Publicize users date of donation

[Heeatz]

If you really want this information all you have to do is simply ask the user in question to screenshot the users donation history in the user centre?

No need for this IMO, we have far more useful suggestions that need implementing first.

 

[riwu]

It's the same exact thing. I paraphrased it for the sake of clarity and shortage.

not sure how 'retracted donation' is shorter + same meaning as 'donated recently'.

You state that if you knew he retracted his donation {donated recently}, you would've thought twice about trading with him. The last thing he did was chargeback all payments he made, which means it was unavoidable.

so if what u meant was 'donated recently', whats the link b/w ur first and second sentence?

The fact that you're showing contempt says you won't take no for an answer no matter which way it's worded. Good luck.

not that i wont take no, but u simply do not have a single convincing point (tbh i dont even understand the logic of most of ur arguments--eg. like how u imply 'interpreting facts' is actually an oxymoron)

 

[Superfluous]

Donations ≠ trustworthiness. I don't think this is necessary.

^ Also, ENTIRELY off topic, "interpreting facts" is not an oxymoron.

 

[riwu]

Donations ≠ trustworthiness. I don't think this is necessary.

^ Also, ENTIRELY off topic, "interpreting facts" is not an oxymoron.

neither is having good quality vouches then? just because u didnt scam for the past transactions doesnt mean u wont scam in the future.

also, if u read the post i'm not the one that said that:

Staff do not ban users for scamming based on interpretation, they use facts.

 

[kushl9ve]

Really sad, especially he's $50 donator and he scams for $78.. The fact that he's SVU is also dumb off him, I wouldn't let anyone my real life information know just for less than hundred bucks... Glad he's banned.

EDIT: I mainly look at the amount of vouches and at how much the other person been trusted with before.

 

not sure how 'retracted donation' is shorter + same meaning as 'donated recently'.

so if what u meant was 'donated recently', whats the link b/w ur first and second sentence?


not that i wont take no, but u simply do not have a single convincing point (tbh i dont even understand the logic of most of ur arguments--eg. like how u imply 'interpreting facts' is actually an oxymoron)

but afterwards i was told that he charge back on the donation too

Excuse me, I was typing on my phone at night so I've made a few mistakes. I'll clarify for you. You were told he retracted the donation, so if you knew that he donated recently, you would've thought twice about trading with him. I don't believe that someone donating recently inherently makes that person a threat, which you are detailing now. You're still exhibiting that donation = trust just by arguing about the time in which he donated. What is the difference between him donating now and a year ago? He could have and would have done the same thing regardless of the time in which he donated. Interpretation was a bad choice of word, I meant assumption. There are many reasons (already stated) as to why this is ineffective.

- You want to publicize disclosed information without the consent of that user.
- There is no positive aspect to this, this would only be used negatively, and donators should not be ridiculed for donating, regardless of the time in which that person decides to donate.
- This requires coding for automation, which again is a waste of development time which can be used for something more positive/effective.
- If you want to determine the trustworthiness of a person, look at the quality of their vouches, not the time in which they donate.

 

[Khaini]

Support clickable ranks that show donation history. Dates and type.

I like this idea and think this should be implented!

 

[Pain]

Support, dont see a reason why not.

 

Support, its too easy to trick newcomers showing a nice $25 donated.

 

[Apith]

Publicizing the date doesn't matter much. People seem to think that donor rank means "I can trust them with this much with no risk". There have been donors in the past that scammed less than their donations. There have been donors who have donated a long time before they even scammed. There have been donors who have scammed several times their donation by scamming several users. How is it any different if you trust a newcomer with a $50 donor rank and a 2 year old one? The latter could pull off the same scam on several sellers and can make out with much more than their donor rank. He won't have to chargeback to make more money.

I won't support or go against this suggestion. However I'd like a bigger trader's opinion and not someone who was scammed once and thinks putting this suggestion in place would have prevented him being a victim. You sold a lot of gold to someone with barely any notable vouches because of his donor rank. When I was in the market, I wouldn't have sold gold because X is a donor unless he donated with gold where they'd usually have a vouch saying so. He could have been a donor 2 years ago and came back just to recoup his donation and scam more. The only way I'd sell to him with paypal is if he's done recent (few weeks) transactions without any problems. Also I would never sell to the majority of dicers in the DL, too many have scam quit or chargedback because they got desperate and lost.

 

[Deathsnova]

Donor rank = I support the site

it has nothing to do with trust, and if you think it does, you're an idiot and deserve to get scammed.

 

[uJesternWind]

Donor rank = I support the site

it has nothing to do with trust, and if you think it does, you're an idiot and deserve to get scammed.

He was SVU too apparently, so on a tangent, if this was to be made public, the date of SVU should be made public too

 

[Rs07GoldSales]

Why should it be public to be honest?

 

Just stop using donor ranks as a factor in trust

 

[Cas]

Just stop using donor ranks as a factor in trust

This.
Denied