You are blaming the new system without giving it enough time. The previous system was not good enough and that was proven hundred or thousand times. Give this new flags system enough time before justifying it.

I will also second my brother nutildah, the format has not followed.

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.

I opposed it, nothing but slanderous lies  


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.

"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."

The link is to this thread. What is the "specific act" and who are the "victims"? I suppose you're referencing the self-escrow thing. When writing a flag, it says this:


It also says this:


I don't care for QS but I can't sign off on this if the format is not followed.

You must create a topic describing the specific acts which damaged you. It must not be self-moderated.

Let's not forget these are complementary systems. It's just like having more signs on the highway. The old system is still there with the ability to leave feedback. So really there is no need to go back over everything in the past.

The ratings are still there and moving forward the flags can be applied as needed.

Can you document this case of Quickseller scamming in OP too as it is locked?

An Error Has Occurred!
That topic does not exist, or it is self-moderated or locked.

5) the incident occurred roughly in the month given above.

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 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).

I have to agree this is true, and most of these newly minted hero members of the Turkish forum (and some of their lower ranked buddies) seem to be always acting in lockstep unison, like a hive minded tribe, is that ok & ethical ? I can totally understand why an independent observer wouldn't consider the current state of the Turkish forums democratic, meritocratic or fair in any way...

FACT#2: At least 5-6 guys on the Turkish forums orchestrated tremendous collusion on telegram for the purpose of exchanging merits back and forth between themselves here and then recommending each other's posts constantly to local and global merit sources, is that all right as well (a few of these guys have already been banned for other reasons by the way)?

Now a good number of that same group of people seem to be rooting for each other for DT lists. If these are all valid tactics to become green trusted hero / legendary members with the hopes of landing some lucrative bounties in the future, then congratulations to them I guess

In all honesty, I can guarantee you there are really high quality and intellectual posters on the Turkish forums, but some of them have been discouraged by the strange things going on there (and rarely even post anymore), so a more democratic & organic approach to Merit and Trust distribution for the Turkish section would be hugely appreciated.

I'm not a fun of random 100 users will be on DT1, even if the "unlucky" will be out of the DT1 the DT2 included on the DT1 inclusion list will be out of the list and some scammer will have a clean trust for an "x" amount of time.

Maybe a slightly harder requirement to be on DT1 is a good solution to reduce the list?

More merit? More people inclusion required?

Tataam surprisee
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5039577.msg46259753#msg46259753

Why didn't you add Lydian and mindrust? Because they don't just write Turkish. They also write in other languages in other boards of the forum.

I had no idea mindrust was Turkish, he’s a cool guy.

@Lauda - kedi is cat in Turkish, according to google.

I'll try to find someone with "cat" in their name, that should do it.

Ok, you do the stick, I'll do the carrot (if I get back to DT1) by including a couple of folks there that I can reasonably determine to be trustworthy.

Oh noes!!!!!!!  Oh noes!!!!!!!

theymos has been cloned.   

 

It doesn't matter if I'm on the DT list or not.

My point is that we can't possibly police it even if you're 100% right and if I 100% agree with you. Without speaking the language what can we do - exclude everyone who ever posted in a Turkish thread? Sounds unsustainable.

Let them do it and gloat if they fail.

I have no reason to think that the Turkish board couldn't self-govern their local trust subsystem the same way.

Maybe you guys just miss the 100+ accounts I wrecked in Bitmixer.

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 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.  

However, this approach won't solve the problem IMO, some people will keep waiting for next month only to get their "vengeance", the best approach about this is to randomly select 5 members who "give someone negative trust for some stupid reason" and blacklist them from DT forever, then everyone will start using the trust system the way it was intended be used.