So for every red flags we need create thread so that other DT member will aware about flags. Also other members will aware by "#" symbol but need to enter on profile.
You need to create a thread and obtain support from others that the flag is accurate. Each type of flags make very specific statements that articulate how/why a person is unsafe to deal with. |
|
|
|
I'm wondering if people are linking to direct threads what happens if that thread is trashed? Is the forum archiving these or would it be best practice for people to archive first as opposed to direct linking. I was thinking about this with some of the Self mod/locked topics if they chose to trash them, or if for some reason a thread was reported to be trashed.
Always archive if in doubt. But the concern I have is that as a supporter (or opponent) I have no way to attach the archive of what I'm supporting or opposing at the time. This might discourage DT members from supporting flags from less-known members even if the facts seem credible enough - because of the risk that the accuser might edit/remove the thread. Maybe that's the intent, not sure, we'll have to see how this develops. I don't think there is very much from you writing in the thread "I am supporting/opposing this flag because...." and giving a justification. You could even quote the specific parts of the OP of the thread that make you believe it to be appropriate to support/oppose a flag. |
|
|
|
A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.
It means if someone received 4 scammer supporting flags, while only get 1 scammer opposing flag; the account will be flagged as potential scammer (based on your clarification above). But I have a curious that it means the flag system does not account for weight of user trust. Everyone has same weight with their flags, only one per user. Do I get it right? Each person only gets one vote, and your vote will only count when someone else is viewing the person's account if you are in their trust network. What is difference between (Yellow Flag Box)[/url] and (Red Flag Box) The Yellow is for when someone is showing "red flags" of being a scammer while the Red box is when the person actually scammed someone. |
|
|
|
The other issue is that there is no good way to link to a specific flag from an accusation thread saying "if you want to support this accusation, go here". You can link to the inactive flag list or to the trust page, but the actual flag could be there or not, depending on viewing person's trust list. And if the scammer has multiple flags then extra steps will be needed to verify which one is the one you want to support.
I don't think the intention is for people to be leaving knee-jerk reaction support/opposition to flags. If you are going to support/oppose a flag, you should read it, check the thread that it is referencing, and check to make sure the OP listed in the flag matches the OP of the thread in question. |
|
|
|
I see, now I get it. Though it looks fancy 😂, so we need to work with those flags again to see Reds on the previous users who has it, am I right? So vicious spammersand newbies that asking for loans will lost their current tags? They might see this unnatural and it may be ignored for some reason?
It is not appropriate to use a flag on a spammer. I also don't think it is necessary to create a flag on a newbie account created to try to get a loan, as I don't think many are going to fall for this scam, and the negative rating will still be there. |
|
|
|
I'm starting to dislike that the flags have lots of words in them but no facts (you have to click links to see the supporting info). Not sure how it's gonna end up looking like in the long run but someone with multiple flags might be confusing to figure out. And what if the accuser ninja-edits the thread, that might cause trouble for the supporting DT members.
The purpose of the trust system is to be a tool for others to gauge the ability to trust someone. If a person is not doing their own research on a person to the extent they are not even willing to click on a few links, they will soon be parted with their money. I also don't think it is necessary to support/oppose a flag immidiately once created. There can be some time for a person to respond, and others to review and discuss the evidence before a decision is made to support/oppose a flag. Theymos said in the OP that you should be removed from DT if you support inaccurate flags, even temporarily, so you should confirm that you agree with the flag, and confirm there isn't any good counter-arguments before supporting a flag.
I created flags for the person I believe to be a serial scammer listed here. |
|
|
|
There's been a grenade thrown into this whole trust thing: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344Made me check the calendar, nope it's not April 1st  . If you thought what we had since January was drama, you ain't seen nothing yet. It should take a little while for people to get used to, but IMO it will make it more clear when someone is untrustworthy to deal with, and it will make it easier for people to make a determination as to the risk of trading with a person. The above will result in it being more difficult for those in DT to impose their opinions that others may not agree with, even before accounting for the fact that it has been explicitly said that opinions should not be considered with the new system. |
|
|
|
|
This should reduce the amount of drama around here, by a lot. It should also make the trust system more fair.
How is support/opposition to a flag displayed? Are those who are in my trust network always shown in larger font and first, and those outside of my trust network in smaller font and second, and then sorted by UID after determining if a person is in/out of my trust network?
edit:
On the pagination of trust pages, would it be possible to list pages number in a way similar to how page numbers are displayed on threads? If not, can we have a way to skip to the last page? I have a lot of sent trust ratings, and the current implementation makes it difficult to review my recently sent ratings.
|
|
|
|
You have some ways to go before you will likely become a junior member. I would recommend reviewing some or all of the following resources: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Pagehttps://www.bitcoin.com/getting-started/https://bitcoin.org/en/resources You created some threads that many people responded to, but you never replied to any of the responses, which I believes indicates a lack of interest in the topics on your part. You should respond to others when you post, and others should respond to you, and when appropriate, you should respond to those who reply to you. I think there is a very high probability you are an alt of Bitbtc8 which I just denied giving merit to above. You are not responding when people reply to you. I believe this is an indication you are not interested in what you are writing about.
I don't like to deny all of you merit, but I am not comfortable giving any of you merit at this time. |
|
|
|
|
I can’t believe I am going to do this, but I am going to (somewhat) defend lauda here...
I don’t think you should oppose LaudaM’s positions just because they are his positions. If he is actually wrong then you can call him out. In regards to the stake signature spam, lauda is not wrong in saying the campaign is causing a ridiculous amount of useless posts.
I won’t comment on the rest of your comments. You do have a valid concern about the BCH not being returned to you though (assuming you were actually an investor in the ICO in question that went bad).
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t think theymos wants to ban accounts based on this alone.
Perhaps if you start to see a decently sized cluster of these accounts get banned for spamming, theymos could ban any alts of the cluster of accounts getting banned.
|
|
|
|
|
If they start creating spam, report their posts and they should get nuked.
|
|
|
|
~snip~
If there are any sections that need more merit attention, let me know and I’ll keep an eye out for good posts when I have merit.
Do you have time to visit Gambling discussion board? There are some members who deserves merit but they do not get attention from merit sources I think. There are few threads that are keeping the board alive and those guys are doing very well. If you have time then please do visit there sometimes with some sMerits in your hand. Cheers :-) I will review when I have some time. I would note that in the past, I have found that section to have a lot of spam like posts. Edit: are you the OP? Or are you just making a suggestion to check for posts in the gambling discussion sub? |
|
|
|
|
Do you have any examples of posts without merit that should have merit?
I went through my source merit in about a week and a half and depleted my personal sMerit not long after. I generally spend merit as I get it.
If there are any sections that need more merit attention, let me know and I’ll keep an eye out for good posts when I have merit.
|
|
|
|
I did not run the names of who applied for their signature campaign up against users who are currently banned I can do that: ~ Thanks for that. If all 51 banned users were participating in the stake.com signature campaign, they would make up over 22% of their campaign, and if 26 (half) were in the campaign when banned, it would make up over 13% of the campaign. In either case, this is way too many.
Someone also posted about the merit abuse I was asking to be looked into in the OP. They said they were named in the OP, and had collected a lot of merit in the collectables section, and gave an explanation as to all their deleted posts, but it seems they have deleted their post. |
|
|
|
The biggest evidence that Stake has no interest in weeding out the spammers from their campaign is their pay rates.
The highest quality posters you can find are those who post for free and aren't part of a signature campaign because they're genuinely posting and not for money. Can you imagine the amount of spam on this forum if I made a huge pay rate? Everyone would be having a field day spamming Bitcointalk as fast as possible. I believe people are unhappy with these pay rates because it proves the value of a post is far far less than we make it out to be. It's simple supply and demand, if I make this offer and so many people are still trying to join then it's obvious the pay rates could be lower and still have new members wanting to join. Right now, the vast majority of the people in your campaign are posting garbage. Your participants have a median of 3 merit, nearly 40% have zero or 1 merit, and nearly 2/3 have 5 or less merit. There are 51 accounts that posted in your signature campaign thread that are perma banned, and although they all might not have been participating in your campaign when they were banned, I suspect the majority of them probably were. One might be able to argue that you have a lot of shitty posters because of poor planning, poor screening of potential participants or a lack of supervision of participants, all of which I believe to be true. However the root cause is that you are paying garbage rates, and are attracting garbage posters. No one capable of making good posts that contributes to the community would have any interest in advertising for you based on what you are paying. There are many other advertising campaigns that pay 10x per post higher than what you pay, and the majority of those participating in these campaigns do not make the maximum number of posts. You are correct in saying that increasing your pay rate would increase the number of people wanting to participate in your campaign. However your standards for accepting participants is currently zero, and if you were to increase your standards, the increase in those wanting to participate who qualify will not be as high, or perhaps will even decline if your standards are high enough. As it stands now, less than 3% of your campaign participants have over 50 earned merit, and less than 9% have greater than 30 merit. The people you are hiring are doing an objectively bad job at posting. I don't care what you do, but you need to do something to remove the spammers from your signature campaign. If you want to attract good posters in anything except sporadic numbers, you will need to increase your pay rates, by a lot. I somewhat suspect that you are paying people on your platform next to nothing, and are accepting everyone who asks to join because you want to get these people to deposit their own money into your platform and gamble away that additional money, and accepting any and everyone is a way to attract additional customers. Could you post a public spreadsheet or at least PM me a link to one so that I can see who's actually still in the campaign and who is removed but just inactive and still wearing the signature? Thanks.
I think it might finally be time to release the most iconic spreadsheet member list ever known to Bitcointalk. I've kept it private because I didn't want people abusing it since it had Telegram names, Bitcointalk names and Stake names all in one place. I have no idea why you would think your spreadsheet would be iconic. It is essentially a list of spammers. Except for telegram names, all of this information is already in your thread because you asked people to post it in your thread.
If you do not have time to personally manage your campaign, which I do not think you do (or at least you are unwilling to personally invest a lot of time into your campaign), I would strongly suggest hiring someone to help manage it. I would suggest talking to either DarkStar_ or yahoo62278 about this. Both have experience managing fairly large advertising campaigns, and to my knowledge do not have any problems with nepotism in choosing who they accept into their campaigns. |
|
|
|
And I'm not associated with QS at all. He seemed pretty chill back in the day, but I haven't really kept up on the forums lately.
Great, do everyone a favour and go back to the place where you were all this time. I presume you do not like this because he has the integrity that you and those you support lack.
 |
|
|
|
|
What exactly is your concern? I’ve seen you post in a number of stake related threads, and I’m not quite sure what your beef is.
|
|
|
|
After 3-4 pages of spam I always knew DarkStar_ would be the one to save the day and use the thread correctly. Yup you're right he's messaging me on Telegram right now talking about an unjustified 7 day ban and has been removed from the campaign.
Could you post a public spreadsheet or at least PM me a link to one so that I can see who's actually still in the campaign and who is removed but just inactive and still wearing the signature? Thanks. They have said in the past that participants can go on "vacation" for as long as they want and still remain in the campaign. - Never ending vacation! Take as much time off from posting as you want, you won't be removed for it!
(if they were removed and are currently inactive, they would not have any recent spammy posts) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
