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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
It's like you really are a cat; so afraid of a changing environment!  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. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
I don't want to be the party stopper, and believe me, I want to see the scammers flagged once again, just make sure you do it right / valid.
I've read this and, while I'd like to see it widened (under certain limits/rules), currently it's a big "hmmm"...
It's just dumb. Anyone who was scammed, e.g. by an exchange has no direct contract and the third option can never be used. Also if no victim speaks out / creates a flag = no scam occurred. Astounding logic. Look at this request: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153493.msg51440061#msg51440061. Nobody who got scammed by YoBit as a exchange user can rightfully make this flag.
Support this (weakest-flag type): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=47. |
|
|
|
Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)
This user violated a casual or implied agreement with me, resulting in damages.
This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages.
All these options are dumb: 1) Is too weak for Roger. 2) Same but can be argued by anyone who touched his website(s). 3) Can't be argued by anyone as there is no direct "written contract" with him. :applauds liberalists once more: |
|
|
|
Since theymos introduced a flawed flag system, this has to be done. Original thread is locked and can't be directly quoted from.
Original thread/proof is found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145840. Flag link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=47.
Local rule; the following users are not allowed to post: Quickseller, TECSHARE, OgNasty, bill gator, cryptohunter and anyone else with more negative ratings than other ratings (people without ratings excl. newly created shill accounts are welcome). This does NOT include the accused user.
Updated local rule (7PM forum time), the "accused user" is no affected obviously even when this isn't an accusation thread. |
|
|
|
Once again, an outburst from you regarding the trivial things from my post. I will refrain from petty quarrels with you, it just ain't my cup of tea.
Bottom line - this thread is about Regulus's ban appeal. Bans were lifted (even from people you call degenerates) so we have the right to appeal and since you are not the one deciding, we will appeal until we hear from someone that is deciding.
If all the merit that he, unjustly, distributed in order to farm accounts in your section got reverted this would be pretty quiet other than a few circle-jerking friends of his. Russian, Turkish, Croatian, all the same. Nepotism and circle-jerking. There is no reason to unban OP. |
|
|
|
There will be even more drama than before.  |
|
|
|
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.
I am sorry, you just don't know it yet. It's too early to call it broken format. There, you can have your shit format by using this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153480. The system is a joke, yet the right people remain excluded (that's something). |
|
|
|
Since theymos introduced a flawed flag system, this has to be done. Original thread is locked and can't be directly quoted from. Every escrow deal ever conducted possibly has a victim in it, thus the damage has always been extensive. I wouldn't have come across this if it hadn't been for the long saga of quickseller abuse I've been suffering. But recently he's started using a new alt/sockpuppet to try to attack me and I started looking more closely at the situation. I realized that it seems that Panthers52 has done several deals which were escrowed by Quickseller. The fact that Quickseller is escrowing for himself seems like a scammy behavior. I'm not a trader here so it may be that there's nothing wrong with this. But in any case, I'll go ahead and present some quantitative evidence here and you guys can discuss it as you please.
You can read the full story by clicking on the quote or by using this link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.
Therefore, a newly created flag would be valid and should remain active for all eternity. Flags can't be edited, flags can't be removed nor updated. Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56
Local rule; the following users are not allowed to post: Quickseller, TECSHARE, OgNasty, bill gator, cryptohunter and anyone else with more negative ratings than other ratings (people without ratings excl. newly created shill accounts are welcome). This does NOT include the accused user.
Updated local rule (7PM forum time), the "accused user" is no affected obviously even when this isn't an accusation thread. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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.   Looks great to me. Most of your threads are fraudulent, and it should be shown as such. |
|
|
|
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! 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. |
|
|
|
@cryptofrka maybe theymos knows something we don't so he doesn't want to reply because of that or maybe he is deeply sad because someone who become merit source with larger number of smerits turned out to be "c/p-person or maybe he was busy for last 5 months building house and he will maybe reply soon. I am also interested why some accounts are unbanned and regulus is not.
If Theymos is the one reading through all ban appeals and making every single decision alone, then we are more of a North Korean forum than a Soviet one. However, I doubt that is the case. Yet another emotional statement in the path of defending the fraud that is OP. Making Regulus anything was always a mistake. He does not need to be on the forum. If you like him, talk to him through other channels. They lifted the ban from Bill Gator the same day. Probably others as well.
Gator is a degenerate account buyer; cases are not comparable. |
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
4) A few users have been PM'd about this, some of which are in the exclusion list[1].
[1] I took the opposite path of getting adequate number of exclusions and went straight to the root of the problem. You can follow this in order to see how pawns will not behave according to your theory.
goraset is a well known and popular figure in the Turkish community. He contributes to the community with his article translations. The negative rating given does not change my confidence in him. however, I will remove it from my list due to your warning. Do I get your permission to publish your response? You can publish. Case proven: He only removed the fraud/scammer because I mentioned that I will have to exclude him due to such inclusions, not because the user is actually a scammer. Have fun. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
