It's simple Lauda broke a clear rule and should be manually removed from DT forever
LOL, since when were the rules clear around here? Even the list of rules that are pinned to the board are "unofficial." |
|
|
|
Perhaps he should just blacklist anyone who keeps lauda in their trust list.
He was trying to convince others to agree with him.
All blacklisting would do is exclude someone from being DT1. He would have to completely overhaul the system to make it impossible for any DT1 member to include someone in their trust list, therefore making that person DT2. He can blacklist on both levels, no? Oops, I just deleted that message because I realized that if he blacklists everyone that includes you from DT1, then you would be excluded from DT2 as well. However, if he did not take that extreme measure, I believe he would have to do a tweek on the system, so if a DT1 member included someone on the blacklist, it doesn't add them to the DT2 list. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Also, remember that there are color blind people out there using the forum. So using clearly distinct colors for each rating type should really be considered rather than use so many colors that are closely similar.
Unfortunately, most people who are color blind cannot distinguish green from red. I'm not sure what such people actually see, though, since I'm not color blind. |
|
|
|
cabalism13 has only one person who placed him on his trust list. That person is not on DT1, so cabalism13 is not even on DT2. http://loyce.club/trust/2019-06-08_Sat_06.22h/1605387.htmlThis "trolling" incident is pretty tame and rather toothless. At the present time cabalism13 would only be able to commit "trust abuse" if he had the support of 3 members of DT1 & DT2 for a scammer tag and one for a newbie-warning tag. Only a few of the foolhardy are going to support such a ridiculous flag, when threat of blacklisting looms overhead. If cabalism13 makes a negative trust comment, BFD. It will appear in the untrusted feedback and have next to zero impact. |
|
|
|
@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. However, it appears that he just got nuked.  |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
I think you should have made a written contract flag rather than a casual agreement flag. After all, they made this promise in writing, on their thread.
★ Low-Fee, Instant Withdrawals ★
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
I thought the same about Toxic...
Who seems to have taken our leave... First the Mayor, now this...it's really bumming me out I'm bummed out about Toxic, too. Now I am going to have to find someone else to dump 50 merits on per month. |
|
|
|
Okay I just want to point out involving merits into a a signature campaign won't work out. All that will do is encourage merit abuse and then everyone will say, "Oh look at that SteveStake now and his merit abuse! This merit abuse is clearly because the wages are too low!"
It appears that the fact that the wages are too low is the crux of the problem. You get what you pay for. Although stake.com is getting their ad splattered all over the forum in great quantity, you really think it's giving them a good reputation around here? Frustrating readers with a bunch of shit posts probably is going to make more people stay away than actually click on the link and become a new customer. |
|
|
|
Snackmuch does not care about lying, scamming, account selling or any of that shit. We have clearly PROVEN this by showing you she is aware of laudas lying and scamming and nutildahs account selling and still being pals and including them on DT. She rewards these types.
If you are going to put an argument together, you should have all of your facts straight. suchmoon has not included nor excluded either lauda or nutildah in her trust list, although it appears both have included her. Lauda has excluded nutildah. LoyceV has some wonderful statistics that he keeps updating every week. Please learn to use them. http://loyce.club/trust/2019-06-08_Sat_06.22h/234771.html (suchmoon's trust stats) http://loyce.club/trust/2019-06-08_Sat_06.22h/101872.html (lauda's trust stats) |
|
|
|
Most of the DT1 members who are not on the list this month are on DT2. So their tags will still show up with default settings. The only tags that will end up missing are those left by people who would have been DT2, but all of their sponsor(s) is/are no longer on DT1.
This is nothing. Wait until the list grows to over the desired 250 people (most of which will be neutral when it comes to their trustworthiness at best), and then a month comes where most old DT members don't get selected. That's then the real fun begins.
It's very much possible that in such a case all the mentioned members get wiped from both levels at the same time. In order for a qualified person to be excluded from both DT1 and DT2, all of the people that are qualified have to not make the random selection too. Using this calculator here are some of the odds with a pool of 250 qualified individuals. 0 others included: 60% 1 other included: ~36% 5 others included: ~4.5% 10 others included: ~0.3% 20 others included: ~0.0012%(~1 in 833) 25 others included: ~.000066%(~1 in 15,385) So yes, there is a chance. However, I think some of the premier DT1 candidates would easily have 25+ other qualified candidates include them. I really don't think many scammers are going to get lucky and find their red scores erased, especially those with double digit red scores and lower. |
|
|
|
It’s bull shit tbh, a few really respectable OG members dropped this time for a month, at least?
This is nothing. Wait until the list grows to over the desired 250 people (most of which will be neutral when it comes to their trustworthiness at best), and then a month comes where most old DT members don't get selected. That's then the real fun begins. It’s going to be an absolute shit show. Scammers are going to lose their red trust rating left by legit DT1 members for a whole month. That opens the door for some pretty shitty possibilities. There’s way too many DT1 members, it needs to be cut to probably even less than 100 & I don’t even care if I’m on it or not. Maybe you should be required to have a minimum of 10 DT1 members trusting you to qualify or something. I foresee troubles ahead. Most of the DT1 members who are not on the list this month are on DT2. So their tags will still show up with default settings. The only tags that will end up missing are those left by people who would have been DT2, but all of their sponsors are no longer on DT1. |
|
|
|
I ernning money in scams (Ponzi schames/ hyips)
curently i making 120% in Fxtradingcorp and curently im out of this scame with profit +120%
for 6 days expire me 90 days package in weenzee (hyip scam) with profit 90% (after 6 days going out of this scam but probably weenzee will work 365Days (curently work 150days)
i invest 1000Eur to Vik Trader (hyip scam) , vik trader is new ponzi , probably will work minimal 230days , curently work 1 month , afterr 3 months going out of this scam .
Best Market traders have 64% win ratio , ruleta in casino have 51% win ratio but invest to hyips ponzi schame scams is better bitnis , i have 95% winning , my tagret is 100% and risk 100% of investments
sorry im not speeak english .
Promoting Ponzi's is not well received by many members of this board, (including me.) If you want to be dumb, and invest in Ponzi's, that's your business. But we do not want to hear people promoting it. (Especially in this thread where the OP is warning people against them.) Eventually, you will get burned if you make this a habit. By the way, your poor English is not what you should be apologizing for. I have added red trust to your profile. |
|
|
|
|
The only problem that I see with a dedicated LN board is that most threads on the topic end up becoming derailed and the threads become locked.
|
|
|
|
Give us/them [i.e. cryptohunter - suchmoon's note] 1 admin power - a black list button for DT
Apologies to everyone who had this person on ignore but this gem is so brilliant that I couldn't let you miss it  So OAA want the trust system to be centralized and have theymos delegate the responsibilities to "them?" I doubt theymos will even read enough of the post to get to that part, much less consider this. Too bad we can't test this scenario in some sort of sandbox. I'd love to see what the results would be.  Oh well, easy come, easy go. I figured I'd get the boot from DT eventually and I have no hard feelings about it whatsoever. Things change, and I do thank the people who had me on their trust lists (or still do). Hopefully everything will work out A-OK from here on out.
You are sill on DT2 though. A pretty solid DT2 as well. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply, I understand the whole good reputation part but the trouble is to get such a good reputation you need to actually do trades so in reality its a lose lose situation unless someone else is willing to take a leap of faith
If someone does decide to give you a shot, make sure to use a trusted escrow. You can find a list of a few trusted escrows here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2439910.0. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
