[TRUSTED] tags...

Wait... Did you just jump shift over to the support side???? Either way I dont think it should be allowed and just like there is forum rank based on post count there should be some sort of trust rank based on successful, REAL, trades. Its just my opinion, knock it if you want I still stand behind it.

 

This.

Like I stated before, post count really doesn't mean trust at all, I've seen members join in the morning and get 100+ posts by the end of the day.

 

I got a brilliant idea, JUST BAN ANY TAGS ALTOGETHER from thread titles. Let people buy and sell on merit alone, rather than useless words that clutter up titles.

Honestly, it annoys the hell out of me that I can go into a market section and I have to sit there for a minute deciphering what the hell the person is actually buying or selling because he or she has trusted, vouches, legit, fast, and easy all along with the selling 5m.

Seriously, just ban them all together, it would make the market look so much cleaner. People can tell who is trusted by the amount of posts a thread has along with the person themselves.

FULL SUPPORT, but not to regulate the tag to certain users, but banning it altogether.

 

I like this idea as well, it would help regulate the issue.

 

Regulate the issue by completely taking it away? If we did that to everything to fix the issue just imagine how messed up things would be.

 

I did however suggested the tag for vouches count, 150+ is not easy to get, even with training accounts/small sales. It requires dedication.
------------------------------
Removing the tags option would not solve anything. Just as there are rules for many things in Sythe, why can't there be a regulation for tags?

We have mistakes to fix them, and if it doesn't work, we keep on improving.

 

This should be on the DNS list.

"Trust" in itself is up to an individual's interpretation. If you see a tag [trusted], then you should ask yourself trusted by whom? Next, you should look at the rest of the individual's thread and interpret his/her vouches (especially on similar trades). Only you can determine if someone is trusted in your eyes.

Just use common sense... not everyone on the internet is telling the truth.

 

I do think though, that you should be allowed to report a thread containing [Trusted] if it's not at all true, some might wrongly consider themselves trusted, such a newcomer with a single vouch, where on the other hand a member with 200 posts and 10 vouches still wouldn't be trusted in my eyes, but that's arguable.

 

Umm.. just use the tag [150+ Vouches]?

 

No support.

Traditionally people put tags on Sythe for what they ARE.

[DONOR] They ARE a donator, you cannot dispute this.
[MOD] They ARE a Mod, you cannot dispute this.
[ADMIN] They ARE an admin, you cannot dispute this.
[XXX Vouches+] They DO have these vouches, you cannot dispute this.
[OVER X$ handled!] They HAVE handled over X$, you cannot dispute this.

These are tags allowed because they are the truth, and you say someone is not an Admin when in fact they are.

[TRUSTED] There is no objectivity on this, no fixed foundation, therefore you CAN dispute this.
Lets say that there was a sticky, you MUST have over 150 Vouches to put the [TRUSTED] tag on your thread.
That implies that you are NOT 'TRUSTED' if you have 149 vouches.

Personally I think all subjective tags such as [TRUSTED] [FAST] [PROFESSIONAL] should be disallowed.


It's bad enough when we have thread titles like this.

[PP/WU/LR/AP/MB/OB/FACE 2 FACE/MAIL/BANK TRANSFER][MOD][OMM][999+ VOUCHES AND COUNTING][$50 DONOR][TRUSTED!] XXX GOLD SHOP [OVER 9000$ HANDLED][CS][FAST][PROFESSIONAL]

It's bad enough there are titles like this.

TLR - Who's to say who is trusted? Is there a certain vouch number where if your one below your not trusted? Is there a certain $ mark where once you cross it you become trusted? Theres already enough clutter in the thread titles, how about just scrap the ability to use such titles, since there pointless and misleading at times.

 

If I trust a person with 10 post does that not mean they were trusted?