, it means absolutely nothing. A donor status also doesn't have that much value in being trustworthy, I'd rather see a rule where using that to advertise is also forbidden, but in this case I think [Traded X amount] has no value whatsoever and is very misleading.

Thanks for your input however. I understand we are an open-trade market and advertising is part of this.

 

Kinda on the fence on this one. Basically, you could be a seller only but still go with $500tril traded on buy threads and vice versa. Not to mention, I doubt anyone check vouches to see if the amount adds up (despite being easy to fake). On the other hand, you've sellerman's point above which is quite valid.

 

Kinda on the fence on this one. Basically, you could be a seller only but still go with $500tril traded on buy threads and vice versa. Not to mention, I doubt anyone check vouches to see if the amount adds up (despite being easy to fake). On the other hand, you've sellerman's point above which is quite valid.

Yeah I agree it's a tough one.

 

Support, it's easy to fake and doesn't mean anything at all. No legit people will ever use this to advertise

 

Support,

Really because thread titles are to long!
Truthfully there is no way to even verify the amount as Zora stated.

 

[Sebast]

Free market.

Been suggested many times, and been discussed many times, and guess what? Been rejected many times.

No support.

 

@Dbuffed wanted to share his input as well. So here a screenshot of the conversation.

http://imgur.com/a/ICS2nru

 

No support.

It’s another form of advertising, and you could argue the same against including vouch count. Someone could have 500+ vouches, all for buying gp and never going first. It’s up to the prospective customer to review their vouches, activity, past transgressions, etc and make the decision themselves.

 

[ariabot]

Regarding trades where the person went first:
Someone who has sold a large amount of GP (and only sells GP) is probably a goldfarmer, who often sell to websites or gold resellers, who they usually go first to. When buying something, I look for proof that the user is able to deliver what they're selling. The goldfarmer's vouches prove they have the ability to provide a lot of GP (even though they probably went first in a lot of their trades), while the service provider's vouches do not.

Regarding total traded volume:
A gold reseller will have a drastically inflated trade volume compared to a goldfarmer. If I farm $10k worth of gold, I am going to gain +$10k traded, while a gold reseller could get +$10k traded and only make $100-200. Some people even buy and sell for the same price in order to build up vouches before SQing.

However, there's many other ways to inflate "trustworthiness" and this would penalize traders like me who can support their claims with blockchain evidence. I also don't expect staff to manually investigate each person.

 

I support I have gone through so many users with well-overestimated amounts and reported them and got nowhere, I also think I have suggested this in the past. but have no idea what happened to it

 

[Jay]

support, (x) traded means nothing imo and is easily bumped up from what the true amount traded actually is.

 

[S]

People need to see both sides of the spectrum here - stating '$X+ traded' means nothing, as the user may have bought/sold gold (or any other commodity/goods) from a reputable trader, and would have likely gone first in each trade; similarly, the same applies to vouches. The underlying aspect of how said 'trust' was gained remains unchanged.

Overly policing the forum is never a good idea.

However, I do agree with the sentiment that the '$X+ traded' value needs to be relatively accurate.

 

[norfwest]

Those conflating a self-reported total traded value to vouches are misleading ... the key differences are that vouches are harder to lie about and easier to verify. Those telling the other trader to verify this ... how? Vouches don't always state monetary value, and it's easier to look through a referenced vouch thread than calculate demonstrated total traded value of a potential trade partner. Over policing the forum ... nah ... more like encouraging people to look at vouch threads of potential trade partner. Also, saying that because something has been considered before is a reason for it to not be considered again is not a valid rationale ... to illustrate with an extreme example ... slavery was discussed plenty before right decisions were made. If you've got reasons, how bout you post them?

Support.

 

Those conflating a self-reported total traded value to vouches are misleading ... the key differences are that vouches are harder to lie about and easier to verify. Those telling the other trader to verify this ... how? Vouches don't always state monetary value, and it's easier to look through a referenced vouch thread than calculate demonstrated total traded value of a potential trade partner. Over policing the forum ... nah ... more like encouraging people to look at vouch threads of potential trade partner. Also, saying that because something has been considered before is a reason for it to not be considered again is not a valid rationale ... to illustrate with an extreme example ... slavery was discussed plenty before right decisions were made. If you've got reasons, how bout you post them?

Support.

Vouches are not necessarily easier to verify at all. Many are multi-quotes directly from market threads, for example. No one expects users to go post by post in a vouch thread to verify the accuracy of the vouch count, especially when that number can be in the several thousands.

As SM stated, trust is subjective. There are those that will see a $25 donor rank and assume this person MUST be legit. There’s little point in enforcing this rule as there will always be other ways to appear trustworthy. The onus is on the customer to do their research before conducting trades.

 

[JSand]

No support, I’m tired of all these suggestions trying to change the market. Leave it alone already and stop trying to regulate everything

 

[HNCdice]

Support! My personal favorite is "$X+ handled" or along those lines "X+ Gp handled". Literally doesn't mean shit and is just an attempt at boosting appearance of trust. Let the Quality and Quantity of vouches speak for themselves. Nothing is stopping everyone from putting this in their titles as it requires zero verification or even relevance to sythe. "20b+ Handled" (at the duel arena when I won)

 

[norfwest]

Vouches are not necessarily easier to verify at all. Many are multi-quotes directly from market threads, for example. No one expects users to go post by post in a vouch thread to verify the accuracy of the vouch count, especially when that number can be in the several thousands.

As SM stated, trust is subjective. There are those that will see a $25 donor rank and assume this person MUST be legit. There’s little point in enforcing this rule as there will always be other ways to appear trustworthy. The onus is on the customer to do their research before conducting trades.

I wasn't referring to vouch count. I was referring to the actual vouches left by users in someone's vouch thread. Which are in fact easier to verify than self-report of total trade value. Trust is subjective. Donor ranks exists. OK. How does that relate to this? The onus is on the customer. Sure. Again, how does that relate to this suggestion? Total trade value can be a huge, eye-catching number that may specifically attract new users under the false impression that this value is directly correlated to trustworthiness. This number proposes several limitations of verification beyond other figures such as vouch count ... that's a fact, right? I believe, therefore, that this practice should be disallowed in the market. Saying that the market shouldn't be regulated, well, OK. That's not a valid reason. Instead, try stating WHY the market shouldn't be regulated. Specifically, why should the market not be regulated in this fashion?

 

No support, I’m tired of all these suggestions trying to change the market. Leave it alone already and stop trying to regulate everything

I get your free market ideology, and understand that you don't want to change things, but don't you think that in this particular instance it would be benefitial to the forum if this was disallowed?

Or do you think the time required to regulate the market is not worth it?