Ok I just think it's annoying trusted or not, and typically no offense its the less trusted members (not saying im trusted).

65% of Sythe are scammers if you are part of the 35% that dont scam put this in your sig

80% of Sythe are scammers if you are part of the 20% put this in your sig

Stuff like that I'm sure you've seen loads of people with those kind of sigs, and if not I can find a few just for you. Maybe you do and maybe you don't scam I just don't think you should be aloud to put percentages/miss leading info like that in your sig.

While annoying to some, I do not think they should be disallowed from signatures.. It does not say "I am not a scammer this is proof" or anything like that

__________________

this! why and how is it wrong.

Sythe allows free speech.

That's the basis of this site.

To me, it seems like your trying to miss lead some one weather or not you believe they are or arn't a scammer T_T.

ok your right and i think you should still have your TWC ^^

Imaginary statistics and free speech are a bit different in this context.

It's up to the person with whom they are trading to judge whether or not they are legitimate. I doubt the little phrase in their signatures will change an intelligent person's view of their trustworthiness.

If that was true I could flame everyone non stop and not get kicked out.

As far as sigs, it is. I don't know where the post is but Sythe and Yakov were arguing about TJ's nazi symbol and Sythe was talking about the fact that Sythe allows free speech, etc.

That's what I'm referencing to.

Again, TJ may have been expressing a political ideology. Falsifying statistics is different.

Why we shouldn't make these signatures against the rules, they are a bit different than TJ's symbol.

I don't think people believe those posts anyways they don't trust people that easily

Again, it's just another scammers ploy to induce others thought's that one is trusted. I don't think a rule such as this will be established because it's not too serious. This is where rational decision making comes into play on behalf of the user trusting the so called "trusted trader". One should at least do a minimal background check of the user and the validity of their claims, it's simple.

__________________

Unofficial MM Thread:

Look at my signature. I guess that means you're calling me a scammer.

__________________

Where did I state that everyone who has it is a scammer? I simply stated that those who have it and are untrusted, are simply scammers with a ploy to appear more trusted that they actually are. You should probably look further into my post, rather then rebutting with false accusations.

__________________

Unofficial MM Thread:

"Again, it's just another scammers ploy to induce others thought's that one is trusted."

You said it's a scammer's ploy. I have it in my signature, I guess I'm the scammer using a ploy to make you think I'm trusted.

That's what you said.

__________________

You're contorting my words. Those who have it and are untrusted, are using something simple such as that to induce those to think one is trusted. I didn't say "everyone who has it is a scammer", I'm not inferring that. But, that's not the debate. I think it's foolish to even have that, you might as well just link them to you're vouches and trades thus showing some valid proof that you're actually trusted.

__________________

Unofficial MM Thread:

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

I do think it's a bit immoral to have that in your sig, but I don't think it should be against the rules. I may start falsifying my sig, though. Maybe people will think I'm trusted.

Anybody who has it in their sig looks like an idiot in every post they make.

Isn't that punishment enough?

How is that immoral?

(and I wasn't talking to you when I said "that's what you said.")

I am not doing anything with your words. THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID. You did not say "some people" who have it in their sigs are scammers. You said "it's a scammer's ploy."

__________________

It is a ploy for scammers, your just doing it to try and prove your point. They should be against the rules because people who are newer to the sight may take that as a false trust.

It's rather annoying. I just think 100% of people with statistics in their signatures regarding scammers are dumb.

So they can take that fact and eat it.