(Jan 11, 2019 03:10 PM)Bluffer Wrote: What if there is hundreds of legitimate contracts between the users? I suppose this isn't too bad of an idea so long as the contracts can still be used an unlimited times between two parties but a restriction on b-rating after x times between two parties. Not a bad idea at all.
The reason behind market rep is to verify that a user is legit through successful deals. I think once the number of deals exceeds a certain amount it becomes irrelevant.
(Jan 11, 2019 03:31 PM)SIM-1349466 Wrote: What if they were grouped somehow? I agree though.
Yes that is what I was suggesting
DO NOT DEAL WITH THIS MEMBER
Jan 12, 2019 05:20 AM
(This post was last modified: Jan 12, 2019 05:21 AM by Cammy.)
I also think it should be grouped. Like, show the most recent comment for each user (or calculate an 'overall' positive, neutral or negative rating based on how many positives, neutrals and negatives there are in total if you want to get fancy) and make the comment clickable to expand a list with all past contract comments from that user.
imo it should not be banned, but there should be smth that says how many unique contracts a user has made
“I wish I could say everything in one word. I hate all the things that can happen between the beginning of a sentence and the end.” ~ Leonard Cohen
(Jan 12, 2019 05:47 AM)vaiperboy Wrote: imo it should not be banned, but there should be smth that says how many unique contracts a user has made
u can see that, that option exists right now
RENT THIS SIGNATURE SPACE CAUSE I NEED BYTES TO GAMBLE WITH
Jan 12, 2019 06:03 AM
(This post was last modified: Jan 12, 2019 06:03 AM by vaiperboy.)
(Jan 12, 2019 05:57 AM)Pyro Wrote: u can see that, that option exists right now oh
buyers should not judge a user by the number of his contracts anyway, if he can't figure that out he should not be buying
simple ^^
“I wish I could say everything in one word. I hate all the things that can happen between the beginning of a sentence and the end.” ~ Leonard Cohen
(Jan 12, 2019 06:03 AM)vaiperboy Wrote: oh
buyers should not judge a user by the number of his contracts anyway, if he can't figure that out he should not be buying
simple ^^
You say that but at the same time you know scammers will abuse the hell out of this and take advantage of people's recklessness.
Just like rep Popularity Points. I wholeheartedly agree. I thought this was the cas already, clearly not.
(Jan 12, 2019 06:08 AM)Roytoy Wrote: You say that but at the same time you know scammers will abuse the hell out of this and take advantage of people's recklessness. a scammers job is to scam, a buyer's job is not getting scammed
simple logic
people who can't use common sense should not be purchasing
“I wish I could say everything in one word. I hate all the things that can happen between the beginning of a sentence and the end.” ~ Leonard Cohen
Jan 12, 2019 06:23 AM
(This post was last modified: Jan 12, 2019 06:24 AM by Roytoy.)
(Jan 12, 2019 06:16 AM)vaiperboy Wrote: a scammers job is to scam, a buyer's job is not getting scammed
simple logic
people who can't use common sense should not be purchasing
Agreed but it's also in the best interest for us to facilitate not getting scammed. Hence the contract system to begin with. We can't stop people from purchasing.
DO NOT DEAL WITH THIS MEMBER
Each user can give 1 b rating. If he makes a contracted deal, he can leave a positive rating that doesn't add up to overall rating score, unless it's the first contract. But, if the deal goes bad, he can leave a negative rating. Then 1 negative rating is added to the rating score and his positive is being removed. Would that work?
Jan 12, 2019 07:27 AM
(This post was last modified: Jan 12, 2019 07:28 AM by Ram.)
You should read my suggestion to the same problem. I suggest we should implement micro-contracts to original contracts when dealing with the same person. More details here:
https://hackforums.net/showthread.php?tid=5906684
Op let me know what you think.
(Jan 12, 2019 07:14 AM)Bacardi Cola Lime Wrote: Each user can give 1 b rating. If he makes a contracted deal, he can leave a positive rating that doesn't add up to overall rating score, unless it's the first contract. But, if the deal goes bad, he can leave a negative rating. Then 1 negative rating is added to the rating score and his positive is being removed. Would that work?
(Jan 12, 2019 07:27 AM)Ram Wrote: You should read my suggestion to the same problem. I suggest we should implement micro-contracts to original contracts when dealing with the same person. More details here:
https://hackforums.net/showthread.php?tid=5906684
Op let me know what you think.
Yes, all of these solutions work and propose more or less the same thing.
(Jan 12, 2019 08:19 AM)James! Wrote: I like the idea and would agree that this kind of thing is a good idea but at the same time, it isn't fair to people who genuinely do a lot of deals with the same person. I've done 3 exchanges with Neat because they're the only exchangers I trust for crypto on here and each time, b-rating has been given to one another. We aren't exploiting a system or purposely doing these deals for b-rating, they're genuine deals where I'm exchanging $50+ each time for crypto. At the same time, I don't want to use an exchanger that I, personally, don't trust, but under this idea, if I used Neat again instead of an exchanger I don't trust, I wouldn't get any b-rating and feedback.
As you can see, some people genuinely do deals with the same person that isn't to exploit the b-rating system. I sometimes use people multiple times because they're the only person I trust to do the deal with and that should certainly be allowed to count to b-rating.
Then again, we have people who abuse the b-rating system with people they know and purposely do lots of deals with them.
Not trying to be a pain, but I like and agree with the idea, but I don't think it'll be fair to people who aren't doing multiple deals in an effort to get more b-rep. I do hope you can see what I'm trying to get at here.
Under 10 deals imo is a very fair amount. Above that, it's not necessarily "exploiting" but it's irrelevant. Once you've done 5 deals with a person with all positive b-ratings, the contract system has fulfilled it's purpose for both ends of the deal.
(Jan 12, 2019 07:31 AM)Roytoy Wrote: Yes, all of these solutions work and propose more or less the same thing.
Well I hope they implement some of suggested ideas.
(Jan 11, 2019 07:56 AM)Roytoy Wrote: I've seen members with 100 positive market reps, but when you look at the details you'll find all these 100 reps were given by like max 5-6 people. I don't think this is okay.
It's so easy to get fake market rep by doing +20 deals with the same couple of friends over and over, throughout a period of time. Technically they aren't breaking any rules but fundamentally this is a huge issue in my opinion.
The simple solution to this is that there should be a limit to how many times 1 person can give market reputation to the same user. That way even if someone tried to exploit the system it would be much harder because he'd have to find more people that are willing to exploit it too.
I've seen the market-rep system get exploited on other sites and I hate for it to be the same here.
I dont agree with this. I have 30+ contracts with user Tslam and these are ALL 300-500 dollar deals. No way. These deserve the rating.
|
![[Image: 183f2d723e0bff87789ae7d77999e23c.gif]](https://i.gyazo.com/183f2d723e0bff87789ae7d77999e23c.gif)