Bitcoin Forum

Other => Meta => Topic started by: theymos on June 12, 2019, 03:13:36 AM



Title: Trust flags
Post by: theymos on June 12, 2019, 03:13:36 AM
I think that several of the problems with Trust were because three different goals were being jammed into one system:
 1. Getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location, sort of like reviews on sites like EBay.
 2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.
 3. Deterring scams by creating a cost to scamming (ie. you'll "lose" a veteran account).
 
To improve this, I've split up these use-cases:

Use-case #1 is the old trust system, but I made the descriptions on the rating types a bit more general and removed the concept of a trust score. The numbers are now "distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters". You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.

Use-cases 2 and 3 will be handled by a new system of flags. You can create a flag using a link on a person's trust page.

A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it. It shows a banner on topics started by the flagged user for guests and for users with less than 7 days of login time. For all users, a "#" is shown next to their trust scores.

For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created. This is the only thing which causes the "Warning: trade with extreme caution" warning to return. It also triggers a banner similar to the newbie-warning banner which is visible to all users. A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.

A new scammer flag should be created for each separate alleged incident. In the spirit of forgiveness/redemption, scammer flags expire 3 years after the incident if the contract was casual/implied, and 10 years after the incident if the contract was written. These expiration times might be administratively changed in specific cases.

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.

Also, a few miscellaneous changes:
 - All of the sections on users' trust pages are now paginated, so the page doesn't expand to massive size anymore.
 - The ordering of sent feedback is now consistent with the other sections.
 - "Risked BTC" is removed.

PM me if you find bugs.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Pffrt on June 12, 2019, 03:27:24 AM
Just noticed the changes.
Trust score of The-one-above-all is zero now although he has 11 negative feedback.

Changes-
1. Trust score removed (Not a good idea in my opinion but I wish it help the overall system.)
2. Risked BTC removed (Good step since no use of it at all)
3. Neutral are visible. (Best change since in the previous system, neutral has no usage without clicking on the trust page.)

I am still confused about the flag   ???

Got it. A valid link can create a flag.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Steamtyme on June 12, 2019, 03:28:05 AM
I think this is a great tweak to the system. I am glad to see that Neutral will now have a place beside the other 2 ratings. Going to take a while to get used to the flag system but I'm glad to see Newbies were given a grace period to be given extra guidance and warnings.

A new scammer flag should be created for each separate alleged incident. In the spirit of forgiveness/redemption, scammer flags expire 3 years after the incident if the contract was casual/implied, and 10 years after the incident if the contract was written. These expiration times might be administratively changed in specific cases.

I am wondering will users be able to remove a scammer flag early in the spirit of forgiveness. Do users in your trust network automatically support flags or do they need to take action?
Quote
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

I think the actively seeking to have abuse removed from DT is the deterrent people finally needed to hear to make changes to how the system was working.

Edit: Got my neutral ratings, which I was asking about again shortly before this lol. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg51435817#msg51435817




Edit: I see now that flags can't be removed.

I'm curious now about the having to create a topic before leaving a flag. I understand it for the contracts because there should be a scam accusation. Can we use a community thread for flagging potential scammers? I ask because it says you can create 1 thread if you tag flag many users, or can this be a simple thread that states I flag people for these reasons and leave it at that.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: theymos on June 12, 2019, 03:35:28 AM
I am wondering will users be able to remove a scammer flag early in the spirit of forgiveness. Do users in your trust network automatically support flags or do they need to take action?

The original accuser can withdraw their support, but they can't delete the flag. So other users could take it up even if they withdraw.

Flags need to be actively supported.

Here's a user with a flag that you could support/oppose:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=157669
And if you log out or use a newbie account, you can see the banner on their topic:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2690003.0

Can we use a community thread for flagging potential scammers? I ask because it says you can create 1 thread if you tag flag many users, or can this be a simple thread that states I flag people for these reasons and leave it at that.

Yes, but make sure that if someone goes there, it's clear what the flag is about.

Scammer flags should usually each have distinct topics.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Hhampuz on June 12, 2019, 03:36:21 AM
Could we get page numbers as on boards/in PM's so I can jump to a specific page rather than just "Next"?

Not a big deal though.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: sandy-is-fine on June 12, 2019, 03:37:32 AM
This has removed the "visibility" of just about every scammer in the system especially since all those previously marked as such lose their "warning" tags which while they didn't make a lot of difference it was better than nothing. In order to create a "warning"  theoretically one would have to go back, retag then create a thread for each neg they post with a new "flag" which will fill the system with messages.  The vast majority of users (mostly new) will see 3 small font numbers under a name which will have no meaning.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 03:39:50 AM
How are the existing ratings converted into the new flags?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: theymos on June 12, 2019, 03:41:08 AM
How are the existing ratings converted into the new flags?

They're not. I decided that too many negative ratings aren't flag-worthy, and there's no way to automatically determine it. If you believe that a past negative rating is flag-worthy, you'll need to create a flag.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Pffrt on June 12, 2019, 03:44:05 AM
How are the existing ratings converted into the new flags?

They're not. I decided that too many negative ratings aren't flag-worthy, and there's no way to automatically determine it. If you believe that a past negative rating is flag-worthy, you'll need to create a flag.
Can everyone create a flag? I have seen add flag option in users profile. Does this have any affect by DT member? Or everyone can create flag and if get support, it will be active.
Got it.
Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: hd49728 on June 12, 2019, 03:45:28 AM
This is why I checked my profile page early today, I saw something strange, but did not know what it is (I meant different format).
https://i.imgur.com/w7Tmz2m.png

A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.
It means if someone received 4 scammer supporting flags, while only get 1 scammer opposing flag; the account will be flagged as potential scammer (based on your clarification above). But I have a curious that it means the flag system does not account for weight of user trust. Everyone has same weight with their flags, only one per user. Do I get it right?
In addition, for this case:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=157669
By now, what I saw are:
- No matter how many supportive users to flag this account (5, 10, or 50) - with total supports are greater than opposition, with one oppostion for example, the flag status will be only displayed as Active / Inactive.
- There is no scale of flags: moderate, serious, extremely serious based on the ratio between Support/ Opposition.

What is difference between newsilike (Yellow Flag Box) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=157669) and SafeDice (Red Flag Box) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=396610)
https://i.imgur.com/gZaLgB4.png
https://i.imgur.com/AxCdCVl.png
They both get active flags, but one is in yellow flag, and another one is in red flag.
Their profile pages look different too:


Let me guess:
Yellow is for active flags.
Red: is for trust.
So, if someone got both red trust and active flag, their flag boxes will be displayed in Red.
Furthermore, Trust Warning is prioritised than flag:
If someone only get active flag: profile page will be shown with #, like newsilike.
https://i.imgur.com/aQchKIO.png
But if someone get both red trust, and active flag: profile page will be shown with Trust Warning, there is no #, like SafeDice.
https://i.imgur.com/zNMingD.png
Lastly, what doest the meaning of smaller font size and grey color of supporters?
https://i.imgur.com/1pokrAu.png


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: theymos on June 12, 2019, 03:49:12 AM
Can everyone create a flag? I have seen add flag option in users profile. Does this have any affect by DT member? Or everyone can create flag and if get support, it will be active.

Anyone can create them, but support/opposition is only counted from people in your trust network. So if a newbie creates one, probably it will not be active from anyone's perspective, and it will thus have no effect unless it gets additional support from others.

These limits are in place:
 - Per 180 days, you can only give 1 flag of each type to a given user. So you can't give someone multiple written-contract-violation flags in 180 days, for example.
 - Globally, per year you can only create 1 flag per activity point you have, but at least 1/year.

This is why I checked my profile page early today, I saw something strange, but did not know what it is

Those are neutral ratings.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Steamtyme on June 12, 2019, 03:49:57 AM
Can we use a community thread for flagging potential scammers? I ask because it says you can create 1 thread if you tag flag many users, or can this be a simple thread that states I flag people for these reasons and leave it at that.

Yes, but make sure that if someone goes there, it's clear what the flag is about.

Scammer flags should usually each have distinct topics.

Okay I see from your example that you don't necessarily have to create a thread. You can link to any topic that shows reasoning. So in theory I went and created a flag from a Negative feedback I left for a Selfmod/locked topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110403.0). I could have used that topic as my link as opposed to this one I threw together  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153350.msg51436031#msg51436031)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 03:52:06 AM
Here's a user with a flag that you could support/oppose:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=157669

Ok, this user now has 3 supporters for the flag but still no "trade with extreme caution", only the "#" sign. What am I missing?

Edit: got it, it's the "red flag" (confusingly worded I must say) non-contractual flag. We may need better explanations on some of those things.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: theymos on June 12, 2019, 03:53:45 AM
Ok, this user now has 3 supporters for the flag but still no "trade with extreme caution", only the "#" sign. What am I missing?

A contract-violation flag has to be created for that.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: WhyFhy on June 12, 2019, 03:54:02 AM
Whats the cure for newbie accounts leaving multiple retaliatory feedbacks, weird thing with this  guy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2585603) in hardware section just marking everyone negative. Then logged into this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1546224) account and tagged lots of people just looking out for each other within the same topic and timestamps.
-edit with VERY false feedbacks about loans?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 04:05:04 AM
So if I understand this correctly, when I create a contract violation flag I'm counted as the first supporter and I'll need two more if I want someone to have "trade with extreme caution". For the "newbie" flag I don't need anyone else to support it, it's shown immediately. I wish the "#" would be more prominent though, and the less-than-3-supporters contract violation flags had some sort of indicator too. Not red and scary, just more visible.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: DarkStar_ on June 12, 2019, 04:08:31 AM
Just to confirm, you are not allowed to create a contract violation flag unless you were personally harmed, correct?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: theymos on June 12, 2019, 04:09:00 AM
Here someone created a contract-violation flag:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=9
Since that's clearly a test account, feel free to support it or oppose it as a test.

Note that right now it's only linked in a small note on the target user's trust page:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817
And listed on their inactive-flags page:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817;page=iflags
And shown as an entry in the sender's sent ratings:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626816;page=sent

If it gets enough support, it will no longer be listed in "inactive flags", and will instead move to "active flags".

So if I understand this correctly, when I create a contract violation flag I'm counted as the first supporter and I'll need two more if I want someone to have "trade with extreme caution".

Correct.

You can create both a newbie-warning and contract-violation flag if you want.

Just to confirm, you are not allowed to create a contract violation flag unless you were personally harmed, correct?

Correct.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 04:14:34 AM
This should reduce the amount of drama around here, by a lot. It should also make the trust system more fair.


How is support/opposition to a flag displayed? Are those who are in my trust network always shown in larger font and first, and those outside of my trust network in smaller font and second, and then sorted by UID after determining if a person is in/out of my trust network?

edit:
On the pagination of trust pages, would it be possible to list pages number in a way similar to how page numbers are displayed on threads? If not, can we have a way to skip to the last page? I have a lot of sent trust ratings, and the current implementation makes it difficult to review my recently sent ratings.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: theymos on June 12, 2019, 04:23:17 AM
SafeDice has the honor of being the first to get an active scammer flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=396610

How is support/opposition to a flag displayed? Are those who are in my trust network always shown in larger font and first, and those outside of my trust network in smaller font and second, and then sorted by UID after determining if a person is in/out of my trust network?

Right, except that they're sorted by activity.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 04:24:27 AM
I'm starting to dislike that the flags have lots of words in them but no facts (you have to click links to see the supporting info). Not sure how it's gonna end up looking like in the long run but someone with multiple flags might be confusing to figure out. And what if the accuser ninja-edits the thread, that might cause trouble for the supporting DT members.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: NLNico on June 12, 2019, 04:28:25 AM
Here someone created a contract-violation flag:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=9
Since that's clearly a test account, feel free to support it or oppose it as a test.

I wonder which wannabe hacker tried to test some stuff ::)



Seems all good, lol.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: cabalism13 on June 12, 2019, 04:29:10 AM
As I've seen some of the users that commited scams doesn't have any Red as of now, and from ehat I'm seeing is that once they have also got a few positive feedbacks they'll have green ones.

???
All in all, I just still like the previous one  :-\
Now -9999 Trust Scores won't be seen anymore 😂


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: NLNico on June 12, 2019, 04:31:16 AM
As I've seen some of the users that commited scams doesn't have any Red as of now, and from ehat I'm seeing is that once they have also got a few positive feedbacks they'll have green ones.

???
All in all, I just still like the previous one  :-\
Now -9999 Trust Scores won't be seen anymore

With an active flag it becomes a bit more clear: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=396610

Curious indeed how it looks if flag but still few (old) positives.

Basically it will take some time for all flags to be made, but should be fine in long-run.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 04:34:36 AM
I'm starting to dislike that the flags have lots of words in them but no facts (you have to click links to see the supporting info). Not sure how it's gonna end up looking like in the long run but someone with multiple flags might be confusing to figure out. And what if the accuser ninja-edits the thread, that might cause trouble for the supporting DT members.
The purpose of the trust system is to be a tool for others to gauge the ability to trust someone. If a person is not doing their own research on a person to the extent they are not even willing to click on a few links, they will soon be parted with their money.

I also don't think it is necessary to support/oppose a flag immidiately once created. There can be some time for a person to respond, and others to review and discuss the evidence before a decision is made to support/oppose a flag. Theymos said in the OP that you should be removed from DT if you support inaccurate flags, even temporarily, so you should confirm that you agree with the flag, and confirm there isn't any good counter-arguments before supporting a flag.


I created flags for the person I believe to be a serial scammer listed here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1046791.0).


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: cabalism13 on June 12, 2019, 04:38:20 AM
As I've seen some of the users that commited scams doesn't have any Red as of now, and from ehat I'm seeing is that once they have also got a few positive feedbacks they'll have green ones.

???
All in all, I just still like the previous one  :-\
Now -9999 Trust Scores won't be seen anymore

With an active flag it becomes a bit more clear: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=396610

Curious indeed how it looks if flag but still few (old) positives.

Basically it will take some time for all flags to be made, but should be fine in long-run.
I see, now I get it. Though it looks fancy 😂, so we need to work with those flags again to see Reds on the previous users who has it, am I right? So vicious spammersand newbies that asking for loans will lost their current tags? They might see this unnatural and it may be ignored for some reason?  

Going with the flow takes time really... I just hope this would have a great result for the community.




Now I'm about to be curious on what will happen to Lauda's Trust Feedbacks coming from the pajeets 😂


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 04:41:23 AM
I see, now I get it. Though it looks fancy 😂, so we need to work with those flags again to see Reds on the previous users who has it, am I right? So vicious spammersand newbies that asking for loans will lost their current tags? They might see this unnatural and it may be ignored for some reason? 
It is not appropriate to use a flag on a spammer. I also don't think it is necessary to create a flag on a newbie account created to try to get a loan, as I don't think many are going to fall for this scam, and the negative rating will still be there.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 04:42:11 AM
The other issue is that there is no good way to link to a specific flag from an accusation thread saying "if you want to support this accusation, go here". You can link to the inactive flag list or to the trust page, but the actual flag could be there or not, depending on viewing person's trust list. And if the scammer has multiple flags then extra steps will be needed to verify which one is the one you want to support.

I'm sure we'll figure it out but it seems a bit clunky and error-prone.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 04:46:33 AM
The other issue is that there is no good way to link to a specific flag from an accusation thread saying "if you want to support this accusation, go here". You can link to the inactive flag list or to the trust page, but the actual flag could be there or not, depending on viewing person's trust list. And if the scammer has multiple flags then extra steps will be needed to verify which one is the one you want to support.
I don't think the intention is for people to be leaving knee-jerk reaction support/opposition to flags. If you are going to support/oppose a flag, you should read it, check the thread that it is referencing, and check to make sure the OP listed in the flag matches the OP of the thread in question.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: NLNico on June 12, 2019, 04:49:01 AM
The other issue is that there is no good way to link to a specific flag from an accusation thread saying "if you want to support this accusation, go here". You can link to the inactive flag list or to the trust page, but the actual flag could be there or not, depending on viewing person's trust list. And if the scammer has multiple flags then extra steps will be needed to verify which one is the one you want to support.

I'm sure we'll figure it out but it seems a bit clunky and error-prone.

I actually did link to the flag in my SafeDice thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153361.0) because when you create the flag you go to something like: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=30 (eg a direct link.)

If you want to get it from the trust page, you would have to figure out the ID by hovering support/oppose/delete and make the link - but not that easy.

edit: actually that link is also the reference link for "(Created flag)" at "Sent feedback" - so easy to get there.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Steamtyme on June 12, 2019, 04:54:02 AM
I'm wondering if people are linking to direct threads what happens if that thread is trashed? Is the forum archiving these or would it be best practice for people to archive first as opposed to direct linking. I was thinking about this with some of the Self mod/locked topics if they chose to trash them, or if for some reason a thread was reported to be trashed.

Also just to clarify does this show up !!! for all scammer flags regardless of whether they have Negative feedback? (Assuming it's active)

Edit: Can there be a note or inability to create a flag placed on Banned accounts. This could save people some work if there is nothing left by the account they feel could result in a scam.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 05:00:06 AM
A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.
It means if someone received 4 scammer supporting flags, while only get 1 scammer opposing flag; the account will be flagged as potential scammer (based on your clarification above). But I have a curious that it means the flag system does not account for weight of user trust. Everyone has same weight with their flags, only one per user. Do I get it right?
Each person only gets one vote, and your vote will only count when someone else is viewing the person's account if you are in their trust network.

What is difference between (Yellow Flag Box)[/url] and  (Red Flag Box)
The Yellow is for when someone is showing "red flags" of being a scammer while the Red box is when the person actually scammed someone.







Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 05:02:03 AM
I'm wondering if people are linking to direct threads what happens if that thread is trashed? Is the forum archiving these or would it be best practice for people to archive first as opposed to direct linking. I was thinking about this with some of the Self mod/locked topics if they chose to trash them, or if for some reason a thread was reported to be trashed.

Always archive if in doubt. But the concern I have is that as a supporter (or opponent) I have no way to attach the archive of what I'm supporting or opposing at the time. This might discourage DT members from supporting flags from less-known members even if the facts seem credible enough - because of the risk that the accuser might edit/remove the thread. Maybe that's the intent, not sure, we'll have to see how this develops.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Pamoldar on June 12, 2019, 05:02:47 AM
The other issue is that there is no good way to link to a specific flag from an accusation thread saying "if you want to support this accusation, go here". You can link to the inactive flag list or to the trust page, but the actual flag could be there or not, depending on viewing person's trust list. And if the scammer has multiple flags then extra steps will be needed to verify which one is the one you want to support.

I'm sure we'll figure it out but it seems a bit clunky and error-prone.
To test the flag with a the test account theymos mentioned here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.msg51436190#msg51436190), I left a normal flag, not the "written contract" or the other one.

So I see the flag is visible to his trust page: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817;dt
Now if someone wants to support/Oppose it then they can and or the can support/Oppose the other flags for the same user: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817;page=iflags

Question: A bit confuse to see my flag in the active trust page without having support from enough users 🙄
May be I am the flag creator of that specific flag?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 05:06:49 AM
Question: A bit confuse to see my flag in the active trust page without having support from enough users 🙄
May be I am the flag creator of that specific flag?

The yellow box flag (which confusingly has words "red flag" in it but I digress) is shown immediately, only needs one supporter (or rather more supporters than opponents).

The red box flag needs 3 more supporters than opponents.

Edit: DarkStar_ made it disappear.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: hd49728 on June 12, 2019, 05:11:09 AM
The yellow box flag (which confusingly has words "red flag" in it but I digress) is shown immediately, only needs one supporter (or rather more supporters than opponents).

The red box flag needs 3 more supporters than opponents.

Edit: DarkStar_ made it disappear.
Maybe you were wrong, both newsilike and SafeDice have enough supports for Active Scam Flag, but their Flag Boxes have different colors. It seems that the assumption of QuickSeller is right.
The Yellow is for when someone is showing "red flags" of being a scammer while the Red box is when the person actually scammed someone.
What is difference between newsilike (Yellow Flag Box) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=157669) and SafeDice (Red Flag Box) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=396610)
https://i.imgur.com/gZaLgB4.png
https://i.imgur.com/AxCdCVl.png
They both get active flags, but one is in yellow flag, and another one is in red flag.
Their profile pages look different too:


Let me guess:
Yellow is for active flags.
Red: is for trust.
So, if someone got both red trust and active flag, their flag boxes will be displayed in Red.
Furthermore, Trust Warning is prioritised than flag:
If someone only get active flag: profile page will be shown with #, like newsilike.
https://i.imgur.com/aQchKIO.png
But if someone get both red trust, and active flag: profile page will be shown with Trust Warning, there is no #, like SafeDice.
https://i.imgur.com/zNMingD.png
Lastly, what doest the meaning of smaller font size and grey color of supporters?
https://i.imgur.com/1pokrAu.png


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Pamoldar on June 12, 2019, 05:11:21 AM

Edit: DarkStar_ made it disappear.
Yeah it moved to Inactive section LOL : http://prntscr.com/o0qpjn
So help me here:
This was supported by me and QS, opposed by DS but it's now inactive. So how many vote we need it to be active. Getting a bit confused.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 05:11:24 AM
I'm wondering if people are linking to direct threads what happens if that thread is trashed? Is the forum archiving these or would it be best practice for people to archive first as opposed to direct linking. I was thinking about this with some of the Self mod/locked topics if they chose to trash them, or if for some reason a thread was reported to be trashed.

Always archive if in doubt. But the concern I have is that as a supporter (or opponent) I have no way to attach the archive of what I'm supporting or opposing at the time. This might discourage DT members from supporting flags from less-known members even if the facts seem credible enough - because of the risk that the accuser might edit/remove the thread. Maybe that's the intent, not sure, we'll have to see how this develops.
I don't think there is very much from you writing in the thread "I am supporting/opposing this flag because...." and giving a justification. You could even quote the specific parts of the OP of the thread that make you believe it to be appropriate to support/oppose a flag.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Steamtyme on June 12, 2019, 05:14:54 AM
Always archive if in doubt. But the concern I have is that as a supporter (or opponent) I have no way to attach the archive of what I'm supporting or opposing at the time. This might discourage DT members from supporting flags from less-known members even if the facts seem credible enough - because of the risk that the accuser might edit/remove the thread. Maybe that's the intent, not sure, we'll have to see how this develops.

Good advice. That's a good point you bring up. There isn't anyway to add in a more robust reference if the flag is direct linked in that manner. This is probably something that will have to be addressed, but I don't see it leaving many gaps of opportunity. Not sure the best workaround for that.

I wonder can the user that received the Flag can counter it themselves?  


Edit: DarkStar_ made it disappear.
Yeah it moved to Inactive section LOL : http://prntscr.com/o0qpjn
So help me here:
This was supported by me and QS, opposed by DS but it's now inactive. So how many vote we need it to be active. Getting a bit confused.

If you don't have QS in your trust network I believe their vote isn't included in the tally for this to be visible to you.

Edit: I supported it, not sure if I'm in your network but that may have made it visible

The yellow box flag (which confusingly has words "red flag" in it but I digress) is shown immediately, only needs one supporter (or rather more supporters than opponents).

The red box flag needs 3 more supporters than opponents.

Edit: DarkStar_ made it disappear.
Maybe you were wrong, both newsilike and SafeDice have enough supports for Active Scam Flag, but their Flag Boxes have different colors. It seems that the assumption of QuickSeller is right.
The Yellow is for when someone is showing "red flags" of being a scammer while the Red box is when the person actually scammed someone.

Those are 2 different Flags - One is the Newbie warning and the other the is a contractual violation. I believe that they display differently on the page.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 05:16:05 AM

Edit: DarkStar_ made it disappear.
Yeah it moved to Inactive section LOL : http://prntscr.com/o0qpjn
So help me here:
This was supported by me and QS, opposed by DS but it's now inactive. So how many vote we need it to be active. Getting a bit confused.

You and DS are in DT, QS is not so he doesn't count. Your support minus DS opposition = 0, box not shown. Yellow box needs more supporters than opponents (at least one more). Red box needs three more supporters than opponents. Only users in DT (or your custom trust network if you use that) count as supporters or opponents.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: NLNico on June 12, 2019, 05:19:50 AM
I wonder can the user that received the Flag can counter it themselves?  
Yes, it is possible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=32 but if user not in DT (well your trust network).. I guess it's equal to a new account opposing it.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Pamoldar on June 12, 2019, 05:24:34 AM


Edit: I supported it, not sure if I'm in your network but that may have made it visible


I am not seeing any difference when I try it with ";dt" and without ";dt"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817;dt
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817

https://i.imgur.com/0zTfWnu.png

Both you and DS are not in my trust network yet.


You and DS are in DT, QS is not so he doesn't count. Your support minus DS opposition = 0, box not shown. Yellow box needs more supporters than opponents (at least one more). Red box needs three more supporters than opponents. Only users in DT (or your custom trust network if you use that) count as supporters or opponents.
Yes I missed the DT part. It made sense for me after Steamtyme's vote.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: rhomelmabini on June 12, 2019, 05:32:52 AM
Lastly, what doest the meaning of smaller font size and grey color of supporters?

https://i.imgur.com/1pokrAu.png

I wanted to know it as well because for flag there's only "Support" and "Oppose" options and there's no such thing as neutral. What is it really meant to those italicized member on the flag?

And to create a flag will there be a specific board it will be posted?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Coolcryptovator on June 12, 2019, 05:37:38 AM
So for every red flags we need create thread so that other DT member will aware about flags. Also other members will aware by "#" symbol but need to enter on profile.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Pamoldar on June 12, 2019, 05:38:04 AM

I wanted to know it as well because for flag there's only "Support" and "Oppose" options and there's no such thing as neutral. What is it really meant to those italicized member on the flag?


They are not in the DT network. Their vote do not count.

Quote
And to create a flag will there be a specific board it will be posted?
No.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 05:46:36 AM
So for every red flags we need create thread so that other DT member will aware about flags. Also other members will aware by "#" symbol but need to enter on profile.
You need to create a thread and obtain support from others that the flag is accurate.

Each type of flags make very specific statements that articulate how/why a person is unsafe to deal with.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: LoyceV on June 12, 2019, 05:52:52 AM
For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created.
Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=565024) violated a contract, but BetKing Support (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1055046), dean nolan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=941114) and PocketRocketsCasino (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=97219) are his alt-accounts.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bones261 on June 12, 2019, 05:58:20 AM
I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented. Correct? Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 06:00:04 AM
For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created.
Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=565024) violated a contract, but BetKing Support (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1055046), dean nolan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=941114) and PocketRocketsCasino (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=97219) are his alt-accounts.
I would argue that if the flag is true in regards to a business, the flag should be applicable to agents or employees of the businesses in most circumstances.

If someone were to resign from said business, and they did not play a role in the underlying facts that cause the flag to be accurate, the flag would probably be no longer appropriate for the now former employee.

There might be other circumstances in which a flag might not be appropriate, for example someone being hired by a business to clean up the mess surrounding the scam that resulted in the flag.

I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented. Correct? Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?
Each person can create a flag, however it will probably be redundant to to create more than a handful.

Also, if a person exit scammed, they generally will not continue trying to trade. If they never login again, getting the person flagged is probably redundant, if they try to continue trading, they should be flagged.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Pamoldar on June 12, 2019, 06:01:40 AM
For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created.
Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=565024) violated a contract, but BetKing Support (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1055046), dean nolan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=941114) and PocketRocketsCasino (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=97219) are his alt-accounts.
If there is a proof of connection (same person/company) then it should be practical.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: roosbit on June 12, 2019, 06:02:48 AM
I am wondering will users be able to remove a scammer flag early in the spirit of forgiveness. Do users in your trust network automatically support flags or do they need to take action?

The original accuser can withdraw their support, but they can't delete the flag. So other users could take it up even if they withdraw.

Flags need to be actively supported.

Here's a user with a flag that you could support/oppose:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=157669
And if you log out or use a newbie account, you can see the banner on their topic:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2690003.0
Scenario one talks more of a flag being supported but in the event of the flag being outweighed by opposers does that mean the flag won't stand ??
And what happens in the case of a deadlock were support=oppose


Admin can we get a child board in meta for all FLAGS


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Pamoldar on June 12, 2019, 06:04:18 AM
I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented. Correct? Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?
Each victim can make their own flag.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 06:09:00 AM
Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: theymos on June 12, 2019, 06:12:30 AM
Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=565024) violated a contract, but BetKing Support (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1055046), dean nolan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=941114) and PocketRocketsCasino (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=97219) are his alt-accounts.

Yes, one of the victims can.

I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented.

Correct.

Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?

It's probably best if one of the victims makes a flag and the rest support it.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mightyDTs on June 12, 2019, 06:20:00 AM
Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.
Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck.

I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it.

Good work theymos.

Good bye from mightyDTs


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: JayJuanGee on June 12, 2019, 06:27:10 AM
Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.
Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck. I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it.

I think that Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given).  They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer....   I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 06:30:10 AM
Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.
Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck. I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it.
I think that Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given).  They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer....   I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).
In many cases it would require action from a total of 3 members per the tagged user. All in all, it's probably closer to 5k flags and at least 5k-10k support clicks. Who has time to do that? It's just not plausible (even though it would be worth it).


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 06:37:28 AM
Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.
Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck. I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it.

I think that Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given).  They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer....   I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).
The purpose of the new system is to demonstrate that there is consensus that someone is not safe to trade with. The ability to one person to label a person as a scammer is being removed, which is a good thing.

If it is clear a person is a scammer, this should be a nonissue, but controversial ratings will be more difficult to backup. 


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 06:40:11 AM
Two problems already:

Quote
An Error Has Occurred!
That topic does not exist, or it is self-moderated or locked.

Quote
5) the incident occurred roughly in the month given above.
In many cases, the "incident" has been going on for a considerable time before being discovered.

The purpose of the new system is to demonstrate that there is consensus that someone is not safe to trade with. The ability to one person to label a person as a scammer is being removed, which is a good thing.

If it is clear a person is a scammer, this should be a nonissue, but controversial ratings will be more difficult to backup. 
Don't worry, you'll be flagged again.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: JayJuanGee on June 12, 2019, 06:43:14 AM
Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.
Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck. I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it.

I think that Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given).  They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer....   I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).
The purpose of the new system is to demonstrate that there is consensus that someone is not safe to trade with. The ability to one person to label a person as a scammer is being removed, which is a good thing.

If it is clear a person is a scammer, this should be a nonissue, but controversial ratings will be more difficult to backup.  


Yes... overall I get the purpose as you describe, which seems quite legitimate, but I still stand by my earlier post concerning some of the seeming problematic transitional work aspects.. and seemingly even some necessity for repeated work that might not get carried out because frequently people do not like to go back and repeat work that they have already done.. and that would have been more fresh in their mind when they had done it earlier, as compared to now or after the passage of time.  This will cause some members who deserve negative ratings to receive a blank slate that they might not deserve.. and that blank slate might not get returned to where it should be... but yeah, hopefully no babies die along the way... and during this transition period.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 06:45:51 AM
Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.
Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck. I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it.

I think that Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given).  They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer....   I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).
The purpose of the new system is to demonstrate that there is consensus that someone is not safe to trade with. The ability to one person to label a person as a scammer is being removed, which is a good thing.

If it is clear a person is a scammer, this should be a nonissue, but controversial ratings will be more difficult to backup. 


Yes... overall I get the purpose as you describe, which seems quite legitimate, but I still stand by my earlier post concerning some of the seeming problematic transitional work aspects.. and seemingly even some necessity for repeated work that might not take get carried out because frequently people do not like to go back and repeat work that they have already done.. and that would have been more fresh in their mind when they had done it earlier, as compared to now or after the passage of time.
Negative ratings still exist and show up as having unique negative ratings on their trust number.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Steamtyme on June 12, 2019, 06:48:17 AM
Let's not forget these are complementary systems. It's just like having more signs on the highway. The old system is still there with the ability to leave feedback. So really there is no need to go back over everything in the past.
Quote
Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.
Neutral - Other comments.
Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.

The ratings are still there and moving forward the flags can be applied as needed. You really only have to go back to flag cases you think are still active. Which is why my previous mention of something indicating a banned user or preventing a flag from being created can prevent unnecessary flags.

I created a flag for an implied contract for ky94PjDw (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2626817) I made it for 3 years and 1 month. So I'm wondering how it gets handled, right now it appears:

Despite the 3 year limitation it can be created
If made active, will it immediately disappear due to the time limitations on these?
Is there a permanent record of previous flags for which the time has been served?

Edit:
So this received enough support to but remained as expired, it does still show up under " inactive flags".

theymos can you elaborate on the whole concept of these flags disappearing. In the case of the newbie warning flag, if all supporters and the creator of the flag remove their support on that does the flag and it's warning dissapear?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: iasenko on June 12, 2019, 07:04:20 AM
I can put a flag on my own account. This should be disabled as before.

https://i.imgur.com/50omTSR.png

Edited: Seems like I can also Support or Oppose the flag myself.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 07:07:00 AM
Let's not forget these are complementary systems. It's just like having more signs on the highway. The old system is still there with the ability to leave feedback. So really there is no need to go back over everything in the past.
Quote
Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.
Neutral - Other comments.
Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.

The ratings are still there and moving forward the flags can be applied as needed.
A negative rating right now is completely useless and will be disregarded by the supermajority of the users (the same way that neutral ratings always have been). I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Steamtyme on June 12, 2019, 07:12:49 AM
I can put a flag on my own account. This should be disabled as before.

I opposed it, nothing but slanderous lies  :P

A negative rating right now is completely useless and will be disregarded by the supermajority of the users (the same way that neutral ratings always have been). I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.

That's unfortunate then. It still shows up right there on any board that displays it, just as visible. The only change there is that there isn't a trust score which I felt was less informative than a tally of all feedback left. I do think I'll still be leaving a healthy mix of them all, just going to be a while figuring out when to use what. I still like the idea of using the negatives because there is no guarantee that they'll be activated in a timely fashion, so it's a good back up.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 07:17:59 AM
A negative rating right now is completely useless and will be disregarded by the supermajority of the users (the same way that neutral ratings always have been). I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.

That's unfortunate then. It still shows up right there on any board that displays it, just as visible. The only change there is that there isn't a trust score which I felt was less informative than a tally of all feedback left. I do think I'll still be leaving a healthy mix of them all, just going to be a while figuring out when to use what. I still like the idea of using the negatives because there is no guarantee that they'll be activated in a timely fashion, so it's a good back up.
I don't see any reason why people will outright ignore negative ratings. They will still review the ratings, and take them into consideration, but if there is no clear articulation as to why or how they are unsafe to trade with, they will be rightfully ignored.

I don't think it will be possible to weaponize the trust system anymore. Or at least it will be much more difficult to do so. 


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TECSHARE on June 12, 2019, 07:38:49 AM
Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.
Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck. I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it.
I think that Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given).  They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer....   I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).
In many cases it would require action from a total of 3 members per the tagged user. All in all, it's probably closer to 5k flags and at least 5k-10k support clicks. Who has time to do that? It's just not plausible (even though it would be worth it).

I think that is kind of the point, that people who make an industry of leaving negative ratings aren't incentivized to do so any more, leaving the task to those directly effected. You personally have done more to bring about this change than anyone. I won't hold my breath for the sky falling, but you feel free to.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 07:41:45 AM
I can put a flag on my own account. This should be disabled as before.

I opposed it, nothing but slanderous lies  :P

A negative rating right now is completely useless and will be disregarded by the supermajority of the users (the same way that neutral ratings always have been). I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.

That's unfortunate then. It still shows up right there on any board that displays it, just as visible. The only change there is that there isn't a trust score which I felt was less informative than a tally of all feedback left. I do think I'll still be leaving a healthy mix of them all, just going to be a while figuring out when to use what. I still like the idea of using the negatives because there is no guarantee that they'll be activated in a timely fashion, so it's a good back up.
This also means that the previous guideline for negative ratings is not valid anymore. You don't need to be scammed, not even close to that. You can, much more freely, leave negative ratings. It's all about those unconsidered side-effects.  ::) This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: hd49728 on June 12, 2019, 07:50:00 AM

I wanted to know it as well because for flag there's only "Support" and "Oppose" options and there's no such thing as neutral. What is it really meant to those italicized member on the flag?


They are not in the DT network. Their vote do not count.
You likely were wrong. I even can flag myself, and my name in Support List is not in italic font style or grey color
Please check it there: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1520746

As iasenko suggeted, users should not be able to flag themselves. Maybe it is a bug.
I can put a flag on my own account. This should be disabled as before.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 07:54:09 AM
This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.
I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 07:55:34 AM
This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.
I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags.
Anyone who has bought either one of those coins thinking it was Bitcoin has been outright scammed. There are thousands of these victims. I will be leaving them, especially on HostFat. You can cry somewhere else.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: redsn0w on June 12, 2019, 08:06:13 AM
For example Lauda left a flag (that is labeled as inactive) to quickseller (reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5152349.0)

https://i.imgur.com/3vD028H.png (https://i.imgur.com/3vD028H.png)

What do you think about it?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 08:08:12 AM
What do you think about it?
I think I should be blacklisted as the victims are gone or afraid to speak out, and acting on their behalf is against the format. :)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TECSHARE on June 12, 2019, 08:08:39 AM
This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.
I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags.

Let Lauda bury themselves... they are now fighting an uphill battle.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 08:18:08 AM
For example Lauda left a flag (that is labeled as inactive) to quickseller (reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5152349.0)

https://i.imgur.com/3vD028H.png (https://i.imgur.com/3vD028H.png)

What do you think about it?

I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this:
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.

Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2.

What do you think about it?
I think I should be blacklisted as the victims are gone or afraid to speak out, and acting on their behalf is against the format. :)
::)

More projection I see.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 08:20:38 AM
For example Lauda left a flag (that is labeled as inactive) to quickseller (reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5152349.0)

https://i.imgur.com/3vD028H.png (https://i.imgur.com/3vD028H.png)

What do you think about it?

I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this:
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.
Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2.
It's excellent. Most DT members will be afraid to support this move; the more do and show that they actually do back up their words, the more fun this will be. Wipe out most of the old DT for flagging a known scammer, that will show them abusers! :D Direct link to flag is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35.

FYI, BSV has already been handled. Next is HostFat and Bcash.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 08:23:26 AM
For example Lauda left a flag (that is labeled as inactive) to quickseller (reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5152349.0)

https://i.imgur.com/3vD028H.png (https://i.imgur.com/3vD028H.png)

What do you think about it?

I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this:
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.
Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2.
It's excellent. Most DT members will be afraid to support this move; the more do and show that they actually do back up their words, the more fun this will be. Wipe out most of the old DT for flagging a known scammer, that will show them abusers! :D Direct link to flag is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35.
Well to be entirely fair, there are a decent number of scammers who support you on DT, so blacklisting these people would not be all that bad.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 08:25:46 AM
Well to be entirely fair, there are a decent number of scammers who support you on DT, so blacklisting these people would not be all that bad.
Yawn. Is this all you got? You got a dose of hopium, thinking you'll get back to scamming again just before I flagged you again. :-*

https://i.imgur.com/8zkS8KH.png

Looks great to me. Most of your threads are fraudulent, and it should be shown as such.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TheNewAnon135246 on June 12, 2019, 08:25:54 AM
This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.
I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags.

Craig Wright is pretending to be Satoshi and he plagiarized the Bitcoin whitepaper (https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ffs.bitcoinmagazine.com%2Fimg%2Fimages%2FFIGURE_11_REDACTED_NjrYGy6.original.jpg&t=601&c=JFS1P5u576hm6w). There are countless of examples shown here: https://stopcraigwright.com. Anyone actively supporting BSV is claiming that it is Bitcoin. BSV is a scam.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 08:49:43 AM
This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.
I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags.

Craig Wright is pretending to be Satoshi and he plagiarized the Bitcoin whitepaper (https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ffs.bitcoinmagazine.com%2Fimg%2Fimages%2FFIGURE_11_REDACTED_NjrYGy6.original.jpg&t=601&c=JFS1P5u576hm6w). There are countless of examples shown here: https://stopcraigwright.com. Anyone actively supporting BSV is claiming that it is Bitcoin. BSV is a scam.
It sounds to me like you are supporting weaponizing the trust system. You should be blacklisted.

If you have technical arguments as to why BSV is inferior to bitcoin, or other altcoins, you should make them. While I acknowledge you are incapable of making a well rounded argument, about anything, I do not doubt that others who are smart can make arguments against BSV, and people can judge for themselves if they want to buy/use it.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: coinlocket$ on June 12, 2019, 08:58:39 AM
1st feedback is visual

I think the code of trust score should be Bolded on the profile to be more effective

Before talking more on it, I need to study it see u later.


https://puu.sh/DEWjN/022af35f00.png

 ;D


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: yahoo62278 on June 12, 2019, 09:06:50 AM
For example Lauda left a flag (that is labeled as inactive) to quickseller (reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5152349.0)

https://i.imgur.com/3vD028H.png (https://i.imgur.com/3vD028H.png)

What do you think about it?

I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this:
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.

Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2.

What do you think about it?
I think I should be blacklisted as the victims are gone or afraid to speak out, and acting on their behalf is against the format. :)
::)

More projection I see.
I deleted my support as I was just testing the flag system, but if someone flags you over the self escrow ordeal I will support that and keep it there.

Still reading this thread and new system and seems like a lot of extra work but it does force a user to show their work so to speak. Should we go through all our previous feedbacks left and flag users for scam activities? For example, in my case I have a few bounty cheaters and signature campaign cheaters?



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: yogg on June 12, 2019, 09:12:51 AM
I deleted my support as I was just testing the flag system, but if someone flags you over the self escrow ordeal I will support that and keep it there.

It's a shame that we cannot use self-moderated and/or locked threads as references for flag. What about archives ? They prevent some posts from being edited.
This thread & msg wouldn't work but is highly relevant : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12421096#msg12421096


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: coinlocket$ on June 12, 2019, 09:17:43 AM
Another feedback

I have over 1000 Negative feedback sent to abusers and with the new limited feedbacks for page on trust profile https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1339716 is a nightmare to navigate them.

Can you please rollback this page as it was before?

For people with a lot of feedbacks is impossible so search something there.



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: LoyceV on June 12, 2019, 09:19:41 AM
A negative rating right now is completely useless and will be disregarded by the supermajority of the users (the same way that neutral ratings always have been). I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.
Neutral tags serve a purpose. Some examples from the feedback I left:
Quote
See Reference link for a signed message that proves ownership of the account.
Shasan has a temp ban. If you need to contact him, use other means.
Leaves fake red trust to spam hunters after theymos wiped all yobit signatures.
I tagged this account as being stolen on August 7, 2018. It has been recovered by the original owner on February 22, 2019.
These have nothing to do with scams, it's more like adding sticky notes to a user. And indeed, they're intended to be ignored by users.
From what I understand, you can only create Flags when you've been scammed. That means negative ratings still serve a purpose.



I like the much bigger warning on topics created by a Flagged scammer! It also makes sense to only create Flags for users that scammed you personally. That means it's really worth the extra effort, and it shouldn't be used at massive numbers. I've checked all my feedback, and only one person (with 4 accounts) really qualifies for a Flag. Can I request Flag support here?
Flags
Flag on BetKing.io (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=41)
Flag on BetKing Support (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=42)
Flag on PocketRocketsCasino (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=43)
Flag on dean nolan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=44)



I have over 1000 Negative feedback sent to abusers and with the new limited feedbacks for page on trust profile https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1339716 is a nightmare to navigate them.

Can you please rollback this page as it was before?

For people with a lot of feedbacks is impossible so search something there.
I'd like to see at least 1000 ratings per page, that's high enough to make searching easier, and low enough to load the page quickly.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: iasenko on June 12, 2019, 09:22:34 AM
We need a log for all the flag activity now, all the created flags + those who support or oppose them.
I can change my support to opposition as many times as I want no restrictions there. I've tested it on my own Flag which I created.

Just a side note> I can create a new flag after 180 days of creation of the first one.
and the Trust feedback are rearranged from top to bottom- newest to oldest.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: LoyceV on June 12, 2019, 09:26:15 AM
We need a log for all the flag activity now, all the created flags + those who support or oppose them.
If Vod doesn't beat me to it, I'll cook something up when I have time. Don't expect it within a few weeks though.
Update: see LoyceV's Trust Flag viewer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153695.0).


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on June 12, 2019, 09:29:02 AM
I'm curious as to what we should be doing about the obvious attempted, but not yet successful, scams. Things like:

  • Promoting a doubler, "Send 0.2 ETH to get 2 ETH back", 20% a day ROI, that kind of thing
  • Promoting obvious Ponzis, "HYIP", etc.
  • Selling gift cards or codes at a huge discount from a locked/self moderated thread with auto-buy links
  • Obvious sockpuppet accounts leaving fake vouches for any of the above

These are all blatantly obvious scam attempts to any experienced user, but can and do regularly fool newbies in to parting with their coins. Are we expected to create a brand new thread in Reputation for each and every one to link to with a flag? Is simply linking to the thread they started acceptable? What about leaving them red trust as well explaining the reasons behind the flag?

Also, do newbie-warning flags expire the same as scammer flags?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: babo on June 12, 2019, 09:34:38 AM
1st feedback is visual

I think the code of trust score should be Bolded on the profile to be more effective

Before talking more on it, I need to study it see u later.


https://puu.sh/DEWjN/022af35f00.png

 ;D

you win the internet prize for fast meme ever :D

rotfl

ot: big bag theory ROCKS


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: LoyceV on June 12, 2019, 09:34:42 AM
I'm curious as to what we should be doing about the obvious attempted, but not yet successful, scams.
Red trust and a Newbie-warning Flag?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Steamtyme on June 12, 2019, 09:47:15 AM
I'm curious as to what we should be doing about the obvious attempted, but not yet successful, scams.
Red trust and a Newbie-warning Flag?

Agreed. It's no different to the threads I plan to generically link when I find Selfmod/locked sales topics with nothing more than an off forum communication.



Has anyone thought much about what they are considering a loose commitment and written contract. I'm guessing it should go further than the "typed word= written contract". What would the standards be for pushing towards a 10 year Flag versus a 3 year flag.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on June 12, 2019, 09:54:31 AM
Agreed. It's no different to the threads I plan to generically link when I find Selfmod/locked sales topics with nothing more than an off forum communication.
Generically link to where? A single reputation thread? That would be a much preferable outcome than having to create a single thread for every single flag for the same cluster of reasons.

Has anyone thought much about what they are considering a loose commitment and written contract. I'm guessing it should go further than the "typed word= written contract". What would the standards be for pushing towards a 10 year Flag versus a 3 year flag.
On first thought, I would have said a "casual or implied" agreement would be something along the lines of winning an auction, buying an item, or taking out a loan, where as a "written contract" would be someone signing a message from a staked address, implicitly agreeing to a stated contract. This would mean the "written contract" flag would only be used very rarely, but I suspect that might be theymos' intention given his push towards a culture of forgiveness.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Steamtyme on June 12, 2019, 10:12:24 AM
Generically link to where? A single reputation thread? That would be a much preferable outcome than having to create a single thread for every single flag for the same cluster of reasons.
You can see how I set something up rather quickly to try it out. Here's (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.msg51436080#msg51436080) the post  in this thread.
Quote
On first thought, I would have said a "casual or implied" agreement would be something along the lines of winning an auction, buying an item, or taking out a loan, where as a "written contract" would be someone signing a message from a staked address, implicitly agreeing to a stated contract. This would mean the "written contract" flag would only be used very rarely, but I suspect that might be theymos' intention given his push towards a culture of forgiveness.

That makes sense. It may help people establish an expectation when entering certain agreements. I could see there being a services aspect to it as well, covering things like an Escrow/Lender exit scam. I guess we'll see how this develops further. The OP gives the impression that the flags might be moderated the more I reread through it. Considering there seems to be the potential for recourse if abused, and that there is a "wrong" way to use this.

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: morvillz7z on June 12, 2019, 10:51:33 AM
Under sent feedback/comments it only shows "(Created flag)" in red.

Wouldn't it be better to have what regular trust feedback has, an option to make a comment?

Now you have to click a link and then click another link. I'd rather have a brief description of what the flag is for [1] and a direct path to the referenced topic.

[1] - Before (https://i.ibb.co/LPsDRdF/flag.jpg) and After (https://i.ibb.co/QdxgXZx/flagged.jpg)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 10:55:38 AM
I deleted my support as I was just testing the flag system, but if someone flags you over the self escrow ordeal I will support that and keep it there.
I can't link to the original thread; my flag is about the self-escrow, it just points out a flaw in the system.

Still reading this thread and new system and seems like a lot of extra work but it does force a user to show their work so to speak. Should we go through all our previous feedbacks left and flag users for scam activities? For example, in my case I have a few bounty cheaters and signature campaign cheaters?
Have fun doing that for several thousand people, three times.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: LoyceV on June 12, 2019, 11:28:44 AM
Suggestion:
Quote
Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer.
This could be more accurate by replacing "One" by "Three".


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 12, 2019, 11:40:48 AM
This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.
I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags.
Anyone who has bought either one of those coins thinking it was Bitcoin has been outright scammed. There are thousands of these victims. I will be leaving them, especially on HostFat. You can cry somewhere else.

Lauda by that logic you MUST have a scam tag.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.msg6748208#msg6748208


Lying about the dark launch. THOUSANDS of members who purchased believing your LIES there was no premine because you WERE THERE ???  all those that were scammed into believing the initial distribution was legit.

By your own reasoning above YOU MUST have a scam tag.  For now I believe you can tag yourself. Get on with it.

The other ratings are now just what they always should have been : FEEDBACK that is to be read and examined not just taken at face value that the person has done something wrong.

When you started using red trust to silence and deter people from presenting observable instances of SCAMMING from your own past you ensured the trust sytem had to change. You tried to use the old system to facilitate and hide your OWN scamming. Now you are crying that is no longer possible.

A great day for bitcointalk. Satoshi is celebrating right now. Free speech is returning.

We notice lauda is already refusing to act within the guidelines let's see how long he gets away with it before being put in his place.



I will not be following any broken formats. He can either fix it or blacklist me because I flagged a known scammer if he wants create damage the common good. Up to him. Last change made DT less relevant, this change makes it next to completely irrelevant. I don't care about nor support liberalist bullshit.

Already people are refusing to support his NEW abuse. Now they know their sigs are safe (if they are not scammers) you will notice more people standing up to these bullies.

The common good is getting rid of bullies like you Lauda. You had a good ride scamming, extorting, shady escrowing, top paid sig spots. Looks like soon you will need to compete on a fair level with every other member here not bully your way to extreme advantage.

This new system (if enforced) is HUGE step in returning free speech to this board.




Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 11:40:58 AM
You likely were wrong. I even can flag myself, and my name in Support List is not in italic font style or grey color

You're always in your own trust network so your vote will show as trusted for yourself. The greyed-out ones are not trusted and don't count in the +1 or +3 thresholds for the boxes to show up.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: redsn0w on June 12, 2019, 11:45:45 AM
Suggestion:
Quote
Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer.
This could be more accurate by replacing "One" by "Three".

Nice idea, it would be useful also to add a counter in the flag page. Something like that:


https://i.imgur.com/JJY5ens.png


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lafu on June 12, 2019, 11:52:44 AM
Wouldnt it not be better when theymos makes an pinned thread in the reputation section and all can post there flags in there ?

So when we get this not every User has to do there one Flag thread and all flags are in one thread , and i guess this will also help to get maybe some support one some flags they where posted in there !

Dont know if this suggestion was posted already , when yes sry ! 


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bill gator on June 12, 2019, 12:02:15 PM
A negative rating right now is completely useless ... I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.

It's like you really are a cat; so afraid of a changing environment! :P

I'd be careful with taking a liberal approach towards the scammer flags. Your statement makes it sounds like you're just going to replace your previous usage of negative trust with scammer flags, at least that's how I heard it; can you please correct me where I'm wrong?

1. Getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location, sort of like reviews on sites like EBay.

For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created.

If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

Negative ratings are far from useless, and it's almost like you didn't read the OP. If all you've gotten from this thread is "Negatives are useless, we use flags now", then you're in for a bumpy ride.

Side-Note: Any plans to have a "flag history" per user, those that they've created, supported and opposed?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 12:04:03 PM
It's like you really are a cat; so afraid of a changing environment! :P

I'd be careful with taking a liberal approach towards the scammer flags. Your statement makes it sounds like you're just going to replace your previous usage of negative trust with scammer flags, at least that's how I heard it; can you please correct me where I'm wrong?
There is no requirement for one to be a scammer to receive a negative rating any more. I will not be participating in the flag games other than for a few notable cases/figures. Once more people start getting scammed because of a lack of victim-created-flags, then liberals might see why such a system is flawed. Then again, liberals like to be blind in spite of evidence. Į\_(ツ)_/Į


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 12:06:22 PM
On first thought, I would have said a "casual or implied" agreement would be something along the lines of winning an auction, buying an item, or taking out a loan

Why would those not be considered "written"?

I thought "casual or implied" was something not specifically stated. For example you shipped me an item won in an auction but it got damaged in the mail. Neither party had said anything about insurance beforehand. I might have an implied contract claim against you because the sender is typically responsible for delivery.

But if you don't honor the winning bid, or don't ship after taking the money, or fail to do something else that's spelled out in your auction terms - that sounds like a written contract violation.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 12:07:40 PM
But if you don't honor the winning bid, or don't ship after taking the money, or fail to do something else that's spelled out in your auction terms - that sounds like a written contract violation.
Where in the auction is it written that I'm supposed to ship to you after I take your money? Maybe I implied I will ship it to somewhere else regardless of who wins? Funny Swiss-cheese system this is.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bill gator on June 12, 2019, 12:09:26 PM
There is no requirement for one to be a scammer to receive a negative rating any more. I will not be participating in the flag games other than for a few notable cases/figures.

Was being a scammer a requirement to receive negative ratings before? *Checks self for buggies* Flagging should be left to more clear-cut cases of scamming, if that's what you mean by notable then I have no qualms with that.

Once more people start getting scammed because of a lack of victim-created-flags, then liberals might see why such a system is flawed. Then again, liberals like to be blind in spite of evidence. Į\_(ツ)_/Į

I was using the word "liberal" non-politically. That was one of my concerns as well, the fact that it requires a victim to create the flag - I understand the reasoning behind it, but I just hope that a high enough percentage of victims actually follows through and understands the system well enough to use it as intended.

Be nice to the liberals or FH is gonna bite ya!

I think semantic games are going to be our biggest hurdle before actually seeing the flags do their job.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 12:11:38 PM
Was being a scammer a requirement to receive negative ratings before? *Checks self for buggies* Flagging should be left to more clear-cut cases of scamming, if that's what you mean by notable then I have no qualms with that.
Yes and no. It was semi-silently introduced as a "guideline" not long ago; never really enforced, and now it's irrelevant due to flags and removal of the warning. Your rating is valid and my flag on your is also valid, I guess. Maybe. Who knows. It's a terrible system either way; it would have worked if it was like this from day one (maybe).

Be nice to the liberals or FH is gonna bite ya!
Liberals remind me of Patrick's pet rock.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TheNewAnon135246 on June 12, 2019, 12:12:55 PM
@Theymos, I have opened a scam accusation here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153498.0

People have lost money/had to recover their funds because of this user and I have included several clear fact-statements in my topic. Would it be against the rules for me to (attempt to) add a scammer flag since I personally haven't dealt with the user in question?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: wwzsocki on June 12, 2019, 12:13:23 PM
I already see a lot of improvements in this new system and I am sure that it will be much fairer than the previous one.

There is already no way to destroy an account with only one accusation or single vote from DT1 member.

Thought exactly about something like this, that more DT1 members have to agree, that one is a scammer to tag him.

I hope, we finally have a trust system which would be really working and give us the filling of security here on the forum.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 12:14:49 PM
Would it be against the rules for me to (attempt to) add a scammer flag since I personally haven't dealt with the user in question?
Yes. You can only leave the weakest-type flag if you weren't harmed personally.

Just to confirm, you are not allowed to create a contract violation flag unless you were personally harmed, correct?
Correct.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bill gator on June 12, 2019, 12:15:50 PM
Your rating is valid and my flag on your is also valid, I guess. Maybe. Who knows.

I'm like 99% sure this is exactly what theymos classified as "crystal-clear abuse" in his OP.
Let me know when you make the thread, please?
I think your rating is flimsy, and unwarranted.

Liberals remind me of Patrick's pet rock.

I've always wanted a pet rock, but they keep biting me.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 12:17:51 PM
Your rating is valid and my flag on your is also valid, I guess. Maybe. Who knows.
I'm like 99% sure this is exactly what theymos classified as "crystal-clear abuse" in his OP.
No, that's for the contract-violation flag. Your flag has nothing to do with that. Read the whole thread again.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bill gator on June 12, 2019, 12:22:34 PM
No, that's for the contract-violation flag. Your flag has nothing to do with that. Read the whole thread again.

So you've made a thread about flagging me and the local-rule is that I am not allowed to respond or defend myself from your blatantly slanderous flag. I wouldn't expect anything less from a meower.

Code:
This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions.

You're telling me any knowledgeable and reasonable forum user agrees that you're likely to lose money if dealing with me?
This is not based on your opinion(s)?

If this isn't opinion-based, or rather fantasy-based, then please point me to the facts that would lead any reasonable and knowledgeable person to believe anyone that conducts business with me is likely to lose money.

I'll be waiting with a stack of users that have not lost money doing business with me, and that would be happy to continue doing business with me.

I don't even think you believe that anyone is at risk of losing money by transacting with me.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 12:24:05 PM
I don't even think you believe that anyone is at risk of losing money by transacting with me.
I would not trust you with $1, that's how strongly I believe that you are a risk. Nobody should transact with you, ever.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bill gator on June 12, 2019, 12:26:45 PM
I would not trust you with $1, that's how strongly I believe that you are a risk. Nobody should transact with you, ever.

You're in the super-minority with that thought.

Waiting to hear how this isn't your opinion.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 12, 2019, 12:28:25 PM
It's like you really are a cat; so afraid of a changing environment! :P

I'd be careful with taking a liberal approach towards the scammer flags. Your statement makes it sounds like you're just going to replace your previous usage of negative trust with scammer flags, at least that's how I heard it; can you please correct me where I'm wrong?
There is no requirement for one to be a scammer to receive a negative rating any more. I will not be participating in the flag games other than for a few notable cases/figures. Once more people start getting scammed because of a lack of victim-created-flags, then liberals might see why such a system is flawed. Then again, liberals like to be blind in spite of evidence. Į\_(ツ)_/Į

There never was any requirement before. You gave negative ratings because people presented irrefutable evidence you scammed yourself? how does that make them a scammer exactly??

Great news LaudaM. Bye!!

We don't need you using this excuse to hide and threaten people not to present evidence of your own scamming any longer.

Just stop crying and whining on though like a little bitch.

Mid level scammers like you sneaked around the edges of the old system just managing to stay "gray"

At least now scammers like you are unable to use this system to silence whistle blowing of their own foul deeds.

Just shut up now, we have heard enough of your crying on that you want to retain your powers to trust abuse. You have no power here lauda worm tongue.

....and then lauda said: this trust system is flawed now that I can no longer use it to silence whistle blowing ....hahahaha
.....what will I do now that I can not brand members scammers for presenting observable instances that I lied and scammed......hahaha
..... it's all just so flawed now, what kind of trust system is this?

It just doesn't make any sense for me to use this system any longer says laudaM ... I simply can not game it for my own personal use any longer. I'm not playing.

Ok don't let the door slam on the way out. Thanks for being the main driving force for change, you trust abusing scamming wretch. We'll let you know when you we need you to dance again monkey.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TheNewAnon135246 on June 12, 2019, 12:28:57 PM
Would it be against the rules for me to (attempt to) add a scammer flag since I personally haven't dealt with the user in question?
Yes. You can only leave the weakest-type flag if you weren't harmed personally.

Just to confirm, you are not allowed to create a contract violation flag unless you were personally harmed, correct?
Correct.

I understand what Theymos is trying to do with the flag system but not being able to an obvious scammer, and supplying supporting evidence, who caused people to lose money is odd.

EDIT: Can we try to not derail this topic with personal accusations? Please let's keep this about the flags in general.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 12:30:09 PM
I would not trust you with $1, that's how strongly I believe that you are a risk. Nobody should transact with you, ever.
You're in the super-minority with that thought.

Waiting to hear how this isn't your opinion.
Quote
This determination is based on concrete red flags
You bought your account = red fact. No opinion needed. Are you asking for a stronger tag or what?

I understand what Theymos is trying to do with the flag system but not being able to an obvious scammer, and supplying supporting evidence, who caused people to lose money is odd.
I don't understand how people didn't realize this right away: If there is no victim around / no victim creates a flag = no scam has occurred. That is the new system.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: redsn0w on June 12, 2019, 12:32:06 PM
Who said there will be no drama? I'll be back in a few minutes with some pop-corn to read all the posts that I'll miss.....


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bill gator on June 12, 2019, 12:32:59 PM
No opinion needed. Are you asking for a stronger tag or what?

I'm looking for justification. How does purchasing an account equate to others losing money by dealing with me? Especially considering I have done dozens of deals worth thousands of dollars without a single negative trust related to any transaction I've ever done.

Please stop making these ominous threats, about "stronger" tags (abuse) when I am being nothing but nice and trying to have a conversation with you about where I believe you're going about things incorrectly.

What you're claiming conflicts with reality, entirely.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on June 12, 2019, 12:33:58 PM
I thought "casual or implied" was something not specifically stated. For example you shipped me an item won in an auction but it got damaged in the mail. Neither party had said anything about insurance beforehand. I might have an implied contract claim against you because the sender is typically responsible for delivery.
I'm not sure.

To me, a written contract needs to have a clearly written set of rules, which the user in question explicitly says they are agreeing to. Anything less than that would be implied. Many escrow, loan, auction, sales, etc., threads have a list of rules which could be considered a written contract in OP's post, but not all. As Lauda says, many auctions don't state anywhere in writing that the item will actually be shipped after the auction. This is simply implied. And very rarely does a user ever post "I fully agree with the rules/contract which OP has posted", but it is implied that they do by posting in the thread in question.

As I said, these are just my initial thoughts on reading theymos' post, and I may be way off mark here. I think we need some clarification from theymos on this so that everyone in the forum is adhering to the same set of rules for using these new flags.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 12:35:20 PM
No opinion needed. Are you asking for a stronger tag or what?
I'm looking for justification. How does successfully purchasing an account equate to others losing money by dealing with me? Especially considering I have done dozens of deals worth thousands of dollars without a single negative trust related to any transaction I've ever done.

Please stop making these ominous threats, about "stronger" tags (abuse) when I am being nothing but nice and trying to have a conversation with you about where I believe you're going about things incorrectly.

What you're claiming conflicts with reality, entirely.
I don't care about your opinion, belief or whatever. My statement on your shadiness is probably permanent and given your behaviour recently pre- and post- discovery, there is absolutely no reason to invest any more thought into considering a change. Stop wasting your own and my time. The weakest-type flag is not abuse for this, which is why I picked it and will be using this type of flag for cases where I am not a direct victim.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bill gator on June 12, 2019, 12:37:52 PM
If there is no victim around / no victim creates a flag = no scam has occurred. That is the new system.

That's sort of the opposite of what you're doing to me; no scam has occured, no victim ever existed, but you're happy to create a false-flag.

My opinion ...

That's kind of where the problem is, this is not opinion based and you are playing games with words.

Code:
it is not based on the user's opinions.

The weakest-type flag is not abuse for this, which is why I picked it and will be using this type of flag for cases where I am not a direct victim.

You're using this in a case where there is no victim, and have no reason to believe there ever would have been or will be.
You literally just justified your flag on me, by stating "My opinion" when that is clearly the opposite of it's intended use.

Edit: I like how you changed "opinion" to statement, niiiiiiice.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 12:40:15 PM
Statement, no opinions. Cry elsewhere and let people get back on topic.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bill gator on June 12, 2019, 12:44:43 PM
You don't think that this is precisely on topic? You've left a flag that I believe to be the opposite of the intended use of the system. Let's talk about anything other than what Lauda is doing, shh.

You're the one that called it your opinion, then edited it and are now claiming "no opinions."

I believe you're using your opinions where facts should go, and I think you're using your dislike of me as justification to see how far you can bend the new system from the beginning.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 12:46:16 PM
I believe you're using your opinions where facts should go, and I think you're using your dislike of me as justification to see how far you can bend the new system from the beginning.
No opinions. I'm getting blacklisted because of this early flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35. So quit crying already and grow up.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bill gator on June 12, 2019, 12:50:37 PM
No opinions.

I'm worried for you, you're becoming a broken-record. How you feel about me, is your opinion, and anything you wrap around that won't make it any less of an opinion.
I have never scammed anyone, never had intentions to scam anyone and I have not violated any contracts (casual, written or otherwise). Nobody reasonable or knowledgeable would consider me a scammer, potential-scammer or someone that puts the other party at financial risk simply for doing business with me.

I'm getting blacklisted because of this early flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35.

Why are you intentionally trying to get blacklisted?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 12:52:35 PM
I'm getting blacklisted because of this early flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35.
Why are you intentionally trying to get blacklisted?
The system is terrible. Other's have followed in blindly on that flag not knowing/understanding the full stupidity of the system (or just for the sake of testing - see yahoo's post) at the time. I wasn't sure of how bad the implications of it either, i.e. it's much more worse than I originally thought. Now that that has sorted (there is no support on the flag), it's all good. I'm fine with a blacklist if mr. theymos wants to. All flags created after that are fully valid; maybe only not the flag on BSV.

Update: Rewrite.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bill gator on June 12, 2019, 12:56:41 PM
I'm fine with a blacklist if mr. theymos wants to.

You're kind of forcing their hand if you're going to intentionally go against the system and leave flags that you know are blacklist-worthy.
Do you think that's going to push the system out of existence or in a more positive direction?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Hhampuz on June 12, 2019, 12:58:13 PM
Some users seem to be very happy with this change, so wholesome.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 12:58:56 PM
You're kind of forcing their hand if you're going to intentionally go against the system and leave flags that you know are blacklist-worthy.
All flags created after that are fully valid; maybe only not the flag on BSV.
I stand by it. Roger Ver:

It seems that it is fine to support a flag, as long as the accusation is based on clear fact-statements and doesn't contain false accusations.
There you go. I used August 2017 as the date. Flag link:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=52.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bill gator on June 12, 2019, 01:02:19 PM
Some users seem to be very happy with this change, so wholesome.

Some users seem to be very unhappy with this change, so loathsome.

Realistically, people get excited for change - most of America's leaders get elected on the idea "Our system sucks, I'm gonna make change!" Of course there's going to be excitement whenever a change is introduced, people want to be optimistic and see a brighter future. Whether or not the change is going to be in favor of the people happy about it, that's a problem for the next election.

The change seems positive, because it further compartmentalizes the trust-system in an appropriate direction.

The semantic games are going to ensue that will attempt to keep the system as it was/has been, but give it a couple of headache filled weeks where the usual members bash their heads together until we find a middle-ground that nobody is happy about.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 12, 2019, 01:07:51 PM
Some users seem to be very happy with this change, so wholesome.

Yes, probably the members that are sick and tired of your trust abusing pals using red trust to silence observable instances of their lying and scamming, and enforcing double standards and different rules for their "friends".

Why don't you just stick to supporting the dox of forum treasurers than poking your brown nose in here.

Looks like the racket you campaign mangers were running with these red trusting / meriting goons is almost up.

If you start moving the goal posts to claiming they must now not have a negative score (that is NOW NOTHING TO DO WITH SCAMMING) you will be showing how far you are really willing to go to keep creaming off the best campaign manager jobs and giving the best spots to your trust abusing friends. That will be your certain demise. Sorry people here want a fair and transparent system where each member is treated equally.

Also where is that 0.5 BTC gone to?  You seem to be keeping quiet about that.

The only people crying about this change seem to be the ONLY people that have observable undeniable instances of scamming in their post histories that they can not hide now.

The new flag system is pushing towards a very transparent and observably fair system (if enforced). What's the matter don't like things being transparent and fair hhampuz??

You already admitted that you do not want to be transparent and open about the rules you selectively apply to different people to grant access or deny them entry to your shady campaigns. TRANSPARENT FAIR RULES THAT APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL MEMBERS - this is what this community is all about. Not shady back room deals.

If you don't like this new transparent and open flag system you are demonstrating clearly you should not be a campaign manager. Not that you have not demonstrated that previously by refusing to be transparent anyway.

1. refusing to be transparent in the selection process of your campaigns
2. supporting the doxing and bullying of a forum treasurer
3. not answering where the remaining funds went to from best mixer

stop trying to pretend you are wholesome- dirt bag.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Thule on June 12, 2019, 01:15:21 PM
Nice to see finally a positive change which is more transparent fair and most important limits the possibilities of abuse from Lauda and a few other people by saying that only victims are allowed to create flags which makes it now impossible for them to instantly create 4-8 negative trust feedbacks based on nothing


Good work Theymos


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Hhampuz on June 12, 2019, 01:16:28 PM
Some users seem to be very happy with this change, so wholesome.
~

Oh shit, didn't mean to step on any toes here. Just thought it was wholesome that so many people are happy with the change.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 12, 2019, 01:23:40 PM
A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it.

Does that mean that a newbie with a lot of alts (There are a lot of them here) can red flag you and destroy you profile? In that case you must search for a bunch of opposers to clear it. Please correct me if I'm wrong


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Royse777 on June 12, 2019, 01:28:25 PM
A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it.

Does that mean that a newbie with a lot of alts (There are a lot of them here) can red flag you and destroy you profile? In that case you must search for a bunch of opposers to clear it. Please correct me if I'm wrong
You will need support or oppose from DT members if I get the idea correct.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: eddie13 on June 12, 2019, 01:29:16 PM
- Globally, per year you can only create 1 flag per activity point you have, but at least 1/year.

So this means if a person has 1000 activity they can create up to 1000 flags this year, and it resets in roughly a year from now so they can create another 1000 flags next year?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 01:29:56 PM
To me, a written contract needs to have a clearly written set of rules, which the user in question explicitly says they are agreeing to. Anything less than that would be implied. Many escrow, loan, auction, sales, etc., threads have a list of rules which could be considered a written contract in OP's post, but not all. As Lauda says, many auctions don't state anywhere in writing that the item will actually be shipped after the auction. This is simply implied. And very rarely does a user ever post "I fully agree with the rules/contract which OP has posted", but it is implied that they do by posting in the thread in question.

As I said, these are just my initial thoughts on reading theymos' post, and I may be way off mark here. I think we need some clarification from theymos on this so that everyone in the forum is adhering to the same set of rules for using these new flags.

I think auction templates and trade threads may need some updates with the new rules in mind along the lines of "You're supposed to pay within two days after winning, I'll ship it the next business day after paying, your bid means you agree to my terms, etc" if they don't have that yet. But yeah some clarification would be nice.

Does that mean that a newbie with a lot of alts (There are a lot of them here) can red flag you and destroy you profile? In that case you must search for a bunch of opposers to clear it. Please correct me if I'm wrong

You're wrong :)

The trust system still works and only people in your trust network (DT by default) will count as supporters or opponents.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 12, 2019, 01:31:05 PM
A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it.

Does that mean that a newbie with a lot of alts (There are a lot of them here) can red flag you and destroy you profile? In that case you must search for a bunch of opposers to clear it. Please correct me if I'm wrong
You will need support or oppose from DT members if I get the idea correct.

DT members are not mentioned in Theymos post. It is written "A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it."


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TheNewAnon135246 on June 12, 2019, 01:31:16 PM
I think it should be allowed to open a scammer flag against someone without personally being a victim if:

  • Victims have actually been scammed/lost money
  • The accusation contains enough factual evidence

Perhaps a rule could be added that a scam accusation needs to receive an x amount of merit before being able to add a scammer flag while not being a victim, showing that accusation has received enough support from the community.

EDIT:

An accusation like this:

There you go. I used August 2017 as the date. Flag link:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=52.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Hhampuz on June 12, 2019, 01:33:22 PM
Perhaps you could integrate a system, or a specific page, for DT members @theymos where they can review random flags that needs DT attention. Perhaps similar to how it is for mods when it comes to reported posts?

Just an idea, like how you can do overwatch stuff in csgo to try and catch out cheaters. Rather than having to search for threads where flags are being discussed (although one doesn't exclude the other), it would be nice to go somewhere specific and be presented with a case, a dashboard of sorts.

Seems like it would be suitable for current DT system.


EDIT; Forgot the word "dashboard", and spelling.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 12, 2019, 01:34:21 PM
The trust system still works and only people in your trust network (DT by default) will count as supporters or opponents.

OK. Got it. But support button is active for me and I'm not DT member.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on June 12, 2019, 01:35:56 PM
DT members are not mentioned in Theymos post. It is written "A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it."

See:
Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.

OK. Got it. But support button is active for me and I'm not DT member.
You are free to support or oppose flags. You support or opposition will only be relevant to yourself and any users who have included you in their own personal trust list.



I think in amongst all this talk about flags, everyone seems to be forgetting that red trust still exists. If theymos only wants scammer flags to be used by people who have been personally scammed, then so be it. Red trust was sufficient for everyone up until a few hours ago - the only thing which has changed with leaving red trust is the removal of red "Trade with extreme caution" text.* I don't think we necessarily need to be leaving a flag for everyone, and users should, as always, be encouraged to read the trust ratings before entering in to any sort of deal, contract, or agreement.



*Edit: I forgot about the warning above the threads - these are also no longer linked to red trust.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 01:37:55 PM
Red trust was sufficient for everyone up until a few hours ago - the only thing which has changed with leaving red trust is the removal of red "Trade with extreme caution" text.
Wrong. The warning above threads started by such users is also gone. Those two things combined make them worthless.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: shield132 on June 12, 2019, 01:39:43 PM
Chages are always welcome and to be fair trust section was something that really needed it but to my mind you had to leave concept of a trust score because it showed how new/old your trust was (well, you can check it manually but...)
Scammer flag is a great addition because there were some red trust which were personal and it had nothing to do with trading certain user.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 12, 2019, 01:40:57 PM
The warning above threads started by such users is also gone. Those two things combined make them worthless.

Scammers heaven..


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 12, 2019, 01:46:33 PM
Red trust was sufficient for everyone up until a few hours ago - the only thing which has changed with leaving red trust is the removal of red "Trade with extreme caution" text.
Wrong. The warning above threads started by such users is also gone. Those two things combined make them worthless.

No, only you are worthless, actually of negative worth.

You are responsible for breaking the old system so quite crying, your abuse fucked it up.

That warning was presented above many honest members initial posts due to your attempts to conceal you had previously lied and scammed. It was therefore already misleading and of low to negative over all value.

You broke it. Theymos is fixing it with the new transparent and fair system. People will soon flag down all the REAL SCAMMERS. Hopefully you will be included.

You seem to be of the opinion that because you gave out a lot of red tags that people assumed you were net positive. The smarter ones could see that you have done far more damage here than you have good.

Just fuck off and let the board fix your mess.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 12, 2019, 01:49:54 PM
Now this thread will be used by potential scammers who were tagged by Kitty, to attack Lauda and celebrate.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TheNewAnon135246 on June 12, 2019, 01:51:10 PM
Red trust was sufficient for everyone up until a few hours ago - the only thing which has changed with leaving red trust is the removal of red "Trade with extreme caution" text.
Wrong. The warning above threads started by such users is also gone. Those two things combined make them worthless.

No, only you are worthless, actually of negative worth.

You are responsible for breaking the old system so quite crying, your abuse fucked it up.

That warning was presented above many honest members initial posts due to your attempts to conceal you had previously lied and scammed. It was therefore already misleading and of low to negative over all value.

You broke it. Theymos is fixing it with the new transparent and fair system. People will soon flag down all the REAL SCAMMERS. Hopefully you will be included.

You seem to be of the opinion that because you gave out a lot of red tags that people assumed you were net positive. The smarter ones could see that you have done far more damage here than you have good.

Just fuck off and let the board fix your mess.

Since Theymos "fixed" the "broken" system, maybe you can start posting from your main account now?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: iasenko on June 12, 2019, 01:53:38 PM
~

Since Theymos "fixed" the "broken" system, maybe you can start posting from your main account now?

He was banned for 60 days, if I remember correctly so he is still not able to post from the CH account.
... I guess I have to leave the Meta for a few days until everything settles down... maybe....


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Thule on June 12, 2019, 01:55:12 PM
Nice to see some beloved DT members who are supporting our Kitty try to get control back to DT members .....

I have to agree current change from theymos is a disaster for the current abusive DT members as they totally lost power which finally makes a fair rating possible.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 12, 2019, 01:58:12 PM
Now this thread will be used by potential scammers who were tagged by Kitty, to attack Lauda and celebrate.

^^ probably laudas alt ^^^

who has ever heard of this nothing poster before. Just randomly shows up munching ass.

LFC is that you?

Hey moronpigsnoz do you not understand that the flag system is not pushing for a fair and transparent system? where only REAL scammers can be flagged?

You don't want a transparent and fair system? you want to keep retain a system where PROVEN and VERIFIABLE liars and scammers like lauda you kitty kat master can still brand those that whistle blow on him as scammers?

Yep plenty of bottles of cristal are going to pop tonight I'm sure. Even more when your favorite kitty cat gets black listed. Meow.

If this new system is left as is and theymos enforces this flagging system. It is a huge step in the right direction for free speech here.

You want to brand someone a scammer THEN COME WITH THE EVIDENCE or fuck off.  Should have been like this from the start.

Trust abuse is over. Feedback is fine put what you like. People should investigate if the feedback is true though. If we had our way if you put lies in that feedback form you should be blacklisted though. However since at this point it does not generate a warning then this is not so much of an issue. If the reader is not bothering to research the feedback for himself then that is their issue. If the readers wants to believe someone is a defamer when that person presented irrefutable observable instances to substantiate their concerns that is the readers own issue. 

The only people moaning about a TRANSPARENT AND FAIR SET OF RULES THAT MUST BE APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL MEMBERS  are of course those that were gaming the sytem for their own ends.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 02:00:36 PM
Can we please have this thread to discuss the flags and not personal squabbles? Plenty of other threads for that. TYVM.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Veleor on June 12, 2019, 02:01:04 PM
<...> Theymos is fixing it with the new transparent and fair system. <...>

Then trust rating should be visible in all sections, including for guests.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: marlboroza on June 12, 2019, 02:03:08 PM
You are running very interesting social experiment here  ;D

So basically, color has been changed from red to orange and DT feedback is still visible. And some users are happy that their visible red "-ve" feedback remained visible to whoever click on their trust page, and, number under profile is still the same. And, order of numbers has been changed. For example:

Nice to see finally a positive change which is more transparent fair and most important limits the possibilities of abuse from Lauda and a few other people by saying that only victims are allowed to create flags which makes it now impossible for them to instantly create 4-8 negative trust feedbacks based on nothing


Good work Theymos

I just don't get it.


And these flags are for people who are not logged in, everyone else can click on each users profile and read why someone has..."-ge"...


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 12, 2019, 02:04:54 PM
Now this thread will be used by potential scammers who were tagged by Kitty, to attack Lauda and celebrate.

^^ probably laudas alt ^^^

who has ever heard of this nothing poster before. Just randomly shows up munching ass.

LFC is that you?

Hey moronpigsnoz do you not understand that the flag system is not pushing for a fair and transparent system? where only REAL scammers can be flagged?

You don't want a transparent and fair system? you want to keep retain a system where PROVEN and VERIFIABLE liars and scammers like lauda you kitty kat master can still brand those that whistle blow on him as scammers?

Yep plenty of bottles of cristal are going to pop tonight I'm sure. Even more when your favorite kitty cat gets black listed. Meow.

Scammers like you always seeing things. For you, everyone is Laudas alt. Do not forget that we still have a "Scam Accusation" thread. So all I can advise you, is to go and fuck yourself with the bottle of "crystal" during your celebration.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Thule on June 12, 2019, 02:06:07 PM
You are running very interesting social experiment here  ;D

So basically, color has changed from red to orange and DT feedback is still visible. And some users are happy that their visible red "-ve" feedback remained visible to whoever clicks on their trust page, and, it shows the same number when they post, but different color and number order has been changed. For example:

Nice to see finally a positive change which is more transparent fair and most important limits the possibilities of abuse from Lauda and a few other people by saying that only victims are allowed to create flags which makes it now impossible for them to instantly create 4-8 negative trust feedbacks based on nothing


Good work Theymos

I just don't get it.


And these flags are for people who are not logged in, everyone else can click on each users profile and read why someone has..."-ge"...


Exectly everyone needs to read and see's instantly Laudas and the other BS explanation/claim


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: marlboroza on June 12, 2019, 02:08:35 PM
You are running very interesting social experiment here  ;D

So basically, color has changed from red to orange and DT feedback is still visible. And some users are happy that their visible red "-ve" feedback remained visible to whoever clicks on their trust page, and, it shows the same number when they post, but different color and number order has been changed. For example:

Nice to see finally a positive change which is more transparent fair and most important limits the possibilities of abuse from Lauda and a few other people by saying that only victims are allowed to create flags which makes it now impossible for them to instantly create 4-8 negative trust feedbacks based on nothing


Good work Theymos

I just don't get it.


And these flags are for people who are not logged in, everyone else can click on each users profile and read why someone has..."-ge"...


Exectly everyone needs to read and see's instantly Laudas and the other BS explanation/claim
So what has changed? Color?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 12, 2019, 02:12:37 PM
Now this thread will be used by potential scammers who were tagged by Kitty, to attack Lauda and celebrate.

^^ probably laudas alt ^^^

who has ever heard of this nothing poster before. Just randomly shows up munching ass.

LFC is that you?

Hey moronpigsnoz do you not understand that the flag system is not pushing for a fair and transparent system? where only REAL scammers can be flagged?

You don't want a transparent and fair system? you want to keep retain a system where PROVEN and VERIFIABLE liars and scammers like lauda you kitty kat master can still brand those that whistle blow on him as scammers?

Yep plenty of bottles of cristal are going to pop tonight I'm sure. Even more when your favorite kitty cat gets black listed. Meow.

Scammers like you always seeing things. For you, everyone is Laudas alt. Do not forget that we still have a "Scam Accusation" thread. So all I can advise you, is to go and fuck yourself with the bottle of "crystal" during your celebration.

Off topic - however produce the EVIDENCE Of scamming or we label you are LIAR in our new trolling trolls and liars thread.

People like you do crystal , people like us enjoy bottles of cristal :)  

You are obviously low functioning. We just presented observable instances of lauda lying and scamming. You make yourself look foolish by screaming scamming when there is none on our part euro trash.

The new flag system if enforced is pushing for a fair and transparent system. We realize you do not like that , sorry :(





Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 02:15:29 PM
[ad hominem]
[insults]
[deflection]
[holier-than-thou attitude]
You sure are a pleasant one to engage with.
I wonder whose alts you will be. ::)

<...> Theymos is fixing it with the new transparent and fair system. <...>
Then trust rating should be visible in all sections, including for guests.
Good luck.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Thule on June 12, 2019, 02:16:39 PM
You are running very interesting social experiment here  ;D

So basically, color has changed from red to orange and DT feedback is still visible. And some users are happy that their visible red "-ve" feedback remained visible to whoever clicks on their trust page, and, it shows the same number when they post, but different color and number order has been changed. For example:

Nice to see finally a positive change which is more transparent fair and most important limits the possibilities of abuse from Lauda and a few other people by saying that only victims are allowed to create flags which makes it now impossible for them to instantly create 4-8 negative trust feedbacks based on nothing


Good work Theymos

I just don't get it.


And these flags are for people who are not logged in, everyone else can click on each users profile and read why someone has..."-ge"...


Exectly everyone needs to read and see's instantly Laudas and the other BS explanation/claim
So what has changed? Color?

No that people actually have to read these feedbacks and can make their own judement is this is scamming or some kind of BS instead of instantly juding when seeing the negative trust score.
Big diffrence.
And also i'm not called a scammer anymore for which i asked proof for nearly 2 years now but these are just personal opinions now.

But the most important part is that now forum members will be punished for adding false flags which was previously ignored.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: marlboroza on June 12, 2019, 02:19:20 PM
You are running very interesting social experiment here  ;D

So basically, color has changed from red to orange and DT feedback is still visible. And some users are happy that their visible red "-ve" feedback remained visible to whoever clicks on their trust page, and, it shows the same number when they post, but different color and number order has been changed. For example:

Nice to see finally a positive change which is more transparent fair and most important limits the possibilities of abuse from Lauda and a few other people by saying that only victims are allowed to create flags which makes it now impossible for them to instantly create 4-8 negative trust feedbacks based on nothing


Good work Theymos

I just don't get it.


And these flags are for people who are not logged in, everyone else can click on each users profile and read why someone has..."-ge"...


Exectly everyone needs to read and see's instantly Laudas and the other BS explanation/claim
So what has changed? Color?

No that people actually have to read these feedbacks and can make their own judement is this is scamming or some kind of BS instead of instantly juding when seeing the negative trust score.
Big diffrence.
Ok, so what has changed except color, for example, in your case?

edit
For him: Nothing. Thule will remain where he is.
And for other users who are tagged and now they have negative orange number? I don't think this change things too much, at least not from my point of view.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 02:26:39 PM
[ad hominem]
[insults]
[deflection]
[holier-than-thou attitude]
You sure are a pleasant one to engage with.
I wonder whose alts you will be. ::)
Be wary with thy merit, feline friend. Anticipate the incontinence of one's ability to hold back on the alt accusation.
Have fun. I'll merit you even if you start going after me. I'm not a source, I don't have alts nor would I ever sell merit. Ya'll good. :)

Ok, so what has changed except color, for example, in your case?
For him: Nothing. Thule will remain where he is.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TECSHARE on June 12, 2019, 02:29:15 PM
[ad hominem]
[insults]
[deflection]
[holier-than-thou attitude]
You sure are a pleasant one to engage with.
I wonder whose alts you will be. ::)
Be wary with thy merit, feline friend. Anticipate the incontinence of one's ability to hold back on the alt accusation.

Has Lauda totally lost it now and their mind has finally fractured into multiple personalities conversing with themselves?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: sandy-is-fine on June 12, 2019, 02:41:44 PM

A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google. :D  IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 12, 2019, 02:44:11 PM
A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google. :D  IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.

You nailed it!


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 02:45:59 PM
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 12, 2019, 02:46:51 PM
We just presented observable instances of lauda lying and scamming.

You presented nothing. And as marlboroza mentioned for scammers like you nothing changed. Only color. Now instead of red scammer you are  orange scammer  ;D Here is your trust page. Anyone can see it.


Yes when you are low functioning it is easy to be confused.

You see when I said present evidence of us scamming you must of conflated that with present evidence of your puppet masters trust abusing the old system to hide their own scamming?

Have another try fool. Not just present a wall of blatant trust abuse and observable garbage.

Please do it on a scam accusation thread and not derail this thread which is regarding removing the power of your masters whom you like felching to trust abuse whistle blowers like us.

Feltch your masters in private please not here.

Now look back a few pages and you will see we on the other hand presented an observable instance of lauda lying for financial gain. That is scamming.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bones261 on June 12, 2019, 02:48:25 PM

A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google. :D  IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.



A newbie warning flag will also give a nice banner to guests and accounts less than 7 days old, on each thread the potential scammer creates. Only problem with the flag is that you need to reference a thread that is not locked. So if you want to warn newbies about someone who uses locked threads to sell their goods, you will need to open a thread stating your case and then flag them using your thread as a reference. I guess theymos figures that by day 8, a newbie should figure out that # means there is a newbie warning flag on the user.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 02:51:49 PM
A newbie warning flag will also give a nice banner to guests and accounts less than 7 days old, on each thread the potential scammer creates. Only problem with the flag is that you need to reference a thread that is not locked. So if you want to warn newbies about someone who uses locked threads to sell their goods, you will need to open a thread stating your case and then flag them using your thread as a reference. I guess theymos figures that by day 8, a newbie should figure out that # means there is a newbie warning flag on the user.

I believe it's 7 days online, which could be far more than 7 days old unless they spend 24 hours a day on the forum.

for guests and for users with less than 7 days of login time

(emphasis mine)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: ChemicalSpillage on June 12, 2019, 02:52:10 PM
Is a non-victim creating a flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports an factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?
It seems odd to defer the system to the principle of acting reactively rather than proactively. Removing the ability for those that are not involved in the transaction or contract means removing the potential for a flag (apart from newbie flags) to be placed on a high-risk individual before they scam.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The Pharmacist on June 12, 2019, 02:52:10 PM
Yeeee-ahh!  This should satisfy everybody.  Joking, of course, but I am glad that Theymos is making distinctions between things.  I definitely think that's a good idea, because as much as I don't trust members who sell accounts....not all of them are really scammers, but a negative trust (unless you read what it says) does not make that distinction.

All of these big changes seem to be made while I'm asleep.  I wake up and there's a merit system.  I wake up again and there's a 1-merit requirement to become a Jr. Member and a bunch of members are now Newbies again.  I wake up and now there's flags.  None of these were bad changes, I might add.  Thank you, Theymos.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 02:53:43 PM
Is a non-victim creating a flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports an factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?
It seems odd to defer the system to the principle of acting reactively rather than proactively. Removing the ability for those that are not involved in the transaction or contract means removing the potential for a flag (apart from newbie flags) to be placed on a high-risk individual before they scam.
No worries, this system will create victims and will tackle the culprits after they've done their scamming. This is, of course, assuming that victims do speak out and flag.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 12, 2019, 02:54:55 PM

A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google. :D  IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.



LOL says someone who obviously does not have a college degree.

They don't need to know that that score means because it means NOTHING.

Only a flag would be important to them for buying their gift card. Then they will get a red warning to help them.

The only people who will benefit are THE ENTIRE BOARD that are not scammers. Well done sandy.

If they need to study another 4 years to read some feedback they are like unable to operate a gift card.



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bones261 on June 12, 2019, 03:00:53 PM

A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google. :D  IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.



LOL says someone who obviously does not have a college degree.

They don't need to know that that score means because it means NOTHING.

Only a flag would be important to them for buying their gift card. Then they will get a red warning to help them.

The only people who will benefit are THE ENTIRE BOARD that are not scammers. Well done sandy.



If a person posts their scam solicitation post in a thread they did not start, and all they have is a newbie warning flag, all anybody will see is a # sign and perhaps an indication that a negative comments was made. This is like having a toy poodle act as a guard dog.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 03:12:26 PM

A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google. :D  IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.



LOL says someone who obviously does not have a college degree.

They don't need to know that that score means because it means NOTHING.

Only a flag would be important to them for buying their gift card. Then they will get a red warning to help them.

The only people who will benefit are THE ENTIRE BOARD that are not scammers. Well done sandy.



If a person posts their scam solicitation post in a thread they did not start, and all they have is a newbie warning flag, all anybody will see is a # sign and perhaps an indication that a negative comments was made. This is like having a toy poodle act as a guard dog.
I believe they also have a trade with extreme caution warning under their name.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 12, 2019, 03:15:41 PM

A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google. :D  IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.



LOL says someone who obviously does not have a college degree.

They don't need to know that that score means because it means NOTHING.

Only a flag would be important to them for buying their gift card. Then they will get a red warning to help them.

The only people who will benefit are THE ENTIRE BOARD that are not scammers. Well done sandy.



If a person posts their scam solicitation post in a thread they did not start, and all they have is a newbie warning flag, all anybody will see is a # sign and perhaps an indication that a negative comments was made. This is like having a toy poodle act as a guard dog.
I believe they also have a trade with extreme caution warning under their name.

Yes that's for a flag, so this is another non issue people are trying to dream up to prevent a fair and transparent system being introduced.
Won't wash.



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 03:19:22 PM
Quote
Lauda alleges: Bitcoin SV violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. Bitcoin SV did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around May 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.
Support: Foxpup, Lauda, TheNewAnon135246, redsn0w, mocacinno, yogg, mindrust, Hhampuz, iasenko, bitcoinPsycho, mosprognoz, Iamtutut
Opposition: Quickseller, hv_, HardFireMiner, sirsplashalot, williamuk, Olga Buzova, Bitcoin SV, reckon, Sorbent, Alex LZ Saver, exp0it, Bitcoin Cash, binance.com, Alfabank
Good system theymos. Look at the opposing accounts individually, especially "binance.com" and "Alfabank". ::)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 12, 2019, 03:29:54 PM
Have another try fool.

Now you are a celebrity. The screenshots from your profile are posted in the warning thread for beginners.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153576.msg51442422#msg51442422


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bones261 on June 12, 2019, 03:38:52 PM

If a person posts their scam solicitation post in a thread they did not start, and all they have is a newbie warning flag, all anybody will see is a # sign and perhaps an indication that a negative comments was made. This is like having a toy poodle act as a guard dog.
I believe they also have a trade with extreme caution warning under their name.


Yes that's for a flag, so this is another non issue people are trying to dream up to prevent a fair and transparent system being introduced.
Won't wash.


Wrong, only a scammer flag will have that warning. A newbie warning flag will not. By the way OAA, there you go again supporting an argument and not having your facts straight. I'm not "dreaming this up." I presented the facts and then made my analogy/opinion...



A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it. It shows a banner on topics started by the flagged user for guests and for users with less than 7 days of login time. For all users, a "#" is shown next to their trust scores.

For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created. This is the only thing which causes the "Warning: trade with extreme caution" warning to return. It also triggers a banner similar to the newbie-warning banner which is visible to all users. A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lafu on June 12, 2019, 03:54:12 PM
So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?
For sure " Hit the Report to Moderator button " but sometimes it takes a while if they get deleted or the Users nuked.
There was a punch of it the last weekend and last week and i reported them , but in the time of my reports i have done there was some Users that have written in there Anns
and also they was on the way to download from there Links and they just dont do it because i tagged them and posted in there Ann with some message whats about going on !
Should we doing a flag about them too or not ?
And if we doing that it needs 3 others that it will be showing on there profil that there is something wrong with the Account so they see the warning !
The -1 in orange color dosnt help realy in that case in my opinion.

Any ideas from others how we schould handle that ?
 


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 03:55:47 PM
So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?
Were you a victim of this malware? If not, you can't create the flag. You need to get someone who actually got harmed to do it.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: otrkid1970 on June 12, 2019, 03:59:44 PM
This is a great system for numerous reasons but best of all Lauda got knocked off her/his high horse. Ahahaha


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 04:00:33 PM
Any ideas from others how we schould handle that ?

Create a newbie flag (yellow box) and if you're in DT then it will be shown to guests/newbies immediately.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: VyachikO on June 12, 2019, 04:00:48 PM
Please tell me. If I created a flag, can I remove it or not? And if not, who can remove it?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 04:01:42 PM
Please tell me if I created a flag, can I remove it or not? And if not, who can remove it?

Flags can't be removed (I guess admin can do it in exceptional cases). You can withdraw your support though.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lafu on June 12, 2019, 04:02:57 PM
So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?
Were you a victim of this malware? If not, you can't create the flag. You need to get someone who actually got harmed to do it.

So with the Flag system the chance is bigger now that other users will be a victim of the Malware links , because we cant tagg them so others see the warning for it  !
Sounds linke a step back in this case !

Would be good to know how we can do this for that things !

To answer your question no i wasnt a victim about that links , but i look and search for them and try to warn other users that they dont get into this trap download links!


Any ideas from others how we schould handle that ?
Create a newbie flag (yellow box) and if you're in DT then it will be shown to guests/newbies immediately.

Thanks so i will doing that in that cases if there is something like that !


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: sandy-is-fine on June 12, 2019, 04:03:45 PM

A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google. :D  IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.



LOL says someone who obviously does not have a college degree.

They don't need to know that that score means because it means NOTHING.

Only a flag would be important to them for buying their gift card. Then they will get a red warning to help them.

The only people who will benefit are THE ENTIRE BOARD that are not scammers. Well done sandy.

If they need to study another 4 years to read some feedback they are like unable to operate a gift card.



Yea, it was so long ago (1969) that I lost it all because of the drugs and free sex during "the summer of love."  I guess that does qualify as not having one.  My better half agrees after all these years.  Never thought I'd make it to my 50th reunion (or 50th anniv) but I did but my brain is still pretty fried.  :D :D :D

As Vinnie Barbarino /John Travolta said:  "I'm sooooooo confused."    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfGzyKRJSuA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfGzyKRJSuA)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 04:05:34 PM
So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?
Were you a victim of this malware? If not, you can't create the flag. You need to get someone who actually got harmed to do it.
So with the Flag system the chance is bigger now that other users will be a victim of the Malware links , because we cant tagg them so others see the warning for it  !
Sounds linke a step back in this case !
No red on someone until: a) He's already finished his scamming. b) The victim comes out forward and creates the flag. Even if everyone is 100% sure that the user will scam, the best that you can do is yellow. This system actually incentivizes one-account-one-scam and de-incentivizes leaving support as you risk getting blacklisted.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: VyachikO on June 12, 2019, 04:12:21 PM
Please tell me if I created a flag, can I remove it or not? And if not, who can remove it?

Flags can't be removed (I guess admin can do it in exceptional cases). You can withdraw your support though.

If they can not be removed, then we can get to the point that the inscription on the inactive flag will be for everyone.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 12, 2019, 04:17:54 PM
Have another try fool.

Now you are a celebrity. Your trust profile is posted in the warning thread for beginners.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153576.msg51442422#msg51442422


So you are NOT ABLE to demonstrate any instances of scamming but wish to tell lies and make up stories. Sounds like fun you are having there.

Even beginners are likely not as low functioning as you and will research the feedback themselves.

Moronpigschnoz - lol - come at me bro.

We asked you to present a specific instance of scamming. YOU FAILED. Well done you're a FAILURE. Keep going though, it is amusing. We like attention, keep bringing it our way. nom nom nom.



Now enough derailing. We want to talk about the new transparent and much fairer trust system that has been introduced. No listen to your crying, lying and trolling.

@bones if people are not smart enough to be cautious with a brand new account what do you suggest? sorry, i thought you were talking about someone with a scam flag.

anyway what do you mean if can you provide an example of what you are envisioning?

a newbie comes into a thread they did not start and does what exactly. Describe the exact scenario so we can see what you are talking about. Do you mean a newbie comes to the thread that is not previously flagged a scammer but has some negative remarks? and makes some 10 bucks for 500 bucks gift card offer? or something else?


I mean obviously a lot of 2 bit scammers and chancers are going to need flags added where there is a clear case of scamming, but then again FFS if you are a member here handing over bitcoins do some of your OWN DD read the feedback also.

As I have said we have to balance the lowest functioning and most greedy losing some micro btc dust against the entire boards free speech being eroded.  Any problems that pop up are NOT theymos's fault here. THIS IS DUE TO PEOPLE TRUST ABUSING AND CREATING THE NEED FOR CHANGE.

People do need to be forced to do their OWN research before throwing their btc at strangers on the internets. I mean they are aware btc is not reversible right?

Even where there is a loss of 2 and a gain of 200 . You still gained 198 net right. We are all clear on this.

If someone wants to risk their 20 bucks bitcoin to get a 500 bucks amazon gift card from a newbie account, then that is there choice. That was their parents job to tell them that is a risky proposition. I don't feel the entire boards free speech and ability to present observable instances without fear of their account being ruined is a fair price to pay, by any stretch of the imagination.

Actually it is NOT just laudas fault it is your fault bones, it is suchmoons fault it is every DT that did not reverse blatant abuse that had nothing to do with being a scammer. If you had all used the trust system as he initially designed it then it would not have required changes. You were ALL told it was for scammers and those you could provide STRONG case were scammers or intending to scam. None of you listened and continued to brand anyone as scammers for any reason you liked or supported those that were doing so. No person stood against them. Except once ACTMYNAME who is more reasonable although he does selectively like to lecture people who are not gang members and ignore their very same behaviors from gang members,  and at least he does remain civil most of the time. Mikeywith also did try to be as fair as he could without putting his own account up for enemy status. You bones were not the worst, but still it was quite clear you were not going to reverse any of the blatant abuse.

Now the changes are here make sure you all use this system as theymos  has told you it is to be used or get blacklisted. Simple.


LOOK at lafu here crying -- FORGETS TO MENTION the old system didn't just stop the HUGE EXIT SCAM from cryptopia did, it you insider weasel. Where was the old system there??? THE BIGGEST AND BEST SCAMS WILL NEVER GIVE YOU A WARNING BEFORE THEY GO.  They directly or indirectly use the trust system to SCAM BIGGER.

Lafu worked with cryptopia -- where were your warning flags for that exit scam ???. Perhaps people trusted cryptopia because you had it in your sig mr DT1  I want to warn people about scammer and scams. LOL. Perhaps the trust system of any kind INCREASES the chances for BIG SCAMS?

The old system never stopped the BIG SCAMS so stop pretending it did.

The BIGGEST scams here are the convincing ALTS with whitepapers 99.99% of this board don't understand. They will all erode to dust and be forgotten after sucking BILLIONS of dollars from average joes here. Stop worrying about mr $500 bucks gift cards for 20 bucks. Focus on the HUGE scams that are ruining 1000's of investors at a time and spoiling the entire crypto environment.  They can be tackled on thread or with the use of other threads.









Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 12, 2019, 04:26:26 PM
YOU FAILED


Sorry dude, I forgot to add a typical scammers profile example. Edited. Now you are a super celeb.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153576.msg51442422#msg51442422








Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bones261 on June 12, 2019, 04:29:45 PM
@bones if people are not smart enough to be cautious with a brand new account what do you suggest? sorry, i thought you were talking about someone with a scam flag.

anyway what do you mean if can you provide an example of what you are envisioning?

a newbie comes into a thread they did not start and does what exactly. Describe the exact scenario so we can see what you are talking about. Do you mean a newbie comes to the thread that is not previously flagged a scammer but has some negative remarks? and makes some 10 bucks for 500 bucks gift card offer? or something else



I suggest the newbie-flag barks just a little louder. Having a # +0 / =0 / -2 seems a bit tame.   I was going to give an example of this person that I tagged, today. iramsarwar. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2435883) However, it appears that he just got nuked.  :D



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 04:30:22 PM
If they can not be removed, then we can get to the point that the inscription on the inactive flag will be for everyone.

Possibly. Just like many active users have some non-trusted feedback ratings that don't mean anything. Inactive flags are buried even deeper so it shouldn't be much of a problem.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lafu on June 12, 2019, 04:34:25 PM
~~~~

Blah Blah .....  Blah everytime the same Story CH.

You should going again outside to get some fresh Air , maybe you will be feeling better after that .

You know nothing  , i never worked with or for Cryptopia or was employed there .
I also was an victim and lost there. But you can write that all in there thread there .

I was only asking how to handle that things of case with malware links , sry i forgot that you just can thing back 30 seconds in the past !

The taggs i have done on the Malware shit posting links Gang was just for warning other users so they dont get damaged .

In that time i have done this , you just was crying about anything .

Again a waste of time to write to you , and welcome again on my ignore list !

Cheers


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on June 12, 2019, 06:04:15 PM
2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.

Theymos, I mentioned this a few times in the past.

Using the following random (seriously, truly random; don't know the guy) user as an example - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1980983 - NONE of the red or black Trust feedbacks are indexed by Google or any other search engine. In fact, one must be logged in on BCT to view the feedbacks.

So for the crypto community at large, truly major scammers weeded out on BCT go unnoticed on the rest of the Net.

Thanks in advance, theymos, for seeing what you can do to rectify this situation.

Bruno (one of crypto's top ten scammy asses)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lafu on June 12, 2019, 06:30:16 PM
@theymos

Is it possible to get some Page Numbers on the Feedback pages ?

Something like this here :

https://up.picr.de/35997015sn.png


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: redsn0w on June 12, 2019, 06:42:12 PM
@theymos

Is it possible to get some Page Numbers on the Feedback pages ?

Something like this here :

https://up.picr.de/35997015sn.png



@Hhampuz  already asked this, most probably it will be implemented.

Could we get page numbers as on boards/in PM's so I can jump to a specific page rather than just "Next"?

Not a big deal though.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: irfan_pak10 on June 12, 2019, 06:57:00 PM
I like it, It's simple and easy to understand.  8)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on June 12, 2019, 07:12:31 PM
2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.

Theymos, I mentioned this a few times in the past.

Using the following random (seriously, truly random; don't know the guy) user as an example - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1980983 - NONE of the red or black Trust feedbacks are indexed by Google or any other search engine. In fact, one must be logged in on BCT to view the feedbacks.

So for the crypto community at large, truly major scammers weeded out on BCT go unnoticed on the rest of the Net.

Thanks in advance, theymos, for seeing what you can do to rectify this situation.

Bruno (one of crypto's top ten scammy asses)

How 'bout an non-random example ...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=8198


https://i.imgur.com/HiSTKk4.jpg
"Hello, beloved crypto community. I'm Josh Zerlan, better known as Inaba on BitcoinTalk. Feel free to search Google for "Inaba", whereupon you'll be hard-pressed to find any nefarious activities in my name. In closing, Sonny and I are getting the Butterfly Labs Band back together."


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 07:13:17 PM
"Hello, beloved crypto community. I'm Josh Zerlan, better known as Inaba on BitcoinTalk. Feel free to search Google for "Inaba", whereupon you'll be hard-pressed to find any nefarious activities in my name. In closing, Sonny and I are getting the Butterfly Labs Band back together."[/center]
Sounds and looks trustworthy to me. Where are the victims? ::)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: SaltySpitoon on June 12, 2019, 07:17:31 PM
Feels a little clunky, but I definitely support the idea behind it and the direction we can go with the update. I agree with others that the symbols need some updating as well, I don't think the # is fantastic. I don't know that you need a ! or WARNING or any red/yellow/orange colors, even something that just says, "This user has feedback" click here:_____ to see it would work. My only major complaint to this point with the trust system was that red or green letters and arbitrary numbers can be misleading. Just saying, Hey this guy has feedback, why don't you check it out is useful in my opinion.

Separating the, this guy likes lemons! Anyone who doesn't like lemons should avoid this trader! And, hey this guy scammed me, without disallowing either is a good step.


*edit*

"Hello, beloved crypto community. I'm Josh Zerlan, better known as Inaba on BitcoinTalk. Feel free to search Google for "Inaba", whereupon you'll be hard-pressed to find any nefarious activities in my name. In closing, Sonny and I are getting the Butterfly Labs Band back together."[/center]
Sounds and looks trustworthy to me. Where are the victims? ::)

How are the existing ratings converted into the new flags?

They're not. I decided that too many negative ratings aren't flag-worthy, and there's no way to automatically determine it. If you believe that a past negative rating is flag-worthy, you'll need to create a flag.

No one has flagged them yet.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 07:34:13 PM
Is countering feedback still a thing?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 07:35:12 PM
Is countering feedback still a thing?
I don't think it is as negative has kind-of-become ineffective. I've been asked this several times today actually.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: ETFbitcoin on June 12, 2019, 07:40:27 PM
Are there any way to see all trust flags with reasoning filter? I think it could save time for those who usually often give trust feedback.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 07:49:00 PM
Is countering feedback still a thing?
I don't think it is as negative has kind-of-become ineffective. I've been asked this several times today actually.

Ah fuck it, I did it anyway. If it's ok to red-trust for lying then I might as well post a positive trust for telling the truth. You have told me the truth at least once, right?  ;D

Are there any way to see all trust flags with reasoning filter? I think it could save time for those who usually often give trust feedback.

Not at this time but a similar feature has been requested: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153606.0


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mikeywith on June 12, 2019, 07:57:21 PM
I don't like the fact that many scammers' profiles now look somehow legit, thanks to every  DT member who misused the trust system and to everyone who kept rambling about it for the past couple months/years.

Can't say i don't like the update yet, let's see how it goes from here, meanwhile let's encourage everyone to use a custom trust list.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: otrkid1970 on June 12, 2019, 08:06:02 PM
RE: Abuse of the Flagging

Lauda lied when they flagged Quickseller and Lauda received a RED Neg  from theymos himself. Now the question remains will Lauda be expelled from the DT?  It has only been 1 day since the new flagging program has been alive and already Lauda is abusing it.

What say you theymos?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: dogie on June 12, 2019, 08:59:15 PM
This is a terrible, terrible idea.

Showing what is essentially a scammer flag to people with account ages only less than 7 days essentially just opened the door to 10,000's of scammers. There are so many accounts that I've previously tagged that I no longer can, because it doesn't fit into the narrow definitions.

For example, the guy with 20-30 accounts who is permabanned off the site but who keeps creating more... I can't 2. or 3. tag him, and 1. will do next to nothing...


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 09:07:21 PM
This is a terrible, terrible idea.

Showing what is essentially a scammer flag to people with account ages only less than 7 days essentially just opened the door to 10,000's of scammers. There are so many accounts that I've previously tagged that I no longer can, because it doesn't fit into the narrow definitions.

For example, the guy with 20-30 accounts who is permabanned off the site but who keeps creating more... I can't 2. or 3. tag him, and 1. will do next to nothing...
You could say that he is violating a written or implied contract/agreement. If the violation is ongoing, you could move the date up to the present.

Further, if he is banned, you should report him to the administration and additional accounts he creates should be banned.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 09:21:03 PM
You could say that he is violating a written or implied contract/agreement.

Wait, what now? "say that he is"? How about there being a contract to begin with?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TECSHARE on June 12, 2019, 10:13:55 PM
This is a terrible, terrible idea.

Showing what is essentially a scammer flag to people with account ages only less than 7 days essentially just opened the door to 10,000's of scammers. There are so many accounts that I've previously tagged that I no longer can, because it doesn't fit into the narrow definitions.

For example, the guy with 20-30 accounts who is permabanned off the site but who keeps creating more... I can't 2. or 3. tag him, and 1. will do next to nothing...
You could say that he is violating a written or implied contract/agreement. If the violation is ongoing, you could move the date up to the present.

Further, if he is banned, you should report him to the administration and additional accounts he creates should be banned.

Since ban evasion is a violation of the terms of service of the site, this clearly falls within violation of contractual agreement.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mikeywith on June 12, 2019, 10:38:38 PM
this clearly falls within violation of contractual agreement.

The forum rules are buried in a section that most people don't visit, there is no guarantee that member has read and agreed on those terms, therefore I don't see how this fits into a  "contractual agreement ".

Anyway that member should be reported to Mods for breaking the rules, a feedback/flag for that is a terrible idea.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: dogie on June 12, 2019, 10:46:00 PM
Anyway that member should be reported to Mods for breaking the rules, a feedback/flag for that is a terrible idea.

Sure, that makes sense. But what do you do when the mods ignore it for ~4 years?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mikeywith on June 12, 2019, 10:58:37 PM
Sure, that makes sense. But what do you do when the mods ignore it for ~4 years?

If you reported him for being a scammer, nothing will happen, not in a 40 years, if you reported him for ban evasion and he is not yet banned, then you are probably wrong in thinking they are the same "person" - as the mods have better tools than us to determine these ban evasions.



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: SebastianJu on June 12, 2019, 11:51:26 PM
I somewhat like the idea that anyone can create a flag after creating a scam accusation thread searching support for the claims. It's a clear and clean thing that can be followed.

But my question is, a flag can be supported only for:
a single case
of a contract breach
flagged by the victim
or is it broader?

Judging from what theymos wrote it sounds like it's intended only the victim can flag? Also contract means a deal between two parties? If it means the forum rules then it would be way broader and include admin work.

Let's use this feature right from the start, I'm sure it will be beneficial.

Also, will there be some form of pm showing the flags of the day or so in order to raise awareness of the flags? Might be a good thing if a broader mass of members is checking.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 11:53:02 PM
Judging from what theymos wrote it sounds like it's intended only the victim can flag?
No victim creates flag = no scam happened. That's what the system is now.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 13, 2019, 01:03:53 AM
Judging from what theymos wrote it sounds like it's intended only the victim can flag?
No victim creates flag = no scam happened. That's what the system is now.

can we see the victims that we scammed we notice you and your pal hhampuz and some noob dreg have given us a shiny new flag.

be great when you are all blacklisted.



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: dogie on June 13, 2019, 01:40:16 AM
Judging from what theymos wrote it sounds like it's intended only the victim can flag?
No victim creates flag = no scam happened. That's what the system is now.
And we're back to troll + 20 alt accounts = scam happened. This system is 10 steps back - it'd almost be better if everything was deleted.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: theymos on June 13, 2019, 03:25:14 AM
Some changes:
 - If the number of pre-flags-system negative trust ratings is greater than the number of all positive trust ratings, a warning banner is shown for guests & low-login-time newbies.
 - I added "These warning banners will disappear when you have 7 days of login time. You should familiarize yourself with the trust system before then." to the newbie warning banner. Note BTW that it usually takes months for someone to get 7 days of login time: among all 4096 users with 6.5 to 7.5 days login time, the account age (lastLogin-dateRegistered) is: maximum 3216 days, minimum 7.5, median 677, average 936.
 - The pages you see after clicking "next" are now bigger.
 


Some people are acting as though these changes are "letting scammers off the hook", but I don't really think so. Let's assume for a moment that flag types 2 & 3 are too restrictive and will therefore never be used. Even then, you can still give scammers negative feedback, which will display next to their posts in orange, and the threshold for giving negative feedback has been loosened. You can also give newbie-warning flags very easily, and the warning which this creates is shown to more people than any previous warning.

The only thing that scammers got is that they don't have red trust scores or a "trade with extreme caution" warning. But when you consider the measures in the previous paragraph, who is actually going to be scammed due to the absence of this? I think few if any. IMO the main point of these things was to punish/deter scamming, which is what was causing a lot of drama. And by making the threshold for this specific thing higher, it became reasonable to lower the threshold and widen the effect for the other warnings.

I think that scamming will be net-reduced due to these changes.

This system actually incentivizes one-account-one-scam

If someone creates a newbie account and tries to scam with it, they have roughly the same ability as before. The only thing they might be missing is a tiny piece of screen real estate shown only to logged-in users with a trust score and "Trade with extreme caution!" The more effective warnings are the banners, which have been expanded.

If someone does a long con, they have more to lose, since the scam flags create a banner for all users, and it's more exclusive and therefore meaningful. This can give you a bit more confidence in veteran members.

So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?

Newbie-warning flag.

Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

That's all misuse of the system.

@Theymos, I have opened a scam accusation here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153498.0

People have lost money/had to recover their funds because of this user and I have included several clear fact-statements in my topic. Would it be against the rules for me to (attempt to) add a scammer flag since I personally haven't dealt with the user in question?

If you have not been scammed by him, then you should not create a scam flag. A newbie-warning flag and/or trust rating would be OK.


On agreement types:

A written contract is a piece of text taking the rough form of "I will do this, and then you will do this in return," where both sides clearly agreed to it. It needn't be super formal, but there definitely shouldn't be any case of someone not realizing that they were agreeing to something. "I'll send you 1 BTC for the coin" -> "OK" is enough of a written contract.

Exactly what falls into an "implied agreement" may be somewhat grey-area, and certain very obvious torts may also count. Let's see how the culture around this develops.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Mpamaegbu on June 13, 2019, 03:50:44 AM
I guess bounty managers too will now need to tweak this rule to accommodate the new flag system rather than the default trust as almost all the negative trusts have disappeared.

Quote
*Do not have any legitimate negative feedback from any DT member. Receiving negative feedback during your stay could lead to your termination from the campaign without payment or notice.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Pffrt on June 13, 2019, 03:51:52 AM
I guess bounty managers too will now need to tweak this rule to accommodate the new flag system rather than the default trust

Quote
*Do not have any legitimate negative feedback from any DT member. Receiving negative feedback during your stay could lead to your termination from the campaign without payment or notice.
That's not relevant here.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 13, 2019, 03:54:02 AM
Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

That's all misuse of the system.

Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=60
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Mpamaegbu on June 13, 2019, 03:54:58 AM
I guess bounty managers too will now need to tweak this rule to accommodate the new flag system rather than the default trust

Quote
*Do not have any legitimate negative feedback from any DT member. Receiving negative feedback during your stay could lead to your termination from the campaign without payment or notice.
That's not relevant here.
Oh! You really do think so? Don't be ludicrous. This is going to have a ripple effects if you don't know and tweaking that campaign rule is one of such.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Pffrt on June 13, 2019, 04:00:02 AM
I guess bounty managers too will now need to tweak this rule to accommodate the new flag system rather than the default trust

Quote
*Do not have any legitimate negative feedback from any DT member. Receiving negative feedback during your stay could lead to your termination from the campaign without payment or notice.
That's not relevant here.
Oh! You really do think so? Don't be ludicrous. This is going to have a ripple effects if you don't know and tweaking that campaign rule is one of such.
Ask bounty manager to do whatever they need. That's not a forum issue. Don't post this garbage here. It's a ongoing discussion thread, and it should be on topic.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 13, 2019, 04:04:42 AM
Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

That's all misuse of the system.

Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?
The supporters are misusing the system....

The flag says:
Quote
[...]This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions.
The above statement is in no way true. I have continued trading after the incident in question with a small number of people, have had zero trade complaints, nor credible accusations of scamming by my trading partners or otherwise. For example:
Quote
DebitMe   2015-12-17      Lent me 3 btc on an loan with no collatoral. Was a pleasure to work with and willing to take the time to work with me when I didn't have access to a full computer. Would definately work with again.
Quote
sapta   2016-03-04      Loaned me some bits without collateral. Would do business again in the future!
Quote
xetsr   2015-10-16      sold him btc for cash in mail. I sent first. smooth deal.
Quote
J.Socal   2017-12-26      Helped @ getting my coins confirmed.thanks
^received payment in advance
Quote
jonald_fyookball   2017-04-22   Reference   lent me 200 ltc in a very professional manner.
Quote
iwantapony   2017-04-20      Another smooth trade, My bitcoin his moneygram, OgNasty as escrow !
Quote
AcoinL.L.C   2016-03-23      Provided a 10 BTC loan, great guy, easy to work with.
Quote
meatmeat   2015-12-07      My BTC for his cash...Monbux as escrow...trade was very smooth and easy
Quote
GrahamCrackers   2015-11-03   Reference (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1234606.msg12854664#msg12854664)   My first deal and it helped me. Thanks for being awesome and prompt.
Will deal with again.
Some others who did not leave trust feedback.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 13, 2019, 04:11:20 AM
Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

That's all misuse of the system.

Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?
The supporters are misusing the system....

The flag says:
Quote
[...]This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions.
The above statement is in no way true. I have continued trading after the incident in question with a small number of people, have had zero trade complaints, nor credible accusations of scamming by my trading partners or otherwise. For example:
Quote
DebitMe   2015-12-17      Lent me 3 btc on an loan with no collatoral. Was a pleasure to work with and willing to take the time to work with me when I didn't have access to a full computer. Would definately work with again.
Quote
sapta   2016-03-04      Loaned me some bits without collateral. Would do business again in the future!
Quote
xetsr   2015-10-16      sold him btc for cash in mail. I sent first. smooth deal.
Quote
J.Socal   2017-12-26      Helped @ getting my coins confirmed.thanks
^received payment in advance
Quote
jonald_fyookball   2017-04-22   Reference   lent me 200 ltc in a very professional manner.
Quote
iwantapony   2017-04-20      Another smooth trade, My bitcoin his moneygram, OgNasty as escrow !
Quote
AcoinL.L.C   2016-03-23      Provided a 10 BTC loan, great guy, easy to work with.
Quote
meatmeat   2015-12-07      My BTC for his cash...Monbux as escrow...trade was very smooth and easy
Quote
GrahamCrackers   2015-11-03   Reference (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1234606.msg12854664#msg12854664)   My first deal and it helped me. Thanks for being awesome and prompt.
Will deal with again.
Some others who did not leave trust feedback.

When can we expect them to be blacklisted ? people abusing flags are to be blacklisted right ? let's get on with blacklisting ... what's the hold up. Boom get them off. Let show the abusers we mean business here. You will abide by the rules or you will get blacklisted. Simple.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: theymos on June 13, 2019, 04:35:22 AM
Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=60
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?

Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe:
 - Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
 - Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.
 
Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.

The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 13, 2019, 04:57:33 AM
Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=60
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?

Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe:
 - Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
 - Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.
 
Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.

The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.

This leaves type 1 flags kind of open to the abuse the old system was open to? we have a type 1 flag don't we? or what kind of flag is it? we have not scammed any person, we have not tried to scam anyone and actually we don't deal in anything to do with peoples money or in anything where we could scam someone out of money?

We are still pleased this is a great step forward for free speech here anyway for old members, but if you can get a type 1 flag and no person can even produce some scenario where you could have taken some persons money in a scam, it seems strange to still have a warning saying this person is high risk of taking your money?

Anyway fine we are not going to start bitching too much since it is such an excellent move in the correct direction. Although people should not really face this kind of flag if they never attempted to trade, scam, or deal in scenarios where other peoples money was even involved. You know they are going to use this to still encroach on free speech to a degree. You present evidence they are a scammers boom type 1 flag you are now high risk with peoples money. It is a far lesser punishment on whistle blowers who don't require sigs, but if "the gangs  friends who are campaign managers still use the ANY FLAG will make you ineligible for a sig" then it will still encroach on free speech to some degree or almost the same degree for those that really want to have sig.

Better to keep flags for proven scammers or STRONG case or atleast SOME case they have scammed people or going to. Not let flags become another eating lemons makes you HIGH RISK /scammer. Especially when the people placing the tags are the same 4 people you have been arguing with the most on the same day they leave the flag. Seems bogus.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 13, 2019, 05:01:44 AM
The system is not bad. Let us wait for a month or so, and we will see the actual results of this new implementation. I guess people are more concerned about the color of a negative trust score  ;D Just change it to red and everyone will be satisfied. I never saw a danger warning sign in orange color. Why are they orange Theymos ? Is it your favorite color ?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 13, 2019, 05:06:08 AM
The system is not bad. Let us wait for a month or so, and we will see the actual results of the new implementation. I guess people are more concerned about the color of a negative trust score  ;D Just change it to red and everyone will be satisfied. I never saw a danger warning sign in orange color. Why are they orange Theymos ? Is it your favorite color ?

Why would anyone listen to someone that is already abusing the trust system?  can you present the instance where you see us scamming people out of money exactly or been remotely connected in anyway to dealing with other peoples money ever?

The orange means caution. That is because it is supposed to signify caution. Do you get it now. RED is for proven scammers really like your master lauda.

Can we get this idiot blacklisted if he can not present ANY instances of even dealing with another persons money here by us? same for the other 3 scum bags on that fake trust flag just because I have been destroying their arguments all day.

The same 4 persons I have spent most time arguing with out of a board of millions are the only 4 so far to have trust abused our account.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 13, 2019, 05:10:15 AM
Can you present the instance where you see us scamming people out of money exactly or been remotely connected in anyway to dealing with other peoples money ever?

Instance ? Wait.. Uh... Whaaat ? Whaaat ? Is this your feedback page ? Jesus.. This must me a mistake... ;D

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2580400


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 13, 2019, 05:10:43 AM
Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=60
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?

Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe[/u]:
 - Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
 - Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.
 
Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.

The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.
I am not sure it is accurate to say those statements are reasonably believed.

Perhaps Vod (who does not like OgNasty) could create a thread explaining that he believes OgNasty was overcharging for holding forum money (while ignoring the fact the amounts charged was agreed to by both parties) and open a Type 1 flag. Being that other people also do not like OgNasty on DT, they will support said flag, while not actually believing the above criteria, or at least not reasonably so.

Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=51) is a good example of this in action, although the fact set is different.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 13, 2019, 05:14:02 AM
Can you present the instance where you see us scamming people out of money exactly or been remotely connected in anyway to dealing with other peoples money ever?

Instance ? Wait.. Uh... Whaaat ? Whaaat ? Is this your feedback page ? Jesus.. This must me a mistake... ;D

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2580400

Yes now find the instance of us scamming people out of money, trying to scam people out of money or being remotely related to dealing with another members funds in anyway you fucking moronic feltching puppet.

That page of ABUSE is why we needed to change from that old system to this one.

I already challenged you today to present ANY instance of scamming people out of money that will stand up to scrutiny. Where is it?

PRESENT IT NOW.  That is a page of lies and bullshit from a bunch of scammers and their supporters like you.

Watch this idiot FAIL to present anything to do with scamming people out of money ever. LOL

Can we blacklist this goon already?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 13, 2019, 05:27:06 AM
That is a page of lies and bullshit from a bunch of scammers and their supporters like you.

Yes all DT members that left that feedbacks are bunch of scammers. Sure... Listen, why don't you visit a doctor and tell him that seeing this page makes you nervous https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2580400  ;D

Schizophrenia causes many symptoms, including:

Delusions (believing things that arenít true)

Hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that arenít there)

 ;D


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 13, 2019, 05:34:37 AM
That is a page of lies and bullshit from a bunch of scammers and their supporters like you.

Yes all DT members that left that feedbacks are bunch of scammers. Sure... Listen, why don't you visit a doctor and tell him that seeing this page makes you nervous https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2580400  ;D

Schizophrenia causes many symptoms, including:

Delusions (believing things that arenít true)

Hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that arenít there)

 ;D

FAIL FAIL FAIL  - black list this piece of shit and the other 3 idiots please.

Now dummy try and listen and understand YOU are responsible for your support of that flag not the other members of DT YOU.

I repeat (and don't try to hide behind other DT members previous abuse...)

now find the instance of us scamming people out of money, trying to scam people out of money or being remotely related to dealing with another members funds in anyway

I will keep pushing for your blacklisting if you do not present even 1 instance of what I am requesting you present right now. The others will come after you now.  Cabalism13 that self confessed troll is going to be asked to present next.

Watch this fool vanish.



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 13, 2019, 05:44:02 AM
I will keep pushing for your blacklisting

Dude, believe me, for you it's very important to be calm. Because people with schizophrenia can sometimes act on suicidal thoughts impulsively. I'm very worried about you.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 13, 2019, 05:53:24 AM
I will keep pushing for your blacklisting

Dude, believe me, for you it's very important to be calm. Because people with schizophrenia can sometimes act on suicidal thoughts impulsively. I'm very worried about you.

So you are admitting you can not present anything. Look at the state of these latest lauda feltchers. We miss suchslob at least she put up a reasonable fight before being crushed and destroyed in public.

These new goons have nothing? they just refuse to even put up a fight they just roll over and start out with other accusations that will fold under scrutiny.

The important thing with the new system is the enforcement. Come on theymos lets start off as we mean to go on.

Are you going to black list these 4 morons or is a type 1 flag going to be the Lemons flag now?

Should have blacklisted lauda the moment he said fuck off to the new rules and trust abused the new flags. All this work and it will all go down the lemons rabbit hole if it is not enforced.

Give us the blacklisting button if you will not use it. We will be using it immediately on lauda and these 3 other abusers. What is their excuse now? how many lives does this cat have?





Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: fudster on June 13, 2019, 06:55:45 AM

We're use to seeing RED warning below the user profile in threads where they participated. Now we have to look into their trust to check if a user has the credibility before making transaction.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TECSHARE on June 13, 2019, 06:56:40 AM

We're use to seeing RED warning below the user profile in threads where they participated. Now we have to look into their trust to check if a user has the credibility before making transaction.

You should be doing this anyway.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: wwzsocki on June 13, 2019, 07:25:28 AM
I see that most members are terrified and suggest that the new system is not a good thing.

With merits, many said exactly the same thing at the very beginning, and now they praise how well it influenced the forum, spam, quality of posts, users themselves, etc.

I am the best example of such a merit hater, who changed his mind over time.

There is no chance of introducing a solution that would be completely trouble-free, especially based on the old, not so well functioning trust system.

I think that Theymos read most of the threads in recent months about the trust system, heard suggestions and took them into account.

Of course, we have to discuss all changes especially if they happen unexpectedly and I see already very wise suggestions, but let's give time to show how much this new system is worth in action.

Let's not be bathed in hot water. Deep breath and be calm.

P.S
Please let community discuss introduced changes to the trust system in this thread and stop personal wars. There are hundreds of existing threads where you can do this.
Please respect each other. 13 pages of the thread and only 4 or 5 is about the trust system, rest are personal fights (somehow related to the subject but pretty bothersome).


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 13, 2019, 07:51:54 AM
We're use to seeing RED warning below the user profile in threads where they participated. Now we have to look into their trust to check if a user has the credibility before making transaction.

It takes 1 minute only. To check the profile. I opened a new thread about this.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153576.msg51442422#msg51442422


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: FIFA worldcup on June 13, 2019, 08:53:22 AM

We're use to seeing RED warning below the user profile in threads where they participated. Now we have to look into their trust to check if a user has the credibility before making transaction.

Red trust has been given for different purposes. You need to read the details why the red trust is given and then you will know if doing a transaction with a particular user is safe or not.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: marlboroza on June 13, 2019, 01:47:41 PM
I still don't understand this system. Example (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5151916.0):

https://i.imgur.com/gToZefU.png

As I can see flag (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2561128) is not created but warning is visible to guests but not to forum users. (On the other hand, if "+ number" is higher than "- number" there is no warning)

Account is tagged by bustabit's owner for "violating the terms of bustabit's open source license" (https://www.bustabit.com/license.txt), obviously not forgiven, but no one can create flag type 2/3 except owner of site.

Is this how system should work?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on June 13, 2019, 02:16:11 PM
I still don't understand this system. Example (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5151916.0):

https://i.imgur.com/gToZefU.png

As I can see flag (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2561128) is not created but warning is visible to guests but not to forum users. (On the other hand, if "+ number" is higher than "- number" there is no warning)

Account is tagged by bustabit's owner for "violating the terms of bustabit's open source license" (https://www.bustabit.com/license.txt), obviously not forgiven, but no one can create flag type 2/3 except owner of site.

Is this how system should work?

Okay, on first view, I applaud the initiative. Ideally, the warning should be index by Google et al.

Please let me know if there's something I'm missing via reply to this post or PM, reserving the right to reassess my position.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: singlebit on June 13, 2019, 03:00:44 PM
My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mindrust on June 13, 2019, 03:02:39 PM
My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?


Depends on the campaign/campaign manager I guess. I don't think managers will hire people with red trust from DT members but who knows. You can always try.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: singlebit on June 13, 2019, 03:11:47 PM
My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?


Depends on the campaign/campaign manager I guess. I don't think managers will hire people with red trust from DT members but who knows. You can always try.
Thanks for concern,I dont know what happen last year,They giving red trust when i use and borrowing the btc address of my friend coz here in my country the btc wallet have limit to recieve,withdraw.Since my friend have level 3 wallet it means he have a unlimited for recieving btc and withdrawal,but unexpectedly no one cares to my prob and someone DT2 gave negative trust for accusing.Maybe im wrong when i use his wallet address.I dont know if this new update for trust is effective.I hope someone good to start again.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on June 13, 2019, 03:34:03 PM
Is this how system should work?

See this post from theymos:
Some changes:
 - If the number of pre-flags-system negative trust ratings is greater than the number of all positive trust ratings, a warning banner is shown for guests & low-login-time newbies.

The example you have given had more pre-flag negatives than current positives, and so a warning banner is shown. This warning banner seems to maintain the text and appearance (red background) from the old system, rather than the new text and yellow background from the new system.

If this account did not have pre-flag-system negatives, then I would have thought that only bustabit would be able to create a type 2/3 flag based on the contract you linked, but any user could create a type 1 flag based on the thread you linked to in the negative trust you left this user.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: AdolfinWolf on June 13, 2019, 03:56:19 PM
My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?


Is this only for accounts that received negative feedback before, or do you also not get a "Trade With Caution" tag anymore if you receive negative feedback after the update?

Isn't this going to unleash a legion of previously red-trusted bounty farmers/signature campaigners/etc, or am i missing something? The current way of "red-trusting" someone doesn't nearly look as intrusive anymore. I wonder if bounty managers will change their rules due to that.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Findingnemo on June 13, 2019, 04:23:05 PM
My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?

I guess reason of that negative feedback will plays a role on being signature campaign,if it is for cheating and abusing bounties with alts then no chance of getting into the signature campaign if the signature campaign recognizes it.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 13, 2019, 04:32:32 PM
Is this only for accounts that received negative feedback before, or do you also not get a "Trade With Caution" tag anymore if you receive negative feedback after the update?

No "caution" anymore from trust feedback. Only from contract violation flags (red boxes), which can only be initiated by victims.

Isn't this going to unleash a legion of previously red-trusted bounty farmers/signature campaigners/etc, or am i missing something? The current way of "red-trusting" someone doesn't nearly look as intrusive anymore. I wonder if bounty managers will change their rules due to that.

Every previously red-tagged user lost the "caution" label, including heavyweight scamming champions like TradeFortress. Well, at least until new flags are created for them.



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: malevolent on June 13, 2019, 07:41:05 PM
So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?

In addition to the mentioned type-1/newbie-warning flag you can still report these topics, luring unsuspecting people to run malware is still a bannable offense. And a nuked user has all of their posts removed automatically anyway.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 13, 2019, 07:48:29 PM
Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

That's all misuse of the system.

How much proof of "victimhood" do we expect?

For example, is this sufficient:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153934.msg51455373#msg51455373

Not trying to put eddie13 on the spot here, just want to know if I can re-flag some old scams (GAW, hashie, etc) where I lost some money but there is no way for me to find TX IDs or any other tangible proof of that.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Lafu on June 13, 2019, 07:48:46 PM
So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?

In addition to the mentioned type-1/newbie-warning flag you can still report these topics, luring unsuspecting people to run malware is still a bannable offense. And a nuked user has all of their posts removed automatically anyway.

Thanks and if i see something like that and , or other posts with links that have some suspicious i am definitely reporting this posts !


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 13, 2019, 09:10:11 PM
Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

That's all misuse of the system.

How much proof of "victimhood" do we expect?

Ahem (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153872.0)
::)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 13, 2019, 09:14:45 PM
~

Talking about red box here. Try to keep up.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Flying Hellfish on June 13, 2019, 09:22:47 PM
~snip~
How much proof of "victimhood" do we expect?
~snip~

Enough to prove you were contractually violated haha!  ;)

Check with your lawyer which you will now need to ensure your contracts are rock solid!!!

P.S NOTHING I EVER SAY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A CONTRACT BETWEEN US (ME AND ANYONE ON THE FORUM)... EVEN IF I SAY ITS A CONTRACT IT'S NOT.

Now that we have that out of the way I can never be a scammer, who wants to lend me 3000 BTC!!!!


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 13, 2019, 09:37:37 PM
Enough to prove you were contractually violated haha!  ;)

I feel violated every time anyone breaks my implied contract of paying me 1 BTC for every post but I'm willing to overlook these transgressions in exchange for a non-Quickseller answer to my question :)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: eddie13 on June 13, 2019, 09:42:24 PM
How much proof of "victimhood" do we expect?

Good question.
I'd say it depends on how extraordinary the claim is, or beyond reasonable doubt, and if their is any opposition or debate of the validity..

I believe I can reasonably prove that I used cryptsy right to the end with TXs but can't really prove a final balance, I'm not sure their is reasonable doubt to doubt my statement (or even anyone unreasonably doubting), their is also no opposition and likely never will be, nor any debate of the validity..

I think even the receivership accepted about that amount of "proof", so if you like US law as a standard (I don't) I think my claim would fly if requested to prove it, but I didn't go through that because it was a small amount.

Someone who was named in the receivership might have slightly better "proof" with a court having granted them a portion of recovered value, but even that isn't solid blockchain proof because that's what you get for sending coins to a 3rd party.. That would just be trusting a court's opinion, and who trusts a court? Much less a courts opinion on altcoins, lol.

LOL @ FH and your welcome for a non-QS opinion, there's mine but I did it so I might be biased toward myself..


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 13, 2019, 09:59:53 PM
reasonable doubt to doubt my statement

None whatsoever for me, I recall you being part of Cryptsy scam discussions back in the day, so it would have been a mighty long con for you to stage it in the anticipation of this flag system just so that you could stick it to Big Vern's long dead account...

But we also have the [in]famous PM where a user was recommended to be excluded due to lying about being a victim.

It would help to know where the "lying" line is. What happens if someone says you (or I or whoever) lied about losing some dust in some shitcoin exchange.

A more recent example: I lost $20 or $30 in Bittrex due to them blatantly disregarding their own rules of allowing non-KYC withdrawals up to a certain amount. Unlike Cryptsy they're still alive. To me it's a clear-cut violation of a written contract. I don't know if I can put a red flag on them though.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Hueristic on June 13, 2019, 10:14:54 PM
reasonable doubt to doubt my statement

None whatsoever for me, I recall you being part of Cryptsy scam discussions back in the day, so it would have been a mighty long con for you to stage it in the anticipation of this flag system just so that you could stick it to Big Vern's long dead account...

But we also have the [in]famous PM where a user was recommended to be excluded due to lying about being a victim.

It would help to know where the "lying" line is. What happens if someone says you (or I or whoever) lied about losing some dust in some shitcoin exchange.

A more recent example: I lost $20 or $30 in Bittrex due to them blatantly disregarding their own rules of allowing non-KYC withdrawals up to a certain amount. Unlike Cryptsy they're still alive. To me it's a clear-cut violation of a written contract. I don't know if I can put a red flag on them though.

I have a similar issue with poloniex for 10 XMR but I don't think they even have an account here.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TryNinja on June 13, 2019, 10:25:44 PM
I have a similar issue with poloniex for 10 XMR but I don't think they even have an account here.
Apparently they do. This is Poloniex's owner: busoni (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=139578)

He already has 2 *old trust* tags from Lauda and Zepher from 2017. Maybe someone should "update it" with a flag.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Anduck on June 13, 2019, 10:27:30 PM
Apparently they do. This is Poloniex's owner: busoni (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=139578)

For what it's worth, I think Poloniex is currently owned by Circle.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: btcsmlcmnr on June 13, 2019, 10:44:44 PM
For what it's worth, I think Poloniex is currently owned by Circle.
It is likely reflected on the last active day of busoni, 22th Feb 2018. I don't check back history when Circle took over Poloniex, but maybe around that time.

How long have your issues with Poloniex (with your 10 XMR) lasted? Recent months (after Circle-take-over), their supports have been fast, so I think if you sent support tickets, your issues will be solved, after all.
I have a similar issue with poloniex for 10 XMR but I don't think they even have an account here.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TryNinja on June 13, 2019, 10:46:19 PM
For what it's worth, I think Poloniex is currently owned by Circle.
True, but apparently he is still part of the company (possible still as the CEO) - at least according to his Linkedin profile[1].

Quote
Founder and Ceo
Poloniex, LLC
jan 2014 Ė moment
5 years 6 months

I can't say how accurate that is tho.

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/tristan-d-agosta-0a4529172/


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: malevolent on June 13, 2019, 11:08:05 PM
How much proof of "victimhood" do we expect?

For example, is this sufficient:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153934.msg51455373#msg51455373

Not trying to put eddie13 on the spot here, just want to know if I can re-flag some old scams (GAW, hashie, etc) where I lost some money but there is no way for me to find TX IDs or any other tangible proof of that.

Looks good enough to me, no one really has to 'prove' anything, an honor affirmation checkbox is sufficient. If others think they're wrong or lying, they can always oppose a given flag, distrust them, and in the worst cases theymos can have them removed from DT (I assume only from DT1).

And I'd definitely flag exchanges engaging in KYC withdrawal denial scams (type-1 flag, type-2 or -3 flag if you were victimized by the exchange).


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 13, 2019, 11:26:18 PM
I have a similar issue with poloniex for 10 XMR but I don't think they even have an account here.
Apparently they do. This is Poloniex's owner: busoni (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=139578)

He already has 2 *old trust* tags from Lauda and Zepher from 2017. Maybe someone should "update it" with a flag.
The negative trust by these two seems pretty shady to me. I don't think there was any credible evidence of polo scamming in 2017.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bones261 on June 14, 2019, 12:25:07 AM
The negative trust by these two seems pretty shady to me. I don't think there was any credible evidence of polo scamming in 2017.
Polo was way behind on their support tickets at the time. They also had taken down their trollbox at the same time. I can see where people were getting leery that another exit scam was looming. Polo has since changed ownership, anyway. So the tags should probably be revised. Unfortunately, Zepher can't revise his.  :-[


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Hueristic on June 14, 2019, 01:11:33 AM
I have a similar issue with poloniex for 10 XMR but I don't think they even have an account here.
Apparently they do. This is Poloniex's owner: busoni (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=139578)

He already has 2 *old trust* tags from Lauda and Zepher from 2017. Maybe someone should "update it" with a flag.

For what it's worth, I think Poloniex is currently owned by Circle.
It is likely reflected on the last active day of busoni, 22th Feb 2018. I don't check back history when Circle took over Poloniex, but maybe around that time.

How long have your issues with Poloniex (with your 10 XMR) lasted? Recent months (after Circle-take-over), their supports have been fast, so I think if you sent support tickets, your issues will be solved, after all.
I have a similar issue with poloniex for 10 XMR but I don't think they even have an account here.

Yes, this is after Busoni sold, while he was owner I think all he was guilty of was some insider manipulation which no one is proving without the books. All in all I was pretty happy with Polo until Circle acquired them.


We are at a stalemate with them holding my coins as I refuse to do KYC because they will not allow me to do it without agreeing to their "terms and conditions" (which have me agreeing to waive my rights to hold them liable) which I will not do, so my coins are in limbo unless and until I sue them. I tried governmental legal channels to no avail. Goldmann Ballsacks is not going to allow some district attorney to go after one of their subsidiaries. And for such a small amount its not really worth the effort to pursue currently.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: sandy-is-fine on June 14, 2019, 03:15:36 AM
So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?

In addition to the mentioned type-1/newbie-warning flag you can still report these topics, luring unsuspecting people to run malware is still a bannable offense. And a nuked user has all of their posts removed automatically anyway.
Speaking of trust flags and nuked users, is there a way to get their absurd 200 lines long, abusive (like "I hope your mother burns in hell") fake "untrusted trust" removed?  Maybe a nuked user should have all  left trust removed since they technically no longer exist anyway especially if they are these serial-scammer alts who only had 1 or 2 posts to begin with.   I know "untrusted trust" isn't harmful but it's just annoying.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 14, 2019, 04:57:57 AM
The negative trust by these two seems pretty shady to me. I don't think there was any credible evidence of polo scamming in 2017.
Polo was way behind on their support tickets at the time. They also had taken down their trollbox at the same time. I can see where people were getting leery that another exit scam was looming. Polo has since changed ownership, anyway. So the tags should probably be revised. Unfortunately, Zepher can't revise his.  :-[
Oh yea, I definitely agree, being behind on support tickets is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, no proof beyond any doubt, that the exchange is scamming its users.
::)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TheNewAnon135246 on June 14, 2019, 05:21:13 AM
The negative trust by these two seems pretty shady to me. I don't think there was any credible evidence of polo scamming in 2017.
Polo was way behind on their support tickets at the time. They also had taken down their trollbox at the same time. I can see where people were getting leery that another exit scam was looming. Polo has since changed ownership, anyway. So the tags should probably be revised. Unfortunately, Zepher can't revise his.  :-[
Oh yea, I definitely agree, being behind on support tickets is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, no proof beyond any doubt, that the exchange is scamming its users.
::)

It's not just about being behind on support tickets. Some people had withdrawals that were pending for months, causing them to lose a lot of money. Poloniex failed to respond to their tickets and never covered any of the damages caused by their lack of service.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: AdolfinWolf on June 14, 2019, 06:05:48 AM
The negative trust by these two seems pretty shady to me. I don't think there was any credible evidence of polo scamming in 2017.
Polo was way behind on their support tickets at the time. They also had taken down their trollbox at the same time. I can see where people were getting leery that another exit scam was looming. Polo has since changed ownership, anyway. So the tags should probably be revised. Unfortunately, Zepher can't revise his.  :-[
Oh yea, I definitely agree, being behind on support tickets is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, no proof beyond any doubt, that the exchange is scamming its users.
::)
I know for a fact that Poloniex lied to customers about KYC verification, but iím not sure when exactly that happend anymore.

Read: https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/8mizvf/dear_poloniex_you_specifically_said_you_wont_hold/
They cant be held to their word and due to that i find them extremely untrustworthy. Imo they deserve to be tagged for this alone.

Also more recently all the people margin trading lost 16% of their margin funds due to sudden liquidations of a single low-cap shitcoin.

Quick maths shows this is nearly impossible and likely some sort of scam
https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/bxknrf/poloniex_btc_margin_lending_pool_losses/


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TECSHARE on June 14, 2019, 06:40:14 AM
The negative trust by these two seems pretty shady to me. I don't think there was any credible evidence of polo scamming in 2017.
Polo was way behind on their support tickets at the time. They also had taken down their trollbox at the same time. I can see where people were getting leery that another exit scam was looming. Polo has since changed ownership, anyway. So the tags should probably be revised. Unfortunately, Zepher can't revise his.  :-[
Oh yea, I definitely agree, being behind on support tickets is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, no proof beyond any doubt, that the exchange is scamming its users.
::)
I know for a fact that Poloniex lied to customers about KYC verification, but iím not sure when exactly that happend anymore.

Read: https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/8mizvf/dear_poloniex_you_specifically_said_you_wont_hold/
They cant be held to their word and due to that i find them extremely untrustworthy. Imo they deserve to be tagged for this alone.

Also more recently all the people margin trading lost 16% of their margin funds due to sudden liquidations of a single low-cap shitcoin.

Quick maths shows this is nearly impossible and likely some sort of scam
https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/bxknrf/poloniex_btc_margin_lending_pool_losses/


I can verify both the lies about KYC as well as the margin lending losses. Regarding margin trading, it is a WELL KNOWN tool of market manipulation (read fraud) used to control precious metals prices for example. Also I am very familiar with the Clamcoin market, and it was well known to have a lack of liquidity. This was not an accident it was a setup. This is exactly the type of behavior Cryptsy was exhibiting, in fact point by point. If I remember right Cryptsy didn't have margin trading, but they played similar games with liquidity and other processes. For example they would let people drive up a coin's price then disable the front end so they could scalp the order books via the API which was still active.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: eddie13 on June 14, 2019, 07:05:31 AM
Quick maths shows this is nearly impossible and likely some sort of scam
https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/bxknrf/poloniex_btc_margin_lending_pool_losses/

Wow, I have like 2500 pages of polo lending earnings and even wrote a few times about how to game the polo lending bot, which they have fixed/changed since.. Never have I heard of any losses from polo lending..
He says "some random shitcoin (CLAM) I haven't even heard of". He must not have been around all that long.. Isn't clam coin dooglus's or something related to that casino?

https://medium.com/circle-trader/overview-of-btc-margin-lending-pool-losses-a2f0905aaa56
Quote
The losses to the lending pool occurred for several reasons. First, the velocity of the crash and the lack of liquidity in the CLAM market made it impossible for all of the automatic liquidations of CLAM margin positions to process as they normally would in a liquid market. In addition, a significant amount of the total loan value was collateralized in CLAM, so both the borrowersí positions and their collateral lost most of their value simultaneously. As a result, some borrowers were unable to repay their loans with the digital assets they held on Poloniex.

Sounds like a great way for a clam whale to scam a bunch of BTC off of polo..

Also I am very familiar with the Clamcoin market, and it was well known to have a lack of liquidity. This was not an accident it was a setup. This is exactly the type of behavior Cryptsy was exhibiting, in fact point by point. If I remember right Cryptsy didn't have margin trading, but they played similar games with liquidity and other processes. For example they would let people drive up a coin's price then disable the front end so they could scalp the order books via the API which was still active.

I've traded clams for a long time too, loaned on polo for a long time, and saw cryptsy pull some stuff but more like disable wallets to let a pump run but have never been much into APIs..

If you were a clam whale you could put some clams on polo and use them to borrow a margin position against, use that and all your BTC to pump clam, then dump all your clam and withdraw all the BTC you could immediately.. If you wrecked polo's bot you might make off with some BTC of lenders funds..

You could do this with 2 accounts..
One to deposit clam and use to borrow BTC against and use the btc to pump clam and place huge buy orders on clam.
2nd account to deposit clam and dump onto the pump and to dump onto your other account which is just clams you used to borrow BTC to dump onto..



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: LoyceV on June 14, 2019, 07:35:43 AM
A more recent example: I lost $20 or $30 in Bittrex due to them blatantly disregarding their own rules of allowing non-KYC withdrawals up to a certain amount. Unlike Cryptsy they're still alive. To me it's a clear-cut violation of a written contract. I don't know if I can put a red flag on them though.
As much as I hated them asking KYC, I do recall receiving warnings about lowering withdrawal limits. Then after a while, they suddenly reduced it to 0 until I sent them an angry looking selfie.

How long have your issues with Poloniex (with your 10 XMR) lasted? Recent months (after Circle-take-over), their supports have been fast
I received a response in 8 hours yesterday.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: malevolent on June 14, 2019, 08:57:26 AM
Speaking of trust flags and nuked users, is there a way to get their absurd 200 lines long, abusive (like "I hope your mother burns in hell") fake "untrusted trust" removed?  Maybe a nuked user should have all  left trust removed since they technically no longer exist anyway especially if they are these serial-scammer alts who only had 1 or 2 posts to begin with.   I know "untrusted trust" isn't harmful but it's just annoying.

Trust ratings aren't moderated, and afaik currently there is no policy of removing ratings of nuked accounts, but if someone is literally spamming you can contact theymos to have the spam removed.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: btcsmlcmnr on June 14, 2019, 08:59:28 AM
How long have your issues with Poloniex (with your 10 XMR) lasted? Recent months (after Circle-take-over), their supports have been fast
I received a response in 8 hours yesterday.
I think it is acceptable with support tickets. I am not sure about average time of responses of all Poloniex support tickets but I guess the pace has been faster and more acceptable after Circle steps in.

KYC on Poloniex, if I remembered correctly, announced officially and Poloniex users were given weeks to finish their KYCs back in early of 2018. Additionally, it mainly implemented by Poloniex because US government requirements, not solely from Poloniex team. The positive thing with their new KYC verification procedure, after that is all users (including new registered users) don't have to wait for weeks or months to increase their level of daily withdrawal limits to $25,000.
We are at a stalemate with them holding my coins as I refuse to do KYC because they will not allow me to do it without agreeing to their "terms and conditions" (which have me agreeing to waive my rights to hold them liable) which I will not do, so my coins are in limbo unless and until I sue them. I tried governmental legal channels to no avail. Goldmann Ballsacks is not going to allow some district attorney to go after one of their subsidiaries. And for such a small amount its not really worth the effort to pursue currently.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: AdolfinWolf on June 14, 2019, 09:14:38 AM
How long have your issues with Poloniex (with your 10 XMR) lasted? Recent months (after Circle-take-over), their supports have been fast
I received a response in 8 hours yesterday.
I think it is acceptable with support tickets. I am not sure about average time of responses of all Poloniex support tickets but I guess the pace has been faster and more acceptable after Circle steps in.

KYC on Poloniex, if I remembered correctly, announced officially and Poloniex users were given weeks to finish their KYCs back in early of 2018. Additionally, it mainly implemented by Poloniex because US government requirements, not solely from Poloniex team. The positive thing with their new KYC verification procedure, after that is all users (including new registered users) don't have to wait for weeks or months to increase their level of daily withdrawal limits to $25,000.
We are at a stalemate with them holding my coins as I refuse to do KYC because they will not allow me to do it without agreeing to their "terms and conditions" (which have me agreeing to waive my rights to hold them liable) which I will not do, so my coins are in limbo unless and until I sue them. I tried governmental legal channels to no avail. Goldmann Ballsacks is not going to allow some district attorney to go after one of their subsidiaries. And for such a small amount its not really worth the effort to pursue currently.
Poloniex users were also given the affirmation that after the grace period, you could still withdraw funds. Just not trade.
Poloniex users were also given the affirmation that the grace period would be x amount of time, right until it suddenly was y amount of time (0).

The positive thing about implementing KYC was that every minor, anyone from a 3rd world country no longer had access to their funds, potentially forever.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: N1CKH0LAS on June 14, 2019, 01:03:06 PM
Speaking of trust flags and nuked users, is there a way to get their absurd 200 lines long, abusive (like "I hope your mother burns in hell") fake "untrusted trust" removed?  Maybe a nuked user should have all  left trust removed since they technically no longer exist anyway especially if they are these serial-scammer alts who only had 1 or 2 posts to begin with.   I know "untrusted trust" isn't harmful but it's just annoying.

Trust ratings aren't moderated, and afaik currently there is no policy of removing ratings of nuked accounts, but if someone is literally spamming you can contact theymos to have the spam removed.

I've posted about it months ago. No admin or moderator even bothered with it. There is this idiot, Buzzlieve1992 who have literally spammed THOUSANDS of negative feedback lines to legit people, yet nothing happened to him, nor was the trade rating spam removed. So I can tell you from personal experience ( with proof ) that nothing will be fixed.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Hueristic on June 14, 2019, 01:10:34 PM
A more recent example: I lost $20 or $30 in Bittrex due to them blatantly disregarding their own rules of allowing non-KYC withdrawals up to a certain amount. Unlike Cryptsy they're still alive. To me it's a clear-cut violation of a written contract. I don't know if I can put a red flag on them though.
As much as I hated them asking KYC, I do recall receiving warnings about lowering withdrawal limits. Then after a while, they suddenly reduced it to 0 until I sent them an angry looking selfie.

How long have your issues with Poloniex (with your 10 XMR) lasted? Recent months (after Circle-take-over), their supports have been fast
I received a response in 8 hours yesterday.

There was never an issue with support not replying, the issue is what support replied (multiple times). They continually ignored the fact that I refused to agree with the Terms of service but would provide all KYC ( spelled this out in plain English in multiple emails)  and all they did in response was repeat "Do KYC from this link to unlock your account" over and over. The first thing that link did was make you agree to not hold them liable. That is called extortion, waiving my civil rights to sue is harmful and therefor fits the definition. I refused to waive my rights by agreeing to their terms and therefore have my funds held hostage. And yes as others have stated that was after they publicly announced that all funds would be allowed to be withdrawn if a person did not want to do KYC, they reneged on that promise.


How long have your issues with Poloniex (with your 10 XMR) lasted? Recent months (after Circle-take-over), their supports have been fast
I received a response in 8 hours yesterday.
I think it is acceptable with support tickets. I am not sure about average time of responses of all Poloniex support tickets but I guess the pace has been faster and more acceptable after Circle steps in.

KYC on Poloniex, if I remembered correctly, announced officially and Poloniex users were given weeks to finish their KYCs back in early of 2018. Additionally, it mainly implemented by Poloniex because US government requirements, not solely from Poloniex team. The positive thing with their new KYC verification procedure, after that is all users (including new registered users) don't have to wait for weeks or months to increase their level of daily withdrawal limits to $25,000.
We are at a stalemate with them holding my coins as I refuse to do KYC because they will not allow me to do it without agreeing to their "terms and conditions" (which have me agreeing to waive my rights to hold them liable) which I will not do, so my coins are in limbo unless and until I sue them. I tried governmental legal channels to no avail. Goldmann Ballsacks is not going to allow some district attorney to go after one of their subsidiaries. And for such a small amount its not really worth the effort to pursue currently.

You apparently decided to waive your rights to sue them, well I have evidence of them manipulating the margin trading and may one day exercise my rights therefore I will not waive them.


Poloniex users were also given the affirmation that after the grace period, you could still withdraw funds. Just not trade.
Poloniex users were also given the affirmation that the grace period would be x amount of time, right until it suddenly was y amount of time (0).

True

The positive thing about implementing KYC was that every minor, anyone from a 3rd world country no longer had access to their funds, potentially forever.

I'm not sure I agree that was a positive as it gave them the ammo for the shady shit they have pulled since then, like clams from all the wallets that were unclaimed. I had no Idea they even had that shitcoin listed, If I cared I would go back and see if they added it later just so they could pull this move.

*Sorry about the derail guys, I hadn't planned this and it's not like anything can be done in this context as they have no presence that I am aware of on this forum.
** Also I apologize for typo's the last few days as I drenched my keyboard in coffee and have alot of sticky keys ATM (which I've noticed the spell checker seems to like to change words as opposed to fixing spelling).  :D


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: malevolent on June 14, 2019, 01:42:03 PM
I've posted about it months ago. No admin or moderator even bothered with it. There is this idiot, Buzzlieve1992 who have literally spammed THOUSANDS of negative feedback lines to legit people, yet nothing happened to him, nor was the trade rating spam removed. So I can tell you from personal experience ( with proof ) that nothing will be fixed.

Only theymos (maybe Cyrus too, I don't know) can remove spammy Trust ratings. Maybe they missed your post or thread, send theymos a PM then.

I'm not sure I agree that was a positive as it gave them the ammo for the shady shit they have pulled since then, like clams from all the wallets that were unclaimed. I had no Idea they even had that shitcoin listed, If I cared I would go back and see if they added it later just so they could pull this move.

I think he meant 'good', as in it was good for their wallets, they made easy money by stealing from their users.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: xtraelv on June 15, 2019, 11:21:32 AM
How do we apply a flag to someone who is clearly involved in fraudulent activity but has not defrauded us personally ?

For instance this guy:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4679939.0

Who is attached to multiple alts - is a criminal facing extradition and uses false identities to promote questionable projects ?


I want to get my head around the flag system before using it.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: LoyceV on June 15, 2019, 11:37:55 AM
How do we apply a flag to someone who is clearly involved in fraudulent activity but has not defrauded us personally ?
You can only use a Newbie warning flag.
If a victim shows up, he can use a stronger flag which can be supported by others. I think this can easily be abused though, anyone can create a Newbie account and say he's a victim just to create a flag.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 15, 2019, 12:23:01 PM
How do we apply a flag to someone who is clearly involved in fraudulent activity but has not defrauded us personally ?
You can only use a Newbie warning flag.
If a victim shows up, he can use a stronger flag which can be supported by others. I think this can easily be abused though, anyone can create a Newbie account and say he's a victim just to create a flag.

I don't think that would be accepted as evidence they lost money would it?

We need to keep quite strict about this kind of thing else we will end up with the same bunch of trust abusers using all kinds of mental gymnastics and new accounts to create flags for lemons and imaginary losses they didn't have to suffer themselves or didn't really happen at all.

You would surely need to provide some evidence that exists on this board that you were a victim of a SCAM.

We have a nice shiny flag (started by a proven scammer lauda and supported by his usual gang of asskissing wretches and a retarded mental case timelord ) using some mental gymnastics to say we are HIGHLY DANGEROUS TO PEOPLE MONEY HERE AND WE CANT WAIT TO SCAM THEM OUT OF ALL THEIR BITCOINS  when we have never dealt or mentioned or traded for goods or money here ever.

We don't mind the immediate and observable clear abuse of the LEMONS FLAG which we are pleased has limited damage to a NON SCAMMING account for daring to mention the the truth here, but to allow such flagrant and obvious abuse of stronger flags is something WE HOPE the bullies will not stop THEYMOS acting on and blacklisting these pieces of untrustworthy scum.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Flying Hellfish on June 15, 2019, 12:45:18 PM
How do we apply a flag to someone who is clearly involved in fraudulent activity but has not defrauded us personally ?

For instance this guy:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4679939.0

Who is attached to multiple alts - is a criminal facing extradition and uses false identities to promote questionable projects ?


I want to get my head around the flag system before using it.

Unless you can prove the user in question contractually violated you, all you can leave is the newbie warning flag (type 1).


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TradeFortress 🏕 on June 15, 2019, 01:42:36 PM
Not a fan of this system.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: asu on June 15, 2019, 01:55:52 PM
Not a fan of this system.

Trust system donít need you.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on June 15, 2019, 01:58:48 PM
Not a fan of this system.

One of the best endorsements for the system so far.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bill gator on June 15, 2019, 03:17:26 PM
Not a fan of this system.

One of the best endorsements for the system so far.

If I had to guess, that was probably the purpose of the post.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: hd49728 on June 15, 2019, 03:37:40 PM
Not a fan of this system.
At least the new system does not show max negative trust -9999. It is good.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Khaos77 on June 15, 2019, 04:38:57 PM
Not a fan of this system.

One of the best endorsements for the system so far.

@suchmoon
One question,
are you Lauda or just a minion?

Just Curious.  :)



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mosprognoz on June 15, 2019, 05:10:08 PM
Not a fan of this system.

One of the best endorsements for the system so far.

@suchmoon
One question,
are you Lauda or just a minion?

Just Curious.  :)

Congrats dude.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2522969


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on June 15, 2019, 06:22:59 PM
Not a fan of this system.

One of the best endorsements for the system so far.

@suchmoon
One question,
are you Lauda or just a minion?

Just Curious.  :)



suchmoon is not Lauda.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Khaos77 on June 15, 2019, 07:47:54 PM
Not a fan of this system.

One of the best endorsements for the system so far.

@suchmoon
One question,
are you Lauda or just a minion?

Just Curious.  :)

Congrats dude.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2522969

 :D :D ,  old news

The before red trust queen and her cohorts , did falsely accuse me , only ~10 days before their reign of terror ended,
No hard feelings on my side.  :)



suchmoon is not Lauda.

Thanks ,
I'll make a mental note of just minion.  :)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: killyou72 on June 15, 2019, 07:58:33 PM
So unless you get a flag, no amount of negative trust you get will make your trust turn to negative/red? right. That doesnt seem right to me. Because this opens the door for merit abusers to abuse merit, get tagged negative, and still be get put into signature campaigns because there trust isnt red. Unless signature campaigns specify no negative feedback. Eh. answered my own question

but.

I don't think its "fair" that you have to get a flag in order for your account to be marked red.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Khaos77 on June 15, 2019, 08:44:29 PM
So unless you get a flag, no amount of negative trust you get will make your trust turn to negative/red? right. That doesnt seem right to me. Because this opens the door for merit abusers to abuse merit, get tagged negative, and still be get put into signature campaigns because there trust isnt red. Unless signature campaigns specify no negative feedback. Eh. answered my own question

but.

I don't think its "fair" that you have to get a flag in order for your account to be marked red.

Flag system is more fair  than the old system where people abused it with no 3rd party verification or appeals.

At least with the Flag system, their is an option to oppose a flag to make it inactive.
Nothing like that existed on the old system.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Steamtyme on June 15, 2019, 09:00:49 PM
That doesnt seem right to me. Because this opens the door for merit abusers to abuse merit, get tagged negative, and still be get put into signature campaigns because there trust isnt red. Unless signature campaigns specify no negative feedback. Eh. answered my own question ~snipped~

If you want I created a topic earlier along these same lines, Campaign Managers - Ineligible users based on Feedback and Flags (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5154689.msg51479854#msg51479854). I've been curious to see how the new systems would work in these cases. I still think negative feedback has the same effect of tainting an accounts visibility. I do think the color should have remained red.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: xtraelv on June 17, 2019, 08:51:51 AM
Also how does this flag system apply to e.g. the CEO or founder of an LLC  that goes bankrupt or causes some users to loose funds ?

They don't have a contract with any of the users. The contract is between the user and the LLC.

So either no flag or a newbie flag is used ?



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 17, 2019, 01:23:15 PM
So unless you get a flag, no amount of negative trust you get will make your trust turn to negative/red? right. That doesnt seem right to me. Because this opens the door for merit abusers to abuse merit, get tagged negative, and still be get put into signature campaigns because there trust isnt red. Unless signature campaigns specify no negative feedback. Eh. answered my own question

but.

I don't think its "fair" that you have to get a flag in order for your account to be marked red.

Well that demonstrates you are unable to comprehend what this thread undeniably demonstrates

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0

Why should ANYONE that is not CLEARLY demonstrated to have scammed someone out of money or attempted to scam someone out of money be given a RED DANGER and message saying they are a CLEAR DANGER TO MEMBERS FINANCIALLY. Makes zero sense for someone that tried to warn the board about a DT members past scamming be given a tag that says they are a financial danger? how would that be fair? or useful? it would be confusing and would facilitate scamming.

The clear point is you can not allow SUBJECTIVE and GAMED metrics to be a base for anything. They are not reliable metrics and merit is pretty much MEANINGLESS as suchmoon correctly recognized after cryptohunter helped her gain some clarity on the entire subject.

This seems like a concern of people that want UNFAIR advantage for sig campaigns themselves.

If the campaign manager can NOT demonstrate the person does NOT meet the transparent threshold for post quality and can NOT demonstrate he is a scammer then they should be allowed on to the sig campaign on a first come first served basis. This is the only fair way UNLESS he wants to go to a LOT more trouble himself IE to garner a lot of interest and then demonstrate clearly he is selecting the best posters that are NOT scammers.  This will NOT be within the capacity of the low functioning campaign managers we currently have here. You will then need the smartest people on the board (not ex bin men)  that are capable of clearly demonstrating WHY certain members posts are more VALUABLE than others. That is not a task for 99.9% of meta posters.

I mean really perhaps you should stipulate that only the MOST technically proficient members that are ABLE to digest complex designs on white papers to see if the design is plausible and valuable should be campaign managers for NEW alt projects.  Therefore ensuring we don't get a ton of HUGE ICOS sucking peoples bitcoins away for vaporware and projects that would require multiple nobel prizes to reach early milestones.

The real problem here is that most people are quite low functioning and would have no chance of really isolating the most valuable posters, this is clear from the merit system where most merit is allocated on political grounds on a tiny sub board and given out by tiny tiny tiny fraction of members that are the primary receivers . So if you get average joe's as campaign managers then they need to set a threshold they can comprehend and say if the members posts meet this and have no scammed people for money or tried to then they get accepted first come first served.

It will be our latest goal here to ensure the insider gangs gaming of the top sig spots comes to an end.


@ xtraelv

I guess you mean lose funds? even then intent would surely be the key factor here to a scam tag. Bankrupt is going to be hard to prove it was a scam in most cases I would guess. Gross negligence is it scamming? some may say it could get a higher flag than a lemons flag.
Some people you are just going to have to warn people on thread also. For instance cryptopia ? what would most say about this? scam? negligence? I guess until the entire debacle is done we won't know. Looks like an exit scam but impossible to say for sure.






Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TECSHARE on June 17, 2019, 02:53:19 PM
So unless you get a flag, no amount of negative trust you get will make your trust turn to negative/red? right. That doesnt seem right to me. Because this opens the door for merit abusers to abuse merit, get tagged negative, and still be get put into signature campaigns because there trust isnt red. Unless signature campaigns specify no negative feedback. Eh. answered my own question

but.

I don't think its "fair" that you have to get a flag in order for your account to be marked red.

Buddy, if we are talking about what is fair, you would have been red long ago. I can't even remember how many second chances you have got and here you are crying about things not being strict enough. Maybe count your blessings instead of training to be the next internet police. Let the campaign managers worry about it.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: LoyceV on June 17, 2019, 07:11:50 PM
I've updated my Trust Flag viewer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153695.0), see http://loyce.club/trust/flags/13.html

I've seen requests for some statistics, and with the color coding it's easy to count:
Active flags
The large majority of flags are either type 1 (yellow) or inactive.
There are only 15 Active red flags. 2 of those involve ky94PjDw (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2626817). I'm not entirely sure what the story is, but it seems to be a Flag testing account.
That leaves just 13 red flags: type 2 (1x) and type 3 (12x). Out of 12 type 3 flags, 4 were flagged by me, and they're alt-accounts.

Insufficient support
9 type 3 flags have insufficient support. I didn't count type 1, and type 2 has no unsupported flags.

I expect the number of type 2 or 3 flags to rise once new scams are reported, and the victim can be pointed in the right direction to create a flag.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: thd26bct on June 18, 2019, 02:39:44 AM
Could you sort out all flags into categories, such as casinos? I have a topic, Trust/ Flag of casino/dice sites' owners (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5154971.0), so it might be more convenient if the Flag List can have some categories. I know that I have to do it myself for my topic, by screening your Flag List. I just worry that I might miss some casinos that I don't know. Anyway, I am so thankful to have access to your Flag List, for free.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: LoyceV on June 18, 2019, 06:32:03 AM
Could you sort out all flags into categories, such as casinos?
No, sorry. I only add things that I can automate to the list.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: coinlocket$ on June 18, 2019, 11:14:22 AM
Can we add one more flag for ban evaders/ abusers/multiaccount etc? ???


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: malevolent on June 18, 2019, 11:29:16 AM
Ban evaders should be reported for ban evasion, you can use the Newbie-flag to flag an alt account of a scammer.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: coinlocket$ on June 18, 2019, 01:25:30 PM
Ban evaders should be reported for ban evasion, you can use the Newbie-flag to flag an alt account of a scammer.

What about alt abusers? flag type 1 is worthless in my opinion.

Flag 1 is visible only for newbie and guests, I've sent over 1k feedback for alt abusing in the past.

Now if I flag them all, the flag will be visible only for people who don't care about the abusing.

Managers will not see the flag.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: marlboroza on June 18, 2019, 01:47:58 PM
What about alt abusers? flag type 1 is worthless in my opinion.
~
Managers will not see the flag.
You can still send them negative feedback(or, neutral) which managers will see and they can click trust to read why someone has -.

It is not that old system completely disappeared, it is still here, with some adjustments.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: eddie13 on June 18, 2019, 02:01:13 PM
Now if I flag them all
You cannot flag them all.. It is not technically possible..

Managers will not see the flag.
I'm pretty sure they will/can if they check trust pages..


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: malevolent on June 18, 2019, 02:38:41 PM
What about alt abusers? flag type 1 is worthless in my opinion.
Flag 1 is visible only for newbie and guests, I've sent over 1k feedback for alt abusing in the past.
Now if I flag them all, the flag will be visible only for people who don't care about the abusing.
Managers will not see the flag.

What do you mean by alt abusing? People who use more than one account in the same bounty campaign? Just keep a thread in Reputation, like the ones Lauda or DarkStar_ have with lists of sig spammers and other shitposters.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 03:47:23 PM
It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Royse777 on June 26, 2019, 03:53:17 PM
It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #293 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2
What am I missing?

I see no oppose from any of the above users. In fact except marlboroza who supported, none of the above left any vote for this flag.


~image removed~

DT view: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=293;dt

Edit:
Quote edited: #292

Just received a PM asking that it was wrong flag number and the right one is #292. I have gone through the topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157747.0) and I see two side.

One side is that bob123 on purpose tried to get the information of the account the seller was selling. Perhaps by proving it, he can tag the seller.
Other side is that, should we allow this kind of tricky business to get information? Seems like we need to trust bob123 to read his mind.

Anyway, I know things can go nasty in this forum when politics involves and I like to keep myself away from all these. I am in a neutral position here.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: JayJuanGee on June 26, 2019, 07:29:33 PM
It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

Link or it didn't happen.

 :P :P

Edit:

Found it through Royse777.... (the above post, of course)   ;)

Thanks Royse.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=292


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bob123 on June 26, 2019, 07:41:14 PM
It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

 ;D ;D ;D

Oh quicksy.. how many threads do you want to spam with this?


For once and all, the flag says:
Quote
SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages [...]

I don't want to start arguing whether we had an agreement or not.
I also don't want to start arguing again whether the account seller got damage.

I have answered that in the 2 other threads already.


But.. IF i violated an agreement and IF the account seller got monetary damage because i tagged his accounts as untrustworthy:

The 'damage' has not been done because of violation.

Based on this (which is enough already), and the fact that 'damage' and 'violation of agreement' can't bee seen as such.. the flag absolutely is inappropriate.




Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: LoyceV on June 26, 2019, 07:44:45 PM
It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2
I'd like to see theymos' opinion on this flag. It seems to be dividing users:

Quote
292 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=292) SeW900 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=27194) flagged bob123 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=579628) (type 2, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157747.0)). Supported by SaltySpitoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=38894), Quickseller (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020), SeW900 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=27194). Opposed by  suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), LFC_Bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379487), bones261 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=452769), marlboroza (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=787736), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509).


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mindrust on June 26, 2019, 07:51:43 PM
It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

While I agree with you, what bob did was unethical but since his actions revealed a scammer  who was trying to sell an account which he didn't originally own or paid for, it doesn't matter how and why Bob shared these information with us.

He (SeW900 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=27194)) was selling a hacked account (zackie (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=99997)) which overrides Bob's unethical actions. I am not sure if he deserves a flag even if the account wasn't hacked, I would just ignore the flag probably but not now. Nack.

You know what I think now?

I think zackie should create a flag for SeW900 for hacking and selling his account.

SeW900 deserves a red flag all around his forehead. I guess I'll just PM him.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 08:20:08 PM
It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2
I'd like to see theymos' opinion on this flag. It seems to be dividing users:

Quote
292 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=292) SeW900 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=27194) flagged bob123 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=579628) (type 2, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157747.0)). Supported by SaltySpitoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=38894), Quickseller (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020), SeW900 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=27194). Opposed by  suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), LFC_Bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379487), bones261 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=452769), marlboroza (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=787736), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509).
I am willing to listen to theymosí opinion on the matter, however what he says will not be the deciding factor in my opinion on the matter, unless he is able to make an argument that changes my mind (or if someone else does the same).

I believe the elements of a contract were met, including acceptance of said contract. There was clearly deceit based on bonís own words, and there was clearly financial damages. This meets the criteria for supporting the flag.

Account sales are allowed, and as such there are no public policy exceptions to not enforcing the contract. No portion of the contract forced bob to actually use the account he agreed to buy, so the argument that enforcing the contract would cause bob to do something immoral.

I think this is a pretty clear case that should not be controversial.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Matthias9515 on June 26, 2019, 08:30:04 PM
[FLAG] Mindrust [DT1] member gave me redtrust without reason (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5158894.0)

He obsessed with me because we had couple arguments in past.

Here's his slander (https://i.imgur.com/Tweta8B.png)

I've never encouraged merit farming/trading in my life. I use this forum properly and never cross the general rules.

He became a DT member just a 2-3 weeks ago and appearently he doesn't even know how to use his power.

Quote
Ortada hiÁbir kanıt yok ÁŁnkŁ seÁime katılan hiÁbir Łye o bahsettiğin grupta değil.

Quote
There is no evidence because none of the members in the election (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153279.0) is in 'that merit trading group'

This was fully what i wrote. I do not know what to say because Mindrust is obviously crossing my words and trying to change the meaning.

I believe that DT members will oppose this. It's not fair someone to crop only one part of my sentences and giving me red trust. I hope someone will fix this.

FLAG #295 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=295)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: SaltySpitoon on June 26, 2019, 09:00:52 PM
It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

While I agree with you, what bob did was unethical but since his actions revealed a scammer  who was trying to sell an account which he didn't originally own or paid for, it doesn't matter how and why Bob shared these information with us.

He (SeW900 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=27194)) was selling a hacked account (zackie (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=99997)) which overrides Bob's unethical actions. I am not sure if he deserves a flag even if the account wasn't hacked, I would just ignore the flag probably but not now. Nack.

You know what I think now?

I think zackie should create a flag for SeW900 for hacking and selling his account.

SeW900 deserves a red flag all around his forehead. I guess I'll just PM him.

While I wholeheartedly support an investigation on SeW900 and the hacked account matter, they are two unrelated instances. You don't get free license to damage others because they committed some other offense. The account being hacked wasn't brought up until 2 days after the fact, it did not have any bearing on Bob's initial actions which I'm calling scamming.

Its a really bad road to travel if we start justifying people's actions based on perceived problems with the other people. Maybe tomorrow it'll be cool to scam investors in ICOs since they are perpetuating what some perceive as dishonest investments. Maybe we can all decide its ok to rip off Bitcoin Cash users because we don't support their fork.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mindrust on June 26, 2019, 09:11:58 PM
It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

While I agree with you, what bob did was unethical but since his actions revealed a scammer  who was trying to sell an account which he didn't originally own or paid for, it doesn't matter how and why Bob shared these information with us.

He (SeW900 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=27194)) was selling a hacked account (zackie (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=99997)) which overrides Bob's unethical actions. I am not sure if he deserves a flag even if the account wasn't hacked, I would just ignore the flag probably but not now. Nack.

You know what I think now?

I think zackie should create a flag for SeW900 for hacking and selling his account.

SeW900 deserves a red flag all around his forehead. I guess I'll just PM him.

While I wholeheartedly support an investigation on SeW900 and the hacked account matter, they are two unrelated instances. You don't get free license to damage others because they committed some other offense. The account being hacked wasn't brought up until 2 days after the fact, it did not have any bearing on Bob's initial actions which I'm calling scamming.

Its a really bad road to travel if we start justifying people's actions based on perceived problems with the other people. Maybe tomorrow it'll be cool to scam investors in ICOs since they are perpetuating what some perceive as dishonest investments. Maybe we can all decide its ok to rip off Bitcoin Cash users because we don't support their fork.

Except what Bob did wasn't scamming. It was just unethical.

Doing unethical stuff doesn't need to be flagged.

Account selling isn't against the forum rules but it is discouraged. If it is discouraged, you can fight them in unethical ways.

If bob hadn't revealed his identity, we wouldn't even be discussing this. You would be desperately tagging a newb account now.

Nobody would care and everybody except the hacker would be happy.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bob123 on June 26, 2019, 09:19:59 PM
I believe the elements of a contract were met, including acceptance of said contract  [...]  and there was clearly financial damages. This meets the criteria for supporting the flag.

No, it doesn't.

The financial damage has to occur because of breaking an agreement.

This is clearly not the case.

What is the agreement in your eyes? Please enlighten me.


Additionally, sharing publicly available information (usernames) is no financial damage. And that's all i did.



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bones261 on June 26, 2019, 09:22:13 PM

Account selling isn't against the forum rules but it is discouraged. If it is discouraged, you can fight them in unethical ways.


I'm not even sure why the "account selling isn't against forum rules." is even brought up. Technically, most scamming isn't against the forum rules. You can get a loan for 1 BTC, with the intention of never paying it back, and your account will not even be temporarily banned. You can keep posting away. The only scamming that is against forum rules is to provide links to phishing or malware, which will get your account nuked, ASAP.



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: SaltySpitoon on June 26, 2019, 09:25:40 PM

Except what Bob did wasn't scamming. It was just unethical.

Doing unethical stuff doesn't need to be flagged.

Account selling isn't against the forum rules but it is discouraged. If it is discouraged, you can fight them in unethical ways.

If bob hadn't revealed his identity, we wouldn't even be discussing this. You would be desperately tagging a newb account now.

Nobody would care and everybody except the hacker would be happy.

We are at a very different place fundamentally. Doing unethical stuff means getting tagged. What Bob did was unethical but it directly and intentionally caused SeW financial damage. Deception was used to financially harm another person, how is that not a scam?

I am strongly disagreeing with the ends justify the means mentality. If you rob a drug dealer, you still get arrested for stealing. Certain actions have lines drawn in the sand, if we start making exceptions, rule of law goes away. If someone can get away with scamming someone because they are doing something you don't like, what prevents me from justifying scamming you for something I don't like? Scamming is scamming plain and simple, there is no hearsay and no party is in disagreement of the events that happened, just their interpretation of them.

Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam

 


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bob123 on June 26, 2019, 09:29:26 PM
So, SaltySpitoon..

you left a negative trust rating to "pikacha15" for "attempting to sell fake items".


Selling fake items is not illegal. And you did financial damage to him by interfering into his business.

Based on your logic, you are a scammer and should deserve a flag.

Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: SaltySpitoon on June 26, 2019, 09:34:00 PM
So, SaltySpitoon..

you left a negative trust rating to "pikacha15" for "attempting to sell fake items".


Selling fake items is not illegal. And you did financial damage to him by interfering into his business.

Based on your logic, you are a scammer and should deserve a flag.

Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam

Funny enough, selling fake gold falls under US Anti Money Countefeiting laws, and its not uncommon to receive life sentences for intentionally marking something with .999, "fine" or "pure" if it isn't. You are welcome to keep grasping at straws, but out of sympathy I'll just say that trying to defend counterfeit gold sellers probably isn't the direction you want to go with your argument.

Also, selling fake items is called Fraud.


this bitcoin in 24 carat gold
Weight of the piece: 29grammes

0.99 ?????????????????????????????????????????


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: sandy-is-fine on June 26, 2019, 10:03:48 PM
Can a clown like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2634096 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2634096) be FLAGGED per our new rules even though he has not scammed  me or anyone else (yet), probably really has nothing to sell but what he SAYS he is selling is a TROJAN (not that anyone here is going to pay 150BTC anyway).  It's just so low. Thread:  http://archive.fo/AIwKa (http://archive.fo/AIwKa).  This is what he claims to be selling:  https://www.symantec.com/security-center/writeup/2018-061412-5158-99 (https://www.symantec.com/security-center/writeup/2018-061412-5158-99)  I did neg him but that is pretty useless these days.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mindrust on June 26, 2019, 10:08:12 PM
Can a clown like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2634096 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2634096) be FLAGGED per our new rules even though he has not scammed  me or anyone else (yet), probably really has nothing to sell but what he SAYS he is selling is a TROJAN (not that anyone here is going to pay 150BTC anyway).  It's just so low. Thread:  http://archive.fo/AIwKa (http://archive.fo/AIwKa).  This is what he claims to be selling:  https://www.symantec.com/security-center/writeup/2018-061412-5158-99 (https://www.symantec.com/security-center/writeup/2018-061412-5158-99)  I did neg him but that is pretty useless these days.

You can still create the #1 flag which will be visible to the guests and newbies.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: marlboroza on June 26, 2019, 10:19:34 PM
Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam

The same question I have asked tecsare:

Can you list all accounts which SeW900 was selling?

After you are done, show me proof where SeW900 proved that they own these accounts, WHICH WAS PART OF AGREEMENT!

Person A can't start red flag type 2/3 because person B caused damage to person C!

While I wholeheartedly support an investigation on SeW900 and the hacked account matter, they are two unrelated instances.
And flag you supported are 3 unrelated instances. Just because bob placed them all in one thread doesn't make them the same. They are 3 separated cases.


It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag
No one abused anything you scumbag.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: SaltySpitoon on June 26, 2019, 11:21:22 PM
Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam

The same question I have asked tecsare:

Can you list all accounts which SeW900 was selling?

After you are done, show me proof where SeW900 proved that they own these accounts, WHICH WAS PART OF AGREEMENT!

Person A can't start red flag type 2/3 because person B caused damage to person C!


Yes I can. Please note the "Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller"

1)
The accounts provided by 'SeW900'  (or better: @TrustedAccSeller on telegram) were:
  • cicizhang  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=935809 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=935809))
  • TanClan98 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1045919 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1045919))
  • zackie (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=99997 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=99997)) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
  • Zedster (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=78317 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=78317)) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
  • Ntrain2k https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
  • nonnakip https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=69046 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=69046)
  • narousberg https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=61971 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=61971) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
  • pant-79 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=203430 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=203430)


Why are you so hung up me providing proof that SeW thoroughly proved to Bob that they owned the accounts, it is not in question whether they own the accounts the "Buyer" acknowledges right there that SeW has provided adequate proof. I don't need to find where SeW proved it, because its not a point of contention.

This is all really clear abuse, you found a target that you perceived as a second class forum user, so you managed to convince yourself that the basic definitions of financially harming someone doesn't apply because you don't like them. Thats not how things work, and it speaks very poorly to all of your characters. It feels like I'm in the flat earth thread. I post "did someone lose money as a result of another person's action" and the response is, PROVE THIS PERSON IS ROUND IF THE SUN IS 1000 MILES AWAY.

We aren't getting anywhere, everyone make up your own opinions.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: marlboroza on June 26, 2019, 11:36:19 PM
~
As I have already told you, I am not interested to listen to your assumptions neither I will respond to them.

Here you go, chat history https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157334.0:
Quote
Screenshots of the chat history:

    1) with SeW900 ('Walter' on telegram): https://i.imgur.com/7lTjZxs.jpg
        with @TrustedAccSeller (telegram):
            part 1
            part 2
    2) with Rueduciel ('Mara Mae' on telegram): https://i.imgur.com/dt4l4KX.jpg
Can you post accounts which SeW900 tried to sell and can you quote exact agreement?

Can you list all accounts which SeW900 was selling?
Yes I can. Please note the "Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller"
1)
The accounts provided by 'SeW900'  (or better: @TrustedAccSeller on telegram) were:
  • cicizhang  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=935809 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=935809))
  • TanClan98 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1045919 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1045919))
  • zackie (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=99997 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=99997)) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
  • Zedster (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=78317 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=78317)) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
  • Ntrain2k https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
  • nonnakip https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=69046 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=69046)
  • narousberg https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=61971 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=61971) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
  • pant-79 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=203430 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=203430)

These are not accounts Sew900 tried to sell! He tried to sell 2 accounts.

Read read read:

I noticed that I can't open it and so I referred him to trustedseller account which he made another negotiation and after saying he will buy it if he proves ownership after sending a message this happened (according to trustedseller)

trustedseller =/= SeW900 according to SeW900


Quote
This user violated a casual or implied agreement with me, resulting in damages.
This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages.
Again, what was part of agreement between SeW900 and Bob123?


Seems you didn't do research properly before placing that support.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: eddie13 on June 27, 2019, 01:11:17 AM
Seems you didn't do research properly before placing that support.

Do you think that he did anything wrong or just that it doesn't perfectly fit the definition of the flag?
Would you consider it untrustworthy behavior regardless of any technical flag language?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on June 27, 2019, 01:44:47 AM
Seems you didn't do research properly before placing that support.

Do you think that he did anything wrong or just that it doesn't perfectly fit the definition of the flag?
Would you consider it untrustworthy behavior regardless of any technical flag language?
He is trying to bring up information that does not affect his argument as a means to distract and discredit his argument. 


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: SaltySpitoon on June 27, 2019, 02:03:44 AM
I'm not making any assumptions, I'm reading directly from Bob's post. Bob's post is more important than the information SeW put forward because Bob was only able to operate with the information they had at the time. They claimed they were all the same person, not me. I'm not searching for additional details unless the story doesn't mesh between the buyer and seller. If Bob was mistaken and SeW and TrustedSeller are two different people, then SeW is an agent of the sale and is therefore still involved. Just like when you go to a car dealership, the salesman is involved even though they don't actually personally own the car they are selling you. There are lots of real estate agents popping up in the goods section, I guess they are free game to scam because the people they are selling houses for aren't members of the forums!

This is realllllllly simple. Bob's intentional action cost SeW money in a way that was expected. You can still be responsible for accidents, but things get a lot clearer when it isn't an accident such as in this case. This isn't a who's at fault for the sign falling off of a building onto a passerby tort. Its someone who damaged another person's property decreasing its sale value intentionally. There are strikingly similar court cases regarding social media influencer account sales where a party intentionally dropped the value of the account. This hasn't been a gray area since rulings on secondlife disputes came to exist.

If only the first two accounts were SeW's personally owned accounts, then they lost less money than if they are all SeW's accounts. If SeW and TrustedSeller are not the same person, than as TrustedSeller's agent, they lost less money than had they owned the accounts. I'm far less interested in the little technicalities of the deal that may exclude a flag from being placed based on who's lawyer reads the details of the description, and far more interested in the fact that an obvious scam is trying to be covered up. Whether it was SeW who was scammed or TrustedSeller that was scammed, the damage occurred and all parties were involved. Its absolutely ridiculous to claim innocence because another party was perhaps a greater victim than the OP.



*Edit*

Actually something good did come out of arguing with people of a mindset that I don't understand. I came to the realization, that if I (for the sake of example) sent someone malware and stole their Bitcoins off of their computer, they could not flag me. You don't enter into a contract to be one sidedly stolen from or financially damaged. There are currently loopholes for realistic scenarios that we should sure up.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Khaos77 on June 27, 2019, 04:19:46 AM
Actually something good did come out of arguing with people of a mindset that I don't understand. I came to the realization, that if I (for the sake of example) sent someone malware and stole their Bitcoins off of their computer, they could not flag me. You don't enter into a contract to be one sidedly stolen from or financially damaged. There are currently loopholes for realistic scenarios that we should sure up.

Use the following to red flag someone that malwared you.
This user violated a casual or implied agreement with me, resulting in damages.

It is an implied agreement between decent people not to steal from one another, so you can use the above.  IMO.  :)
(You do need to be able to prove the theft occurred and the other party was responsible. )


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bones261 on June 27, 2019, 04:34:43 AM
Actually something good did come out of arguing with people of a mindset that I don't understand. I came to the realization, that if I (for the sake of example) sent someone malware and stole their Bitcoins off of their computer, they could not flag me. You don't enter into a contract to be one sidedly stolen from or financially damaged. There are currently loopholes for realistic scenarios that we should sure up.

If you sent someone a link to malware via PM or a message on the open forum, you will be permabanned if the victim reports it to staff. Issuing a flag to a permabanned account is a bit redundant.

Also, issuing a red flag is rather punitive. Theymos set the bar high to issue this flag since it is very harsh. Please see the following thread for the full impact of a red flag. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5104698 We must ask ourselves if the infraction merits an account being subjected to the red flag for 3 years for level 2 and 7 years for level 1. Sometimes a yellow flag and/or a negative trust comment is more appropriate.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: what1005 on June 27, 2019, 06:36:01 AM
Hi Admin. you should change
distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters
become
distinct positive raters by Dt1 member / distinct positive raters by member / distinct negative raters by Dt1 member

because dt1 member only who leave positive is unfair with other member.newbie see mark from distinct positive raters by member and review this member trusted or not.

distinct positive raters from Dt1 member are inexactly.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: DdmrDdmr on June 27, 2019, 08:13:45 AM
<Ö>
The number of positive/neutral/negative rating you see are based on your Trust network. If you do not create your own (which is what the vast majority do), you will see the number of DT ratings with regards to the depth level you have established.
If you create your own Trust network, then the ratings will be based on those you trust, and not DT.

In any case, regardless of the numbers you see in the positive/neutral/negative rating counts, it is always wise to look deeper into the profile and read both the Trusted Feedback, and the Untrusted feedback (which in your case is abundant).

What I figure is your point is that, in your particular case, youíve got tons of untrusted feedback which does not reflect on your scores. Thatís how the system works, and that is why individuals should read through both the trusted and untrusted feedback to get a general composition of the profileís trustworthiness, and how he gained it specifically.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: what1005 on June 27, 2019, 09:04:59 AM
<Ö>
The number of positive/neutral/negative rating you see are based on your Trust network. If you do not create your own (which is what the vast majority do), you will see the number of DT ratings with regards to the depth level you have established.
If you create your own Trust network, then the ratings will be based on those you trust, and not DT.

In any case, regardless of the numbers you see in the positive/neutral/negative rating counts, it is always wise to look deeper into the profile and read both the Trusted Feedback, and the Untrusted feedback (which in your case is abundant).

What I figure is your point is that, in your particular case, youíve got tons of untrusted feedback which does not reflect on your scores. Thatís how the system works, and that is why individuals should read through both the trusted and untrusted feedback to get a general composition of the profileís trustworthiness, and how he gained it specifically.
positive/neutral/negative from DT member
positive/neutral/negative from Member ,Full Member , Sr. Member ,Hero ... ( no Newbie , Jr. Membe , person got negative from DT )

+0/ =0 / -0 from DT
+0/ =0 / -0 from member

you see shorena leave negative for Lauda and Lauda get back negative for shorena

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=181801

Decide from DT member is exact 100% ?

There check quickly from all member on forum , not DT member.The most general review to check account.Sure 100%,individuals should read through both the trusted and untrusted feedback to get a general composition of the profileís trustworthiness


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Veleor on June 30, 2019, 04:35:59 AM
Suggestion: Automatically delete flags which don't have any Support. For example: 37 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=37), 38 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=38), 85 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=85), 251 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=251).

Some flags can be created as a result of mistake or a test, therefore it should be possible to remove them from users' profiles.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: malevolent on June 30, 2019, 04:58:11 AM
Suggestion: Automatically delete flags which don't have any Support. For example: 37 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=37), 38 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=38), 85 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=85), 251 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=251).

Some flags can be created as a result of mistake or a test, therefore it should be possible to remove them from users' profiles.

I think it's like that by design:

I am wondering will users be able to remove a scammer flag early in the spirit of forgiveness. Do users in your trust network automatically support flags or do they need to take action?
The original accuser can withdraw their support, but they can't delete the flag. So other users could take it up even if they withdraw.

I can envision a scenario where the accuser is bribed, threatened or extorted to remove their feedback/flag before someone supports it. Or users supporting a flag may face pressure or fiduciary encouragements to withdraw their support of a flag. If original flag posters can only withdraw their support for a flag on a scammer's profile, but without being able to remove the flag themselves, there's still always a trace left on the scammers profile to keep eyes open/lurk moar about the person one would be dealing with.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: marlboroza on July 01, 2019, 09:12:38 PM
@Eddie I will try to do my best to answer your questions, sorry for late response.
Do you think that he did anything wrong
It was unethical. I don't like sting operations.
or just that it doesn't perfectly fit the definition of the flag?
It does not. There was no contract.
Would you consider it untrustworthy behavior regardless of any technical flag language?
I can only say that I would not share any info with bob. I also think it is good that some accounts are exposed, especially that account with green trust.

Hm....can you understand this?


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: mindrust on July 01, 2019, 10:06:30 PM
I can only say that I would not share any illegal info with bob.

He'll turn you in to the police in no time. Don't share your joints with Bob123.

Sorry bob no cigs for you.

Edit:fixed, he didn't say that.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: bob123 on July 02, 2019, 06:17:46 AM
I can only say that I would not share any illegal info with bob.

He'll turn you in to the police in no time. Don't share your joints with Bob123.

Sorry bob no cigs for you.


I don't care about your joints if you don't use them to scam other people  ;D
If you don't harm other people and don't provide things which others can use to harm other people.. whatever   ;)


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on July 05, 2019, 02:05:13 PM
What's the policy on trust flag spam? This user seems to be determined to test it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1096223


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TMAN on July 05, 2019, 02:38:39 PM
What's the policy on trust flag spam? This user seems to be determined to test it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1096223


Brilliant. Thatís some determination there for a pajeet. Just another example of how the system is pretty shit


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: malevolent on July 05, 2019, 02:43:46 PM
Probably the same as with Trust feedback? Either never removed or only if used to spam the same user with the same feedback. Korner is a nobody so it's not like his feedback/flags matter at all anyway.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on July 05, 2019, 03:02:04 PM
Probably the same as with Trust feedback? Either never removed or only if used to spam the same user with the same feedback. Korner is a nobody so it's not like his feedback/flags matter at all anyway.

There is a time limit before you can create another flag for the same user, so that kind of spam won't exist with flags... I guess korner is gonna have to slow down at 98 (current activity).

- Per 180 days, you can only give 1 flag of each type to a given user. So you can't give someone multiple written-contract-violation flags in 180 days, for example.
 - Globally, per year you can only create 1 flag per activity point you have, but at least 1/year.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: malevolent on July 05, 2019, 03:21:12 PM
True, it was probably introduced to cut down on spam. Best the could do is keep creating alt accounts if he's that bored.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on July 05, 2019, 03:39:48 PM
True, it was probably introduced to cut down on spam. Best the could do is keep creating alt accounts if he's that bored.

Well, it's your fault now for giving him the idea ;)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2544811
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2618696

Creating bogus flags with alts.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: LoyceV on July 05, 2019, 06:22:46 PM
What's the policy on trust flag spam? This user seems to be determined to test it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1096223
He's been busy :o
He's even spamming Archival (https://archive.is/D9Vl3) with Flag topics. I think there should be a consequence (ban?). He's indirectly spamming my Trust Flag viewer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153695.0)! If theymos is going to delete the flags, I'll need to update my Flag viewer for that.

These are all the flags he created (with fresly updated Support/Opposition):
2019-07-05 Fri 19.45h
source: loyce.club (http://loyce.club/trust/flags/38.html)
316 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=316) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Veleor (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1177936) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4859231.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223), reckon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2544811), Sorbent (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2618696). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), nutildah (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=317618), Lafu (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=805820), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), chimk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1202061), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), logfiles (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1247226), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723), IMadeYouReadThis (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2611158).

317 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=317) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged WEX-OFFICIAL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1146357) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2227096.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223), reckon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2544811), Sorbent (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2618696). Opposed by nobody.

318 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=318) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged btc-e.com (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=33012) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2315148.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223), reckon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2544811), Sorbent (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2618696). Opposed by nobody.

324 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=324) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Balthazar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=23324) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=247603.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223), reckon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2544811), Sorbent (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2618696). Opposed by nobody.

325 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=325) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161508.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Lafu (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=805820), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), bob123 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=579628), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), chimk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1202061), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

326 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=326) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161487.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), TMAN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=98986), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), bob123 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=579628), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), chimk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1202061), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

327 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=327) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Lafu (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=805820) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161456.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Lafu (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=805820), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), bob123 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=579628), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), pandukelana2712 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1304130), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), taikuri13 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1855828), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089).

328 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=328) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161442.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), TMAN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=98986), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), bob123 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=579628), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), taikuri13 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1855828), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

329 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=329) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161311.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), bob123 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=579628), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), chimk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1202061), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), taikuri13 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1855828), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

330 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=330) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161286.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), TMAN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=98986), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), taikuri13 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1855828), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

331 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=331) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5146221.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), chimk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1202061), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411), MoxnatyShmel (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1316749), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

332 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=332) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Xal0lex (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1068464) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5094865.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), pandukelana2712 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1304130), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

333 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=333) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged LZ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=462) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161284.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

334 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=334) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161256.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

335 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=335) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged micgoossens (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1067333) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161218.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089).

336 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=336) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161193.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), chimk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1202061), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

337 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=337) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged pandukelana2712 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1304130) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161107.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), pandukelana2712 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1304130), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089).

338 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=338) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161092.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

339 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=339) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5156263.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

340 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=340) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5154724.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

341 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=341) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged johhnyUA (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=623643) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161621.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), chimk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1202061), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089).

342 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=342) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged IMadeYouReadThis (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2611158) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161626.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089).

343 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=343) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged icopress (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1137579) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161632.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089).

344 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=344) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged mosprognoz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1094569) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161639.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089).

345 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=345) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged bambarmia (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1094553) Banned! (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161641.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089).

346 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=346) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027896.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), TMAN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=98986), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), taikuri13 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1855828), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), DIKUL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2148411), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

347 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=347) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1904473.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), TMAN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=98986), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), pandukelana2712 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1304130), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

348 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=348) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged nutildah (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=317618) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110613.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), nutildah (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=317618), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089).

349 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=349) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged The Pharmacist (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=487418) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2790243.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), TMAN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=98986), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089), DabLjat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2197723).

350 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=350) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged rhomelmabini (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1255873) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161652.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089).

351 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=351) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged penek (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=62573) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161658.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), kzv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=662400), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089).

352 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=352) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged leo99 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1015119) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161682.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), xandry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=382413), yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089).

353 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=353) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged yogg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2519519.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), TMAN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=98986), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856), TheFuzzStone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=679341), MaoChao (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410541), pandukelana2712 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1304130), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404), madnessteat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894120), FontSeli (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2221613), VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089).

356 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=356) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Marina Uni (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1162311) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4859231.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), Alex_Sr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762404)[/size].

357 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=357) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged LiveCoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=462136) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3490105.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384)[/size].

358 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=358) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged mtgox (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=489) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=451225.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384)[/size].

359 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=359) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged ne0n (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=33376) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161862.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384)[/size].

360 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=360) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged WME (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=43575) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161864.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384)[/size].

361 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=361) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged markiz73 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=786044) Banned! (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161866.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: LoyceV on July 05, 2019, 06:24:00 PM
362 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=362) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged markiz731 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2597401) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161867.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624)[/size].

363 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=363) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Harlot (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=869186) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161872.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624)[/size].

364 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=364) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged VyachikO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2123089) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161875.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

365 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=365) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117829.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

366 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=366) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged boltalka (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1002709) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161876.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by nobody.

367 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=367) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Piston Honda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=391321) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161878.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

368 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=368) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161879.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624)[/size].

369 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=369) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged blurryeyed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=885996) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161880.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

370 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=370) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged franckuestein (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=225121) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161898.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624)[/size].

371 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=371) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged power123456 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2545190) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161931.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by nobody.

373 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=373) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged WEX_OFFICIAL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1431855) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161943.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384)[/size].

374 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=374) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Sakasara (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2337989) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161944.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

375 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=375) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Kryptoart (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1475031) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161946.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

376 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=376) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged anna.mayzus (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1128672) Banned! (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161948.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

377 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=377) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Sara Parker (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2361932) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161950.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

378 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=378) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Scamer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2385454) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161952.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

379 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=379) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Skammer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2395097) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161954.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

380 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=380) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged CKAMEP (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2385529) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161957.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

381 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=381) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged WORLD_EXCHANGE_SERVICES (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2360533) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161960.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384)[/size].

382 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=382) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged wex.com (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1165027) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161961.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384)[/size].

383 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=383) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged WEX-UNOFFICIAL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1345226) Banned! (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161964.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by nobody.

384 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=384) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged btc-e.nz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1132201) Banned! (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161966.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384)[/size].

385 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=385) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged novacoin.org (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2443585) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161967.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

386 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=386) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Trollface (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2386160) Banned! (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161968.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

387 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=387) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged wex.nz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1156057) Banned! (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161969.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by nobody.

388 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=388) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged cashberycoin.com (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2067621) Banned! (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161974.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

389 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=389) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Werosim (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=94107) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161976.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

390 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=390) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged BitcoinFX (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161979.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

391 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=391) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Zloy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=33251) Banned! (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161981.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

392 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=392) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Lex Voland (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2437279) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161983.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

393 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=393) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Already exist (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2311493) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161986.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

394 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=394) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged wex.link (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2463125) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161988.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

395 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=395) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged ya-just (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2446905) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161989.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

396 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=396) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged NOWEX.NZ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2356520) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162006.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

397 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=397) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged chimk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1202061) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162008.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624), witcher_sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1433865)[/size].

398 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=398) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Vadi2323 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=399366) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162011.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

399 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=399) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged esmanthra (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1764764) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162012.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

400 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=400) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged klarki (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=407174) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162013.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

401 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=401) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged marlboroza (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=787736) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162017.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

402 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=402) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162018.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

403 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=403) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged o_e_l_e_o (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1188543) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162020.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

404 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=404) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged taikuri13 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1855828) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162022.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

405 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=405) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Rooivalk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2245383) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162024.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

406 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=406) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged 3meek (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1193837) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162026.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

407 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=407) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged deisik (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=156665) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162028.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

408 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=408) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Noads (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1987678) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162031.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

409 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=409) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged researcher194 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1456760) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162042.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

410 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=410) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged liquid55 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1046486) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162043.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

411 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=411) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged becool (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=80098) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162044.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

412 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=412) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged recusant2000 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=931468) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162047.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

413 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=413) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged prizrak73 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=39524) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162048.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

414 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=414) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged viktor.alekseevich.1979 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1125469) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162049.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

415 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=415) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Cryder (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=665158) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162052.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

416 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=416) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged The0ldl_lser (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2263197) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162053.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

417 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=417) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged Bazillio (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=895913) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162058.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

418 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=418) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged FAN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=51625) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162060.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

419 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=419) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged alpet (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=54484) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162061.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[/size].

420 Insufficient support. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=420) korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) flagged babo (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=65636) (type 1, see why (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5162065.0)). Supported by korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223). Opposed by  Foxpup (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=55384), suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), babo (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=65636)[/size].


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: malevolent on July 05, 2019, 11:28:36 PM
Well, it's your fault now for giving him the idea ;)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2544811
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2618696

Creating bogus flags with alts.

Well, shit  :-[

If these accounts can be confirmed to be his alts with 100% certainty then maybe that qualifies as spam worthy of being removed, maybe theymos could chime in.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: TryNinja on July 05, 2019, 11:50:23 PM
On a side note, does this really matter when his flags will never get activated since he's not on DT, and even if they are supported by anyone, they can simple by removed from DT?

This already happened all the time in the old trust system.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on July 06, 2019, 12:23:41 AM
If these accounts can be confirmed to be his alts with 100% certainty then maybe that qualifies as spam worthy of being removed, maybe theymos could chime in.

IIRC there is strong circumstantial evidence but not 100%. Theymos and/or cryptios might have more to go on.

On a side note, does this really matter when his flags will never get activated since he's not on DT, and even if they are supported by anyone, they can simple by removed from DT?

This already happened all the time in the old trust system.

Kinda sorta. With this new lottery-based DT1 you never know when someone might include him or one of his (possibly not yet known) alts, and the flags aren't as visible to regular DT members as the old red trust used to be - merely a "#" next to the trust score. So I went through those garbage flags and opposed them all just in case, and Foxpup did the same.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Veleor on July 06, 2019, 02:06:40 AM
What's the policy on trust flag spam? This user seems to be determined to test it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1096223
He's been busy :o
He's even spamming Archival (https://archive.is/D9Vl3) with Flag topics. <...>


"The most compelling arguments" for flags I have ever seen. ::)

Flag for Trollface

Reason: Troll

Flag for Skammer

Reason: Scammer

Flags #386 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=386), #379 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=379)




IIRC there is strong circumstantial evidence but not 100%. Theymos and/or cryptios might have more to go on. <...>

Taking into account the user's own confession and dates of passwords changes, I believe that proof of ban evasion is 100%.

1. korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) admitted in the Russian section that he used a banned profile wex.nz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1156057):

<...> Кaк клaccнo я пoвeceлилcя и пoyгapaл c вac изoбpaжaя "wex.nz". <...>
(Archive (http://archive.md/s7FQT#selection-4309.0-4309.62))

Translation:
Quote
<...> I had so much fun and laughed at you by posing as "wex.nz". <...>

In another comment, korner states that he warned all people in advance about scam of WEX exchange and then, in support of this claim, korner quotes a user wex.nz:

<...> Я тyт вcex пpeдyпpeждaю o гoтoвящимcя cкaмe aж в 2017
Дoнocим дo вaшeгo cвeдeния чтo пpoизoшeл идeйный pacкoл в кoмaндe WEX
<...>
(Archive (http://archive.md/C38lT#selection-1723.0-1723.54))


2. Both profiles have the same dates of changed passwords:

korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) -  Security/Moderator Log (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=korner)
Code:
08/25/2018 9:04:57 AM     password changed
10/27/2018 5:08:48 AM     password changed

wex.nz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1156057) - Security/Moderator Log (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=wex.nz)
Code:
08/25/2018 08:32:37 AM     password changed
10/27/2018 05:28:53 AM     password changed


I believe that another alt of korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) is user CKAMEP (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2385529) which confirmed in Russian as well that he owned the banned account wex.nz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1156057).

The original message of CKAMEP has been deleted, therefore a quote is given:

<...> Ктo нe вepит - мoгy дoкaзaть и зaлoгинитcя в wex.nz (зaбaнeн), пишитe в л/c <...>
<...>
Translation:
Quote
<...> Who doesn't believe - I can prove it and login to wex.nz (banned), write a PM <...>

CKAMEP also has changed the password at the same day with korner and wex.nz.

CKAMEP (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2385529) - Security/Moderator Log (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=CKAMEP)
Code:
10/27/2018 7:41:01 AM password changed


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: suchmoon on July 06, 2019, 11:29:43 AM
korner's been (temp?) banned (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105163.msg51724754#msg51724754).


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: IMadeYouReadThis on July 06, 2019, 02:32:11 PM
~

Thank you LoyceV for this effort of highlighting this abusive flags, also it's great to see DTs taking efforts in opposing those, its an hell lot of work really !

korner's been (temp?) banned (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105163.msg51724754#msg51724754).

That sound's better, I also think the above flags started by him should be deleted by administration manually as said, the flag are not visible on the profile to the DT members to be opposed.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: xtraelv on July 07, 2019, 05:54:54 AM
Probably the same as with Trust feedback? Either never removed or only if used to spam the same user with the same feedback. Korner is a nobody so it's not like his feedback/flags matter at all anyway.

He may be a no-body but the way the DT system is currently working he may be DT in no time. There have been quite a few dubious users promoted to DT since the new system was introduced.

The other issue that occurs is that he appears to be randomly tagging people with flags while also randomly giving positive trust to others.

e.g. Cryptodevil he gave positive trust "friendship". I'm sure he is not Cryptodevils "friend".

https://i.imgur.com/z3NS5kQ.png

While he also has tagged most of the DTs with flags

But he also tagged some scammers with flags.

While the known people will probably have their flags opposed - it is the lesser known people that may not get any support or may even get their flag supported in the confusion.

Likewise some scammers may get their flag opposed because they got flagged by a troll.

https://i.imgur.com/8HGrCg6.png

I personally received one of his flags. While I don't take ist seriously - he blatantly lied in the reason he gave.. I am not and have never been a merit source.


Which is not surprising from an account that is evading a ban and impersonated a moderator.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1096223

https://i.imgur.com/zJuBos7.png

https://i.imgur.com/2lmSeEo.png

https://i.imgur.com/ZLQPTP0.png


It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

It appears that you are supporting a flag created by someone that appears to have violated the specific conditions of the alleged agreement. (i.e. trying to sell a hacked account)





As I said, that proves nothing because of VPNs. I could do whatever you or anybody else here wants, there will always be somebody saying: "But this is still no evidence, do this and do that!" This will be a
never ending story. I'm the real zackie and this account is not for sale. Believe it or not, I don't care.
Have you checked https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php ? You have only 30 days to see the account thief's IP address.

Holy crap! Thanks for that link. Here is the result:

2019-06-25 18:52:29   2019-06-25 19:53:15   xx.xxx.xxx.xx   XXXXXXXx, Germany
2019-06-24 22:00:53   2019-06-24 22:01:56   xxxx:xx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx   XXXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-24 20:03:48   2019-06-24 20:52:38   xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx    XXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-19 09:38:21   2019-06-20 14:02:48   42.201.183.65   Karachi, Pakistan

Indeed, somebody from Pakistan used my account!

But hey, you know.... I could have used a VPN....

We are talking about trying to sell a hacked account.

The claim from the OP was:


He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.



Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on July 07, 2019, 07:25:46 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

It appears that you are supporting a flag created by someone that appears to have violated the specific conditions of the alleged agreement. (i.e. trying to sell a hacked account)

The agreement is not alleged, the screenshots posted by bob (who is the accused) document him agreeing to purchase the forum accounts in question upon receipt of a PM, which he received. Bob has confirmed that he had no intention of completing the purchase despite his promise to do so. The account that is "hacked" has not proven to be hacked, nor was it part of the specific agreement bob violated.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: malevolent on July 07, 2019, 08:03:31 AM

He may be a no-body but the way the DT system is currently working he may be DT in no time. There have been quite a few dubious users promoted to DT since the new system was introduced.

The other issue that occurs is that he appears to be randomly tagging people with flags while also randomly giving positive trust to others.

I wouldn't worry too much, it's enough if more DT1 members distrust him than trust him: http://loyce.club/trust/2019-07-06_Sat_10.00h/1096223.html

If that magically doesn't suffice, theymos may also blacklist him from DT1 selection in the worst case.


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: xtraelv on July 07, 2019, 09:42:03 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

It appears that you are supporting a flag created by someone that appears to have violated the specific conditions of the alleged agreement. (i.e. trying to sell a hacked account)

The agreement is not alleged, the screenshots posted by bob (who is the accused) document him agreeing to purchase the forum accounts in question upon receipt of a PM, which he received. Bob has confirmed that he had no intention of completing the purchase despite his promise to do so. The account that is "hacked" has not proven to be hacked, nor was it part of the specific agreement bob violated.

In that case show me the specific accounts that he bought and show the proof. Because if you read the thread I quoted I showed why I believe there was no agreement and that one of the accounts the seller tried to sell is hacked.


Title: Re: Trust flags - Lauda and korner
Post by: Timelord2067 on July 07, 2019, 09:54:15 AM
...

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

...

PM me if you find bugs.

Eleven out of thirteen Flags ~ 85% of Lauda's Flags are inaccurate when you look right into it:  Lauda creating flags against random people linked to threads not related (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161689.0). [Archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20190707095203/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161689.0)]



korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1096223) has created dozens of flags that link to locked threads with no proof offered.



Feel free to PM me if you'd like clarification.
[Archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20190707095451/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.msg51737666)]


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Quickseller on July 08, 2019, 06:42:41 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

It appears that you are supporting a flag created by someone that appears to have violated the specific conditions of the alleged agreement. (i.e. trying to sell a hacked account)

The agreement is not alleged, the screenshots posted by bob (who is the accused) document him agreeing to purchase the forum accounts in question upon receipt of a PM, which he received. Bob has confirmed that he had no intention of completing the purchase despite his promise to do so. The account that is "hacked" has not proven to be hacked, nor was it part of the specific agreement bob violated.

In that case show me the specific accounts that he bought and show the proof. Because if you read the thread I quoted I showed why I believe there was no agreement and that one of the accounts the seller tried to sell is hacked.

First, if you are not familiar with the thread and situation, I don't see how it would possibly be appropriate to have a stance on the flag one way or another.


The evidence is in this post.

https://i.imgur.com/45NaXZL.png
I have copied a portion of the screenshot linked in the above referenced post. If you review the screenshot, you will see that bob123 said he will buy [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659] Ntrain2k (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157747.msg51597768#msg51597768) upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see in the below image that bob123 received a PM from ntrain2k:
https://i.imgur.com/HwLLIE2.jpg
You can see above the copied portion of the conversation that bob123 was offered a "green hero" for $550, and also that bob123 asked for PMs to be sent to "alice321" which they were.

Further, you can see this portion of the conversation posted by bob123:
https://i.imgur.com/P3n361H.png
Above you can see that bob123 agreed to purchase a legendary account for $600 upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see from the above screenshot of PMs posted by bob123 that a PM was sent from  narousberg (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=61971), which is a legendary account.

Further, you can see based on bob123's actions that he did not have any intention of actually buying the accounts up for sale, despite making the representation that he wishes to do so, which is a breach of an implied agreement.

I would have to scrutinize the details further to find additional agreements that bob123 broke, however the above more than demonstrates a breach of agreement(s), and as such proves the flag is valid. 


Title: Re: Trust flags
Post by: Steamtyme on July 09, 2019, 10:21:59 AM
Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe:
 - Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
 - Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.
 
Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.
~snip~

I've been thinking on this flag a bit the last couple weeks. The wording "I believe that anyone dealing with [---] is at a high risk of losing money" seem to be a roadblock for Flag 1 warnings; and could be replaced by something less universal. This currently gets read as absolutely everyone would need to be at risk of being scammed walking into this situation. Where something like "Users dealing with [---] may be at a high risk of losing money" is less encompassing. It gives the desired effect of warning naive users without having to tick the box of an experienced user falling for the same trap.

The situation that got me thinking about this has been resolved and was clarified shortly after a flag had been created but the questions lingered with me.

On a similar line of thought regarding warning flags (Type 1). If we believe that in the future someone will redeem themselves, but you currently view them as a risk. Should you create a flag, or limit yourself to using the feedback system?