[Denied] Totally forbid [TRUSTED] in titles

This is moreso a wash anyways, I think a lot of titles are sorta redundant to people who know what to look for in sellers. I agree with Wortel in saying that if a system were followed where it wasn't allowed that would be great. But that would take a bunch of effort and who knows if it would work, so no support.

 

Bump

 

100% agree with this. Literally anyone can have the misleading [TRUSTED] in their titles.

 

Bump. I also support forbidding "XXXX+ Donor" in titles because SO MANY SCAMMERS that scamquit will come back as ban evaders and be like "hrey lol I donated 500$ its in title" then scam again, lol.

Fuck that noise. Boot the [TRUSTED] AND the donor shit.

 

Idk it's kinda nice having over 10,000 people on this site having the #1 service/most trusted in their thread titles makes it easy to find the right person to do business with

 

Therein lies the issue, though. You nailed it. This is not helpful towards those who “know what to look for in sellers.” It would be intended to assist those who do not know what to look for, and there are more of those types of folks than vise versa.

 

I agree with your reasoning, but [trusted] is not the same as [donator], unfortunately. [trusted] is purely subjective. [$XXX Donator] is based on fact.

I’m not implying that people do not use both to mislead potential buyers, but they are very different. I think that enforcing no donation amount allowed is much more of a gray area. Plus, like it or not, it is an incentive to donate and donations are necessary.

 

Correct, which is why I support this. I'd like to refer to @malakadang's reply (here) on this old denied suggestion nearly a decade ago (it was denied because the person asked for a requirement I believe rather than forbidding them completely). His response is pretty much spot on to my current thoughts on this.

 

What about those tags in thread bodies, signatures, banners etc?

 

Support.
Cheapest/fastest/hand done titles, are different to ''TRUSTED''.
You cant put yourself as trusted imo, the costumer decides this themself.

 

Support. Trust is a subjective thing. Take a look at how some moderators have even acted in the past. ie. Azie etc.
Due to this new users should be led down the route of doing their own due diligence with who they are doing business with rather than maybe not understanding that LITERALLY anyone can post a [TRUSTED] tag on their listings.

 

The issue is that while it's an incentive to donate, it also incentivizes ban evaders who donate to further donate so they can use it to get sales.

I dunno, I think it's better to let donors have perks separate from thread title advertising like OMM discounts.

 

For everyone bringing up Azie I don't think that's applicable here. He never used these subjective tags at all from what I can see. All of his tags were undisputed facts (Ex-global/OMM/# of vouches). On a side note he did have an established reputation for many years prior to his unfortunate scam quit situation, so although trust is subjective for everyone I don't think that it'd be misleading for him to put those tags (which again he didn't use them from what I can see). I say that as I believe this is more so meant for newcomers/ban evaders that try to deceive members with these tags (even though it can be applicable to anyone who uses them), so for the websites best interest it's best to just remove them altogether rather than put a requirement/police it heavily to avoid confusion and more hassle for staff.

Good point. Possibly remove those as well, although I'm sure there are other better alternatives that could be thought of instead of doing that, so that we aren't policing too much or causing a lot of confusion.

We can't just assume everyone who's new that donates comes with bad intentions and combat that by removing tags like that because they're facts. I'm not saying it doesn't happen often, but it's just not the right approach to take.

 

Support. Only people that don't have anything better to put in their titles put (trusted/secure) anyways.

 

Quoting what @King posted above from @malakadang:

TRUSTED should be removed, and I wouldn't be opposed to extending that to SAFEST/SECURE as @Superfluous mentions. Many newcomers may assume that [TRUSTED] is a titled earned after great accomplishments on this site, similar to vouches/donor status, but it sadly requires nothing. I'm not in favour of going past these few words as it'll be too hard to enforce. Gold thread prices were a pain for staff to deal with when we implemented the rule, but after a few weeks everyone understood it and now we don't have any issues - this would be no different.

I think it's a welcome change that will hopefully get people to actually look at join dates/vouches and not just thread titles.

 

support, this can mislead newcomers into thinking said user is the only actually ' trusted ' one and others are not, it isn't really fair fitting for the whole ' free market ' system sythe has

 

Support. It has an overlap with that one funrank anyway so I'm surprised its allowed. I think titles should reflect facts and not generic claims that may or may not be true.

 

This reasoning makes it sound a lot better, so thank you to @King for posting that. I still don't like the idea that ban evaders can just donate and slap that in their title like you should buy from them because they're a donator (that's why I personally oppose it) but I digress.

"Trusted" is... definitely a disputable term. I support what you and King have said

 

I agree that a self declaration like this should not be allowed.

 

Just want to bump this one to keep forward traction. This is a simple suggestion that I believe will make a significant impact towards keeping certain buyers & sellers safe.

Initial implementation and enforcement might be slightly challenging, but should work out just fine.