Your participants have a median of 3 merit, nearly 40% have zero or 1 merit, and nearly 2/3 have 5 or less merit. There are 51 accounts that posted in your signature campaign thread that are perma banned, and although they all might not have been participating in your campaign when they were banned, I suspect the majority of them probably were. Are you making this stuff up to try and bait me to count the merits? If over 80% of the campaign is full member+ how can 40% have 1 merit? I'll give you something more accurate than the median merits of the campaign, the average including Jr/Members 367.94 average merits for a Stake campaign member. It doesn't take much effort to find out your claim is 100% false My claim is not false. It assumes that everyone who posted an application and is still wearing a stake.com signature is a participant in your signature campaign, which I have every reason to believe considering it appears you have accepted everyone who applied except those with negative trust. If you had an account when the merit system was implemented, you were grandfathered in and received merit equal to the minimum needed for your then-current rank. My post was referring to the merit that people received subsequent to the implementation of the merit system and excludes any grandfathered merit received. My numbers were accurate as of this past Sunday when I obtained my data, and are almost certainly still accurate. I look at your list of 51 banned accounts and I don't even know who majority of them even are. This is completely flawed because you're making your own list of people so your information is false. These are not random people, nor are they my own list. They are people who have posted in your signature campaign thread and are currently banned. When I have more time, I will cross reference these people against those who actually submitted applications, which I would assume to by the majority of those banned. Low merits does not mean someone is incapable of a good post either. Are you incapable of being trusted or making a good post because your trust level is so negative? 1 - Not receiving many merits is a good indication the person is not making very many good posts. It is possible that some people who make a lot of good posts may not have merit, however this is not the case with participants in your signature campaign. The amount of merit a person has received is a quick way to objectively measure a person's post quality 2 - You appear to believe having negative trust is a reason why someone is "incapable of being trusted or making a good post" as you do not accept negative trusted people into your signature campaign. Also, I did ask to join your campaign, which you ignored, however if I was participating in your campaign, I would have left because of a) the low pay rates, and b) because I do not want to be associated with the amount of spam your campaign generates That is strange because he applied to your campaign, and I don't see any evidence of you rejecting anyone who applied. Why did you not accept this person? However the root cause is that you are paying garbage rates Higher pay rates will only encourage people to post more and lower pay rates encourage people to post less. If we truly want to see spam gone then remove all pay per post features because that will always encourage spam. Once I lowered the pay rates I saw an instant decrease in spam and it worked out well. I suggest other campaign managers stop over paying for posts because your supply of posters far surpasses your demand for them. But sure everyone is going to hate me for saying that even though it's true because so many are making a career out of Bitcointalk You are ignoring the fact that your low pay rate is not going to attract those who are capable of making coherent posts. You are also ignoring the fact that the majority of people in your campaign have no business getting paid to post. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Whose funds are missing ? BestMixers. QS doesn't have the same definition of the word "embezzlement" as everyone else, this is it, really.
What is your definition of "embezzlement". Please be specific and explain clearly so I can understand... |
|
|
|
|
Do you have bitcoin there? Or another coin?
If you have bitcoin, you could monitor the hot wallet balance, and withdraw portions of what you are owed over time. In theory, the site earns money from the losses of some of their players, so the hot wallet may eventually grow to cover deposits held on behalf of all their customers.
The above should not make it safe to deposit money to the site though.
|
|
|
|
Im sorry lauda, were you scammed? There is a flag on my profile that says you were. Lauda alleges: Quickseller violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. Quickseller 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 September 2015. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance. 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.
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Why don't we just set up capitalist and socialist communes to test which economic system is better once and for all?
I would refer you to the USSR in the 70s and 80s and the US during the same time. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
There's been a grenade thrown into this whole trust thing: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344Made me check the calendar, nope it's not April 1st  . If you thought what we had since January was drama, you ain't seen nothing yet. It should take a little while for people to get used to, but IMO it will make it more clear when someone is untrustworthy to deal with, and it will make it easier for people to make a determination as to the risk of trading with a person. The above will result in it being more difficult for those in DT to impose their opinions that others may not agree with, even before accounting for the fact that it has been explicitly said that opinions should not be considered with the new system. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
You have some ways to go before you will likely become a junior member. I would recommend reviewing some or all of the following resources: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Pagehttps://www.bitcoin.com/getting-started/https://bitcoin.org/en/resources You created some threads that many people responded to, but you never replied to any of the responses, which I believes indicates a lack of interest in the topics on your part. You should respond to others when you post, and others should respond to you, and when appropriate, you should respond to those who reply to you. I think there is a very high probability you are an alt of Bitbtc8 which I just denied giving merit to above. You are not responding when people reply to you. I believe this is an indication you are not interested in what you are writing about.
I don't like to deny all of you merit, but I am not comfortable giving any of you merit at this time. |
|
|
|
|
I can’t believe I am going to do this, but I am going to (somewhat) defend lauda here...
I don’t think you should oppose LaudaM’s positions just because they are his positions. If he is actually wrong then you can call him out. In regards to the stake signature spam, lauda is not wrong in saying the campaign is causing a ridiculous amount of useless posts.
I won’t comment on the rest of your comments. You do have a valid concern about the BCH not being returned to you though (assuming you were actually an investor in the ICO in question that went bad).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
