Maybe it's a stupid question but... why didn't you create a self-moderated thread?
Can't link a flag to a locked, nor self-moderated thread. As previously stated, the system is severely broken. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
[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. |
|
|
|
[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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Imagine adding flag on all 100 accounts ring . You aren't allowed to, you are not the victim. |
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Agree:
I was PMed by Bill who admitted owning other UID's but strenuously denied ownership of UID's that had been on linked to him in previous threads.
And he got vocal shall we say...
Marlboroza and some other dude before that exposed his lies too. He had the option to come much clean earlier, but he decided not to and continue lying. You are just adding more fuel to the fire. |
|
|
|
Link to your flag please?
I wanted to create it, but I can't due to an early flag that I left with a bad link (limit 1 per 180 days per user). You can create a flag (type 1) if you want, and I'll support and add it in OP. Note: You can't link to the old thread. |
|
|
|
I'd gladly risk a blacklist over this, but the problem is that nobody is allowed to support it without risking blacklisting themselves. The system actually de-incentivizes supporting any accusations, which makes no sense. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
"#" is a useful as trying to collect air with your bare hands. ^^ which is quite logical to be honest. According to the flag system, no one is scammer unless they have personally scammed you.
Looks like it. Additionally, you are also de-incentivized to support anything. After all, a misjudgement in support could instantly mean you get blacklisted. Why do it at all? Nobody is a scammer. |
|
|
|
Statement, no opinions. Cry elsewhere and let people get back on topic. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
He did buy his account but I don't remember reading anything about him being an account seller.
Wrong title then and I oppose your opposition obviously. |
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
There will be even more drama than before.  I think this will mostly consist of you wining and bitching about your loss of power. It should make it more clear that you never cared about protecting others, but wanted power and money/business for yourself. I literally do not conduct any business here any more, and have not been doing that for a long time. Excluding my CET thread (which was not even my idea), where are my services? You, as a lying scammer will not get away in the new system. I'll make sure of it, don't worry. |
|
|
|
Proving this was trivial. EFS has no problem with any of this naturally. Short story: 1) Excluded a whole-bunch as they conspired with their fake election: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5139250.msg51425973#msg51425973. 2) Retaliatory attack and threads start here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg51432525#msg51432525. 3) Proof of merit abuse/cycling/farming/circle-jerk: Proof 1: Translation: "Does anyone need merit in the forums ? I will give 1 merit each to 4-5 guys, so that it doesn't go to foreigners" Proof 2: Translation: PHI: we need to organize it privately, these guys are even selling merit look at it PHI: "Sensei, the ones who will give merit are obvious why will we put an effort" how is it obvious? Proof 3: Translation: ysakay (banned?) asking: "have you opened the Merit Fellowship channel?" - this reffers to the private group organized by Phi for merit farming.
Accused users:PHI1618EFSFlag(s):https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=51This problem likely goes too far for us to be able to discover all the culprits. Any member in that group that stands quiet is also an accomplice, but the best path would be to run down all merit PHI has ever given out first. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
