Are you a victim of catchabtc? If not, only flag type 1 is allowed.. I guess I have to intentionally get scammed/hurt by someone before I can issue a flag type 2 or 3.  |
|
|
|
Just for confirmation, if OP locks thread, that "box" won't be visible any more, or?
I have no idea. What happens if the thread is deleted? Well, I tagged a user by the name of iramsarwar. He was nuked later on, so the thread that I was using was deleted along with everything else. However, the trust score still had the # symbol and if you go into his trust history, people can still support or oppose my flag. (Not that it matter since he'll never post again, anyway.) To cover my ass, I posted the archive to one of his threads as a negative trust comment. I'm hoping it does not become necessary to open up a whole new thread just to give a newbie-warning tags to small time wannabe scammers. That's good to know. However, this shows another flaw in the system: Flags can't be edited. Flags can't be deleted. You can post 1 flag per user per 180 days. If the reference link is dead, the old flag is useless (regardless of support/opposition). |
|
|
|
This is not entirely correct. The guideline has been further relaxed to the point that you're allowed to leave negative ratings for a single instance of lying (at least on a flag). It is probably relaxed to the point that you can leave negatives for anything (as they are more or less irrelevant) This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile.
Ouch  I welcome this; I had to restrain myself a countless number of times due to the idiotic guideline that we had. The users that are involved in the discussions are nowhere near realizing the full extent and impact of these changes. Red trust is more of a "post-it" now (as someone mentioned privately) than anything else. There is no requirement of anything when leaving red-trust now: No risked amount, no scamming, heck probably not even outright lying[1]. A clown world we live in now.  This is nonsense. See the description of the most broad flag:
I am not talking about flags; stop doing drugs.
[1] For those that ever need proof of the now removed rating: https://i.imgur.com/P5ESdmB.png. That picture can be taken as proof of the invalidity of any previous guidelines. |
|
|
|
yes this is why I won't vote on this.
I really think the simple solution is to mark a sold account as sold.
Or risk red tags if hiding the account.
As for doing business it is a double edged sword. Some sales to some people don't reveal much about the person.
But in bill's case I know his real name and real address this is worthwhile info and helps for trusting a person.
I do see why you are pushing the issue as we both agree on the idea in bold type.
Hopefully it gets sorted out.
I already told bill the start of the solution to his problem: new, publicly-admitted, alt account. Lock down and stop using the bought account. This is the best way to remedy the situation, whilst keeping the buying accounts is terrible policy consistent. If a user is legitimate, they will have absolutely no trouble re-proving their worth. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Just for confirmation, if OP locks thread, that "box" won't be visible any more, or?
I have no idea. What happens if the thread is deleted? |
|
|
|
But he has done business with me.
Oh, I've heard about this. Many others probably too.  it is why were accounts allowed to be sold. and are still allowed to be sold. without a sold tag
The issue stems from stubborn misplaced, damaging liberalism - theymos. If it hasn't been changed so far, despite the countless complaints, it won't be changed anytime soon IMO. |
|
|
|
As to bitchpoint 2 I would love to see something like this implemented. It could easily save me and others hours of unnecessary work.
I also want to make one more thing clear, we can still use the old trust system to leave feedback in regards to marking scammy ICOs, correct?
Yes, and the guidelines have been relaxed in that you no longer need to strongly believe the user is a scammer, merely that trading with user is high-risk. I think both red trust and yellow box would fit most ICO scams. This is not entirely correct. The guideline has been further relaxed to the point that you're allowed to leave negative ratings for a single instance of lying (at least on a flag). It is probably relaxed to the point that you can leave negatives for anything (as they are more or less irrelevant) This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile. This also confirmed my very early statement that the requirement for scamming is gone. On the plus side: All non-scam related negative ratings are fully within guidelines now. Thule and cryptohunter can't be complaining any more. |
|
|
|
"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? |
|
|
|
I can add more cases into OP if that is what people want. You can then use the same thread for multiple incidents. The yellow box probably doesn't require HH to have suffered a loss, should be sufficient to show Quicksy's intent to cause damage.
I'm also a victim due to the pill-addiction fiasco.  |
|
|
|
Surprised you excluded The Pharmacist..
No nepotism, unlike the super-majority of this forum (including those that would never admit to it). Personally, I've excluded everyone who opposed it and reported everyone who broke local rules.
It doesn't matter who the opposing party is. Everyone gets the same treatment. You've shown that you have a very flawed judgement a very long time ago, nothing new. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Scam Version (aka BSV) shills are using inactive accounts to refute your point, that's hilarious. BTW, you have my endorsement. As long as we have DT members on our side, we are good. I already complained about those accounts.  Looks lovely. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
I do understand where you coming from, so thats why I leave it open at the moment and will look into more, but for the moment i'm leaning more to opposite for my feeling at the moment...
Safest thing in this system is to neither oppose nor support. If you support anything you risk getting blacklisted. If you oppose anything, you risk drama. Personally, I've excluded everyone who opposed it and reported everyone who broke local rules. You can track exclusions in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5098579. Edit: Also what kind of trades are considered not worthless?, I think the persons I have handled with they can say I honour my word and its not really worthless imo
All feedback left quickly and for miniscule amounts is worthless. This constitutes most feedback left in that section, especially on people like bill. |
|
|
|
He did many trades and raffles and stuff at collectibles and his image probably have been under pressure cause of those red NEG's...... I don't think that should be so.
One of the easiest ways[1] to farm trust is to infiltrate the collectibles section with consists of mostly very gullible members (some of which are hoarders, not collectors). He saw the chance, he took it. Not the first, won't be the last. All that trading activity is worthless as it is dishonest. [1] Next to PayPal-Trades (worthless), loans (worthless). What's next? I have flawed judgement?
Yes, now go back to the hole where you crawled out of. |
|
|
|
Opposed. Looking through his transactions on the forum shows he is trustworthy. Just because you buy an account it doesn't make you a thief or untrustworthy, In this case at least.
Excluded. I don't trust flawed judgement. |
|
|
|
Can something be done about this?
Are you a victim of this user(s)? If not, nothing can be done. |
|
|
|
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". |
|
|
|
Lauda, you know I respect you but you'll have to oppose my opposition to bill gator's flag as well. I've done business with him and never felt I was at risk of losing money. He's not a scammer, even if he bought his account. He's even a nice guy, for chrissakes. He doesn't deserve that flag. Many, many other members do, but not bill gator.
Kisses, sweet cat.
Answered already and handled. I oppose your opposition obviously.
 I suppose the idea is to incur more free discussion of the flag.
It's not an accusation thread, so the flag needs no discussing. You either support it or you don't. Dodgy individuals like gator can lock original threads (which they started) in order to prevent getting flagged on it directly (hence the need for such threads). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
)
